Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 7

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dickhole fucking

Not notable. Nonsense.-- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

• Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello July 7, 2005 07:58 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)

*Delete: as above. Seeaxid 7 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)See below. Seeaxid 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - three Google hits. Fuzheado | Talk 7 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)
• Delete, Absoloute crap, it could exist, but this isn't a pornographic magazine. Klmjordan 7 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

  You're right that we are not a pornographic magazine in that, they would contain exclusively sex-related topics (in a certain style), whereas an 'encyclopedia', is a "literary work giving information on all [my bold] branches of knowledge [...]" — from the concise OED. -- Seeaxid 15:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete At very least, rewrite and rename, assuming there are sources. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
• Delete Admitted vanity neologism. Nuff said -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

PS: The edit link for this vote does not work correctly. I had to edit out "section=1" from the URL in order to edit. -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

Hopefully it will work now. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)

• Delete Utterly ridiculous Cyclone49 7 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
• Delete. F this D article. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
• Delete: Neolo. --ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
• Delete; neologism, probable vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Delete Stankdawg as well as vanity. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

• I'd support a delete on this article ("stankdawg") as vanity. I've never heard of the person, and I've been in the business a long time. Article quality is low and largely vanity. But of course it needs to go through a vfd. Avriette 20:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. First of all, sounds physically impossible; failing that, sounds painful and dangerous, and... um... quite frankly, disgusting. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 11:15 (UTC)
  • Check out the video if you don't think it's possible. Pigger
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
• Redirect to a more appropriate title. Delete Need I say more? Even if this actually does occur, which I highly doubt, Dickhole Fucking is a rather crude, offensive way to define it. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • If you follow one of the links in the linked-to forum thread you'll find a highly X-rated clip of it in action. I kid you not. How widespread (or not) it is is another matter... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)
    • Ouch... even thinking about that happening makes me wince in pain Cyclone49 9 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
      • Well, it's not something I'd practice myself, or anything I could say particularly interests me, but since it appears people do actually engage in this practice, I'm changing my vote to Redirect to a more appropriate title. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 10:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete- though detailed in description (lol)--Bhadani 05:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the clip, as suggested above is accurate, however do we actually need this here? The text itself is just newsgroup lore. Not every word on the internet need be entered as an important piece of human history. ColoradoZ 05:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a shocklog. We don't need entries for every single fetish humanly fathomable. Aecis 15:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a very important topic, but I agree that the article is utter crap and needs to be improved. For example, is there a way for me to upload a dickhole fucking video? Pigger 08:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, posted a link to a video.
• Delete.Very not encyclopedic nor useful.--Jondel 08:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. I am quite fond of this activity, and would like a place to find more information about it. Wikipedia is that place. JacksonBrown 09:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • removed vote readded by Pigger
  • I was the one who initially removed the vote; after discussion with Pigger, I believe it should stay. -- Essjay · Talk 12:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably exists, but pretty non-notable. If absolutely necessary to keep, find a more appropriate name to redirect to. --Psyk0 12:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  'Urethral pentration' perhaps? Seeaxid 14:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, completely ridiculous. --Merovingian (t) (c) 14:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Looking up urethral penetration, the only non-pornographic site that mentioned it (names it vaguely and that is all) is here: http://www.fairfield.edu/x1965.html. In this statement here (my bold):

  Sexual assault occurs when a person performs or compels another person to perform any sexual act or to have any form of sexual contact without consent. Rape is a specific kind of sexual assault that involves any vaginal, oral, anal, or urethral penetration with any body part or object without consent.

• Seeaxid 14:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the page List_of_sexology_topics#U, lists 'urethral self-instrumentation' as a topic, which if put into google, surprisingly gives results from actual information sources (although not necessarily sexual). Accordingly I now would say move and redirect to urethral self-instrumentation . Seeaxid 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

And of course, rewrite , because I'm not so sure about the notability of the references made, and certainly statements such as this: "stretching of a male's penis hole, allowing another male's penis [...] to be inserted for sexual stimulation." are questionable. In its current state it is more an article regarding a neologism than a practice. Seeaxid 15:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Note that 'urethral self-instrumentation' is also listed as a requested article, at: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Sexuality,_Sexology,_Urology_and_Gynecology. Seeaxid 15:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• This is an uncommon, but extant sexual practice. There are more sites, which mostly cater to a "medical play" crowd. I'm in favor of the article being deleted because it is of garbage quality, is vanity, and has nothing really to do with the subject it claims to be about. Avriette 20:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not particularly interested in reading the site, there's another article which is probably more appropriate to this vfd. 72.254.11.245 01:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben bullock

This person is apparently a non-entity. --Wetman 7 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

• Delete. Nn. Vanity?-- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)
• Delete. nn/vanity. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

→See the entry "Ben Bullock and Ben bullock" below. KissL 08:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red sun rises

Band vanity Xoloz 7 July 2005 08:08 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)
• Delete admitted non notability -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
• Delete, nn jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
• Delete: NN. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:48 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 06:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Bullock and Ben bullock

Vanity page about a forum poster. Not notable at all. If deleted, include the Danny Wilde article (Ben Bullock's pseudonym). TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 08:25 (UTC)

Got my vote. Kill this thing. Davejenk1ns 7 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)

• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. I previously merged another version of Danny Wilde with The Rembrandts, turning it into a redirect. I suggest reverting to that. I'll turn it into a disambig for now. --IByte 7 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
  • Userfy, seems he contributed to the Japanese grammar article (albeit only with his external links). --IByte 7 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
• Delete. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Hi, Ben Bullock here.

This page wasn't written by me, I believe it was written by a sysadmin at GOL Japan called Brett Arthur Robson. The article is inaccurate, and frankly libellous, and since I don't wish to feature in Wikipedia, please feel free to delete it.

Ben.

(the above added by User:DannyWilde 12 July 2005 06:31 (UTC))

• Delete per the above. KissL 08:36, 12 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. Woohookitty 06:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arab on Radar

Improperly speedy tagged. Google finds 39,900 hits. Article is arguably a substub. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 09:04 (UTC)

• Keep - Has a page and bio at AllMusic. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)
• Keep - Two albums, which satifies WP:MUSIC, and 39900 hits. Seems notable to me. I went and expanded the article a little. Cyclone49 7 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking again, they seem to actually have four albums. Cyclone49 7 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)
• Keep Notable -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)
• Weak keep, given the establishment of notability. However, a defunct band with a handful of albums are not really all that interesting. -Splash 7 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
• Keep: Satisfies WP music. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)
• Keep Notable —surachit 14 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peggy Odeh

Article does not establish notability, fails Google test -- Ferkelparade π 7 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
• Delete: NN —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
• Delete nn philantropist vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghent mills

Not a speedy candidate. May be notable, but my knowledge of this field lacks. - Mgm|^(talk) July 7, 2005 09:12 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:29 (UTC)
• Delete. Google search of "Ghent Mills" football returns 0 results. And the page describes him as being "created in various NCAA football games", which sounds nonsensical. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)
• Delete though I'll noted that TheMidnighters' use of "nonsensical" isn't really what the nonsense criterion is about. I'm voting on the basis of notability, otherwise it would be a "cleanup" I think. -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:15 (UTC)
• Delete with 0 Google hits, this person is clearly nn. Given that most peculiar phrasing, I smell a possible hoax, too. Finally, lets all play "spot the lowercase surname". -Splash 7 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
• Delete: Be gone. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Parke

Not notable Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 09:21 (UTC)

I disagree, two girlfriends by the time he was 12 years old? That's damn notable ;) Okay, I kid, I kid, obviously it's a delete Sherurcij July 7, 2005 09:26 (UTC)

• Delete non notable genealogy. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)
• Delete: as per above. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Delete, then vote at your choice of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
• Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam barros

Tagged for a speedy as "nonnotable" but that is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Even under the new proposed criteria this would not qualify since author of a website does assert notability. Nonetheless, I cannot see that the website is notable, and the article fails "Geogres rule" (For those who don't know what that is, it says something about "barros" having a little "B"). So I will say delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 09:50 (UTC)

• Delete - nn/vanity --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 10:22 (UTC)
• Delete, seems unlikely to pass WP:BIO. Kappa 7 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
• Delete - Phoenix2 7 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
• Weak delete, the Google count is about 700, but he seems to be active in posting on quasi-technical fora. Alexa rank for his site is 184,000 (which is higher than I had expected, I have to say, but it could be brought up by links from his forum activity). Some of the Googles indicate that his site has been externally referenced; however his notability is highly questionable. Finally, of course, there's that lower case surname. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
• Delete: N-quite-N. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 06:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:School articles needing evaluation

This is an old process for improving or deleting school articles, intended to partially replace VFD, created last october and not actually in use. It's a form of m:instruction creep, it runs counter to current effort at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, and there is no precedent to split VFD per topic. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Delete (and delete your recent effort too for that matter). CalJW 7 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

• Delete: Yep. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark it as disused if you like, but it should be kept for documentary purposes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
• Delete - let's clear out the cupboards. Good idea. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Keep, part of the history of wikipedia. Kappa 8 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Delete Throw open the cupboards, dust the hidden corners, and get rid of anything you don't use. I'mVerySerious 8 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
  • Comment. This was Aaron Brenneman (talk · contribs) 21st 43rd edit. Was created 5th July and nearly all edits are in Wikipedia: space, most of those seem to be on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 15:09 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark it as a proposal that was not adopted, maybe even move it somewhere else, but keep it available for historical reasons. -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:09 (UTC)
• 'Delete the WP:SANE shortcut, then tag and bag as failed policy. (That's a keep vote, BTW. There's a tag somewhere for unused policy, I was it on the re-adminship page.) humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 8 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Humblefool --BaronLarf July 8, 2005 15:38 (UTC)
• Keep, with a prejudice against those whose names begin with the letter A. —RaD Man (talk) 9 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
• Keep for historical purposes. JYolkowski // talk 01:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Judgement call with a 3-1-1 vote. Will go with the argument that we need less vanity and this screams vanity. Woohookitty 06:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edison tan yin tat

Minor entertainer. No google hits.Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 7, 2005 10:03 (UTC)

• Abstain Delete I really don't know about this one. I find many references to "Banana Man" or "Bananaman" with respect to "Singapore Idol", and some controversy surrounding that, but no reference to this name. Problem is that I'm searching in ASCII, and most references to this show and this person are almost certainly not in ASCII text. Can someone who speaks the lingo let us know if this is real or misinformation? Abstaining until more is known.... (though at best, this rates a "cleanup") -Harmil 7 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote to delete. Can't establish that "Edison tan yin tat" is the real name of "Bananaman", so without some external citation that can be verified, this is clearly a case for deltion (though note that I would be concerned that someone might speedy it if it was re-created with a valid citation) -Harmil 9 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: There's a little note about him in Singapore Idol. Article definitely needs help, though. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
• Redirect to Singapore Idol, perhaps with a little merging. Most of it seems useless though. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established, idolcruft. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:41 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Laughlin Design

not notable/vanity/advertising. Apparently a similar page was deleted for the same reason a couple weeks ago: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barry Laughlin. The anon user that created this article (User:65.2.235.240) also blanked a section of the vfd page for the previous article[8] which seems pretty dubious. Delete. TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Repost of deleted material -Harmil 7 July 2005 11:58 (UTC)

• Speedily deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

• The article has been restored once more to Barry Laughlin by User:65.2.235.240. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

I've deleted that too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 16:57 (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. Transferred contents to BJAODN, where it belongs. Woohookitty 06:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music:theheroicdose

Non-notable, vanity. I'm surprised this page was not caught earlier. Might be BJAODN material. Graham 7 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense -Harmil 7 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)
• Delete: BJAODN! —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, I don't see the BJAODN here - nonsense, yes; joke, no. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:14 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense garage band vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Junk Food Diet

Neologism, original research, posted by the Stop Drinking Soda vandal. Delete. Jersyko talk July 7, 2005 12:27 (UTC)

• Delete. OR. He's baaaaaaaaack! AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-encyclopedic. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)
• Transwiki, to Wiktionary. Nothing wrong with it just belongs better in a dictionary setting. (this vote by 66.188.1.103, 7 July 2005 19:04 (UTC))
• Delete neologism. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
• Delete - although I am sure that there have been similar diet fad somewhere (I have heard about practically everything else) -Skysmith 8 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)
• Cleanup - Sounds ok, just needs to be rephrased a little. Andrew P Lin 04:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment vote cast by the article's creator. - Jersyko talk 20:52, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete everyone should be able to figure out what this means from Junk food and Diet. KissL 08:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vandalism and vanity. MLSfreak777 10:23, 13 July, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ukatze

IMHO patent nonsense, non-verifiable. andy 7 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

• Delete - Nonsense. Google search of "Ukatze" returned one unrelated result. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 15:30 (UTC)
• Delete - Made-up nonsense. Its bigger than California, but you cant find it on a map? Cooldelapeña has pretty much only been putting out garbage. -- Marvin01 7 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
• It's sad that grids in the "widely used" mercator formerly occupied by Ukatze are now occupied by Bandung and Jakarta. Sue DHL and Federal Express for redirecting all resources to them. That's why everytime this thing happens, all I say is "I'm out of here!"[[User:Cool] (Comment by 210.213.242.105 (talk · contribs))
• Delete: 185 results, none related. Crap. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
• BJAODN: This person has a remarkably vivid imagination. --IByte 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, possibly a fictional country from NationStates. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
• Delete hoax/joke/nonsense. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ukase as common misspelling.DS 00:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Other contributions by this user appear to be related nonsense, so I believe they should be included in this VfD. --IByte 16:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Wonderful World of Colleen Haskell

Vanity, original research, most likely posted by the Stop Drinking Soda vandal. Delete Jersyko talk July 7, 2005 12:31 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew Lincruft. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
• Delete: See ya. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
• Delete all Lincruft. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: unanimously — nominator was blocked. -Splash 02:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inverclyde Line, Glasgow

Delete: becuase this article is far too short and even although I come from Glasgow, and I find that Wikipedia has fairly tried to get a lot of inofrmation about the city, I find that there is no need to create an article (if you even call this an article) about a train service! I mean come on, there should be pages specifically about such things, or either re-direct it to a page called: List of train services in the United Kingdom - Thanks --- Klmjordan --- 7 July 2005, 13:37 (UTC)

• Keep and expand - you may notice the template - this is one of a large number of aricles on lines of this type, all of which are expandable. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per Grutness. Railway lines are encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 15:00 (UTC)
• Keep It's well established that Wikipedia has such articles. CalJW 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
• Keep: I'll gladly put some time into expanding it. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
• Keep. Railway lines, schools, pokemon, internet memes and individual episodes of Will & Grace are inherently notable. Dystopos 7 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
• Abstain Just because there exist other such articles has no relevance on the inclusion of this article. A facile response to that argument would be 'Then they too should be deleted.' Go ye forth and VfD! DeleteThemAllAndLetRadiantSortThemOut 8 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  • Nah, VfDing is a pain in the ass for virtually no benefit. Adding new material is easy as pie and much more satisfying (than VfD, nothing is more satisfying than pie). Dystopos 8 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)
• Keep Notable train/thing with wheels and rails. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)
• Keep nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. NSR (talk) 8 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

[edit] "lisa mendelovits"

I pains me, because this page is superb, but not notable. Surely BJAODN material? Leithp July 7, 2005 12:41 (UTC)

I find no record of any article matching anything in this nomination. If it's a joke, it's moronic - if not, please try to locate the article. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)

Was speedy deleted as being patent nonsense. andy 7 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

• Supported: Not like it matters now, but I support the above action. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 79th Academy Awards

- unlaid egg - should come back when it had happened --Wittkowsky 7 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

• Keep It is only the year after next. Absolutely nothing will be gained by making people create this twice (except possibly making a potentially or actually valuable contributor give up on Wikipedia). CalJW 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)
  • So you want to keep a contentless article just so in two years time someone won't have to type a single sentence over again? -R. fiend 8 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)
• Weak keep - it does no harm, and will have to be created eventually... but it's too early to know any info on the event (e.g. the article says it will be held in Hollywood, but that's not set in stone). -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 15:18 (UTC)
• Weak keep. WP:NOT a crytal ball, which is all this article is going to encourage. But seeing as we know for sure that the event will happen at the time and place specified (with reasonable certainty) there is some encyclopedic info here. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
• Delete: It's too early. Sure, we know it's going to happen...we know the 2122 Olympic Games are going to happen too (I say in East St. Louis, who's with me?) But that doesn't mean there should be an article on them. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Setting a precedent by allowing this to stay up does no good. What happens when someone takes it upon his or herself to make Academy Awards pages for the next 50 years of awards? Suppose the Academy is dissolved by the Emperor in 2006? Who knows? WP:NOT a crystal ball, as mentioned by Splash. Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
• Delete, the 78th (i.e., next one) would be fine but beyond that is crystal ball territory. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 16:53 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly pointless. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
• Delete. Avoiding articles about future events is a good thing. Re-creating it when it is a bona-fide event with actual facts to report won't be any trouble at all. There is no reason to keep it around until then and it is possibly harmful inasmuch as it encourages other content-less articles like it.Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
• Delete. Content-free crystal ball. --Calton | Talk 8 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal ball. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:46 (UTC)
• Delete as premature. 23skidoo 8 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
• Delete, I wouldn't mind seeing the 78th Academy Awards deleted as well. --KFP 9 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)
• Delete - We may not even be using Arabic numerals then. -Acjelen 04:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I swithered about this, since it's premature. We've allowed "future elections" to have a page, but in those cases we've been able to say something useful about them. In this situation, all we have is "It will take place on date X in (general place) Y". If we were able to say that the system would be changing for that year, or if there was something notable that doesn't just class it as "like the 77th, with different names"... but no. Note that we kept U.S. presidential election, 2008 but deleted U.S. presidential election, 2012 - we can say something useful and relevant about -2008, but there's nothing other than random speculation we can currently write about -2012. Shimgray 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maya & Miguel (game)

Game is not slated to be released; this person has vandalised various Lists of Video Games (on PSP, GBA, GameCube, PS3, PS2, PSX, Xbox, &c) before, spamming this nonexistent game. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Note: The article's creator just removed my VfD notice from the article. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

Note: Doctor33 just removed my VfD notice again. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

Note: And yet again, I had to revert to add the VfD notice. Is this 3 strikes and you're out yet? jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

• Delete vandalspam. I can barely be bothered to check Google if that is how the author is going to behave. But, "Maya & Miguel" "2K games" returns nothing on Google. I can barely contain my surprise. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
• Delete: Warned user, too. Do you plan to report him to an admin if he does it again? —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Yes. I've been watching this vandal for a long time - previously as User:Shrek32 and several anonIP's, so I despair of ever really kicking him off Wikipedia, but I'll keep trying to get his accounts shut down and vandalisms reverted. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

He is also operating as User:216.83.121.194, for one. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

• Delete. --KFP 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
• Delete vandalspam, ad. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kris P

NN Vanity - Delete A curate's egg 7 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, to say the least, and probably a joke as the Republican Party and the Church of Scientology are fairly diametrically opposed entities. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 15:15 (UTC)
• Delete - nn/vanity --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)
• Delete: NN, van. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
• Delete. Factually incorrect. The "Mason-Dixon line of Michigan" isn't 11 Mile, it's Eight Mile Road. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Delete nn barely-out-of-teens vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OtherWise

Tagged on May 7 but nevere listed here. I agree with the nominator, so delete. --Nabla 2005-07-07 14:52:31 (UTC)

Non-notable, probably self-promotion. Solver 21:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - self-promotion of young emo band with no releases. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)
• Delete, fails every guideline on WP:MUSIC. Is very difficult to Google with that name, but their website also indicates no releases, signings, whatever. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)
• Delete: Lame. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable and fails WP:MUSIC. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no vote needed. Woohookitty 07:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agnes Phillips

Copyvio text-dump from [9]. Delete --Scimitar 7 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Agreed. Didn't intend it to stay there in that form, but you got to it before I could work on it. Garrick92 7 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

If it's a {{copyvio}} it doesn't need to be brought to VfD. And the text should be blanked, as well. -Splash 7 July 2005 16:09 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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: 7k, 1d, 2 anons discounted. But copyvio portion removed. -Splash 02:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Sunwear

Tagged on May 1 but not listed here. No vote here. -Nabla 2005-07-07 15:06:33 (UTC)

Delete: unremarkable shops do not deserve an article. Badly written. Borderline vanity page. Not encyclopedic. Nova Cygni 14:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rewrite: I agree that the article is poorly written, but PacSun is definitely not an unremarkable shop. It's HUGE in southern California -- one of the "it" places to shop for teenagers -- with a location in almost every mall. And from what I hear from friends who are attending colleges across the country, people as far away as the east coast like to shop at PacSun to emulate Californian dress.

(by User:131.215.168.180, May 14)

• Keep and rewrite. Almost 1000 shops and being traded on Nasdaq looks enough to need an article. Even if the current one is in need of cleanup. -Nabla 2005-07-07 15:06:33 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. Notable. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 15:11 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Definitely notable. Needs serious rewrite. —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Keep simply needs quite a bit of cleaning up to be done. (by User:66.188.1.103
• keep, just needs a bit of a rewrite. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
• I'd say shops aren't notable, but countrywide chains of shops certainly are (e.g. McDonalds is notable, but the franchise on my street is not). Keep. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:49 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Nationwide chains of stores are certainly notable. --Idont Havaname 8 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite entirely. Much of the text was taken directly from a Business Week article; see Talk:Pacific Sunwear. --Metropolitan90 16:21, July 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 deleted already. Woohookitty 23:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LondonBlastUndergroundEvacuation.gif

I right clicked to save and the server gave me a 1x1 image, which I uploaded without checking. A succesful upload attempt is available at Image:LondonBlastUndergroundEvacuation.jpg, which is also a JPEG and more suited to this photograph. TreveX^talk 7 July 2005 15:34 (UTC)

This should be listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, not here. Bobbis 7 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted after the author blanked it. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Iannolino

Delete - nn/vanity for "gifted teenager" TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

• Delete: I hate teenagers... —ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 16:15 (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 no consensus.Woohookitty 23:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: The votes are: 4 to keep, 3 to delete (including the nominator), 2 others (basically transwiki, merge). -- BD2412 ^talk 23:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computer Security Audits

Whatever this is, it doesn't seem to be anything resembling an encyclopedia article. It is extremely idiosyncratic, contains a great deal of "how-to" (see What Wikipedia is not), and seems to suffer from "article ownership" syndrome. FOo 7 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

• Security audits are an important element of business computing security. But this article needs a significant rewrite. Plus the title should be "Computer security audits" as in a process, rather than a name. Delete :) — RJH 7 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I have moved it to Computer security audit, there is no need for it to be plural.--Fenice 7 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Author AlMac explains:

• I came to Wiki about a week ago as a newbie and started writing Security breaches, then was told that I had failed to achieve NPOV, so I started to try to rewrite to fix that, and it soon became obvious to me that my efforts to fix POV were becoming too weasle-wordy, so I stepped back and thought about how best to define some of the ingredients of Computer security that are essential to avoiding Security breaches in the first place, this being one of them. An enterprise that does regular Computer Security Audits is much less likely to sustain Security breaches or have Computer insecurity.
  • My intention here is to define how computer security audits fit into a larger picture, giving examples of how tools for that purpose are available for a diversity of platforms and software applications, then make this one of several main articles within Security breaches.
• Computer security audit is a noun. It is an iterative process. There is little point in doing one audit. It is like ISO. You set a standard, you test that you have met the standard. Either there is something to fix, or it is time to raise the bar on the standard.
  • Additional relevant comments by AlMac intentions at
  • Talk:AlMac#Computer_security_audit
  • Talk:Computer_security_audit
  • Talk:Security breaches
• Please help me with what I am apparently doing wrong, rather than lead me to conclude that this community is not for me. AlMac 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

  The problem is not you personally. The problem is that this article (and Security breaches for that matter) is not an encyclopedia article, and doesn't seem to even be trying to be. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Every Wikipedia article is to be an encyclopedia article -- not an outline, a collection of comments, a discussion forum, or something else.

  By analogy: If you enter a painting contest and submit a sculpture instead of a painting, expect to be disqualified. It may be a very good sculpture, but it's not what the contest is about. That's a goal of VfD -- removing things which are not encyclopedia articles from the Wikipedia article space.

  Please read over some of our featured articles. Pay attention to the writing styles and tones that they use. Go thou and do likewise. --FOo 7 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

  I notice that there is more than one kind of Wiki out there. Are you able to direct me to one which welcomes what I think I am trying to do:

  Security in the Computer world seems to be lacking all over the place, but solutions do exist, that many people seem not to be aware of. I want to try to describe the reality, the problems, and show a diversity of potential solutions. I guess that is your sculpture parallel, in which I think I am doing a painting, and you think I am doing a sculture, so perhaps one solution is for you to redirect me to where sculpture is welcome. AlMac 7 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

  I have already been redirected once before I came to Wikipedia. Dave Gibbs invited the OS/400 community to a new Wiki. I joined and started enthusiastically posting stuff that I was interested in, only to learn that he did not want Computer security stuff not relevant to the AS/400. My interest in Computer security is bigger than any one platform, so I looked for a Wiki that was platform neutral, but perhaps made a mistake in selecting this one.AlMac 7 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

• There are other areas where I am ignorant. Perhaps someone could add to my talk page collection of places to study, what is meant by ideiosyncratic and article ownership. Surely someone has to start every article, before other people join in? AlMac 7 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a valid important topic, I am surprised it is not covered yet. It was listed for deletion by a newbie user whose first edit was on June 30th 2005, two hours after the author, also a newbie user, had started it and while he was obviously still working on it. I would say that is bad style but I don't want to bite a newcomer. Give the author time to work this out. The article needs some work, but the cleanup is not hard to do. --Fenice 7 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

  Wow, I haven't been called a "newbie user" recently. I've been working on Wikipedia since March 2002. Maybe you haven't been here long enough to know that a user's contributions list can span several pages? :)

  A vote for deletion, by the way, doesn't mean that a particular topic is not worthy of being covered in Wikipedia. It means that a particular article is not appropriate to Wikipedia. I agree with you that computer security audits should be covered in Wikipedia. However, I cannot agree that this particular article is anything resembling an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not (as User:AlMac seems to believe, above) simply a free-for-all wiki -- it is an encyclopedia project. --FOo 7 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

You are right, FOo. I don't know why your earlier edits weren't shown (I can see them now). But then you should know not to bite newcomers and your listing within a few hours was bad style. Also I wonder about your misconception of article ownership? According to the edit-history of Computer security audit you haven't tried to fix the problem (or if the system is swallowing edits again, I can't be sure you didn't). Article ownership would mean that someone or usually a group of editors won't let anyone else edit and just revert without much of a discussion. --Fenice 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Having been on Newpages patrol before, I don't think tossing something non-encyclopedic onto VfD counts as "biting newcomers" -- it counts as cleaning things out which don't belong on Wikipedia. If we refused to delete non-encyclopedic materials just because they were written by newcomers, we would be flooded with non-encyclopedic material. --FOo 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

• You wrote: "A vote for deletion, by the way, doesn't mean that a particular topic is not worthy of being covered in Wikipedia. It means that a particular article is not appropriate to Wikipedia." What exactly makes you think so? From what I read on Wikipedia:Deletion policy if anything the opposite is true. From what I can tell with previous VfDs (granted, I'm new to this) the actual deletion policy as carried out is something in between.--Moritz 7 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

The first criterion under "Problems that may require deletion" is ... (drum roll please) ... "Is not suitable for Wikipedia (see WP:NOT)." That refers to the content of the article, not the topic. --FOo 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. What Fenice said. Project2501a 7 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
• Move? to Wikibooks? Almac seems like he has alot of useful information to share, and is up to the task of writing it. If the issue we have it the nature of the information, as it seems from the comments I've read, I don't see why AlMac doesn't start his very own Wikibook. - FabioB 7 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

  Not a bad idea. Material which isn't an encyclopedia article simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but it could perhaps be expanded into a work of some other sort. Since a good section of this article is "how-to", and much of the rest is a bare outline made of bullet points, perhaps that would be a good place to put it. --FOo 8 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

• Delete I am actually saying transwiki as I think that AlMac has a lot to contribute. IDon'tLikeBeingJustOnePerson 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks, plus cleanup; Merge key points from this article into to Computer security audit (cleaning up this article as well); Redirect to Computer security audit. The article has lots of good information in it, but isn't really an encyclopedia article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not encyclopedic, but the topic definitely is, so no need to delete, the cleanup template is quite enough. KissL 09:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The cleanup template should remain. To resolve the cleanup issue, most of the details of the article would probably be better put into a Wikibook. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater and delete, so my vote is for a strong keep. MShonle 15:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks again ... I do intend to continue the cleanup of Computer security audit and Security breaches to meet the Wiki style, then I have LOTS more stuff I intend to add to both, and I will defer to judgement of non-newbies which of my writings should transfer to another wiki and which one. I have also promised to work on Trade Military Refugee Usability and other topics here that interest me. AlMac 17:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have had an explosion of work the last 2 weeks, but anticipate that by middle of August, if not sooner, it should clear up. I am juggling urgent changes to approx a dozen programs, three of which I have in testing right now to see if they Ok yet, and when I get to a break point with them, I have unfinished work with a mass database migration ... like a mini-conversion project. AlMac 17:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Several people here told me about Wiki books. I been looking around there. It seems to me that Wikibooks not as rich as Wikipedia in volume of topics, while Wikibooks goes to greater depth of subject matter, like chapters of a text book.
  • I used what y"all taught me to try my hand at a Wiki book. My first effort there is SQL/400. I will see if this gets a reaction there that is positive or negative. It seems to me that many people there are using the kind of listing writing style that I got my hands slapped for here. I do not know if this means that different styles are welcomed at different Wikis, or if what I have seen so far are all works under development that won't be that style when all the content gets there. AlMac 22:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 23:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HotRecorder, Hotrecorder, Emotisounds, and VoIP recording

Advertising, NPOV. Delete --IByte 7 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

• Delete. --KFP 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
• Delete advertising - DavidWBrooks 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Delete Emotisounds VoIP recording and Hotrecorder too. --Henrygb 7 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
• Delete obvious advert since the product is new. The product and it's purveyor do not have notability.Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously advertising. --NicholasTurnbull 21:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 23:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J.L. Haram

Author of single non-notable webcomic (started this year, no Alexa rank). — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Article makes no claims to notabilty, and none can be found elsewhere. --A D Monroe III 7 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
• Delete person is not notable. possible vanity. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
• Delete claims to internet "works" that are not linked, or findable; full of unsupported non-NPOV statements --Shannonr 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love Wins

Nice idea, but WP is not for propaganda and this is not notable Bobbis 7 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)

• Delete. Here's a phrase I thought I'd never write: Non-notable bumper sticker. ;) Fernando Rizo 7 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
• delete' nn UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
• delete not notable & advertising. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
• Delete bumper stickeranity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
• Delete non notable stickercruft. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Laird

Band doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC notability requirements...much less the drummer in the band. Delete Wikibofh 7 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, possible vanity. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Guess what, the only google hit for Martin Laird and his band name is......Wikipedia.Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Buonopane

Delete. Not verifiable. Probably a Hoax. Even if not a hoax, doesn't appear to be notable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wikibofh 7 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

• Delete: A Google search returns 46 results, not a single one has anything to do with movies. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 7 July 2005 17:35 (UTC)
• Delete - Now it's clear vanity/hoax. --TheMidnighters 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)
• Delete - obvious nonsense. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)
• Delete anything with "fun facts", nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:45 (UTC)
• Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as a copyvio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Submerged arc strip Cladding

Delete, original research --Spangineer (háblame) July 7, 2005 17:47 (UTC)

• Copyvio [10] --IByte 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Le fray

Band with one self-released single. DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)

• Delete; band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable - even their heroes Endless Struggle don't rate a page. --Habap 7 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pottsville High School

This is an orphaned VfD tagged on 20 June by User:Member but not listed here. Listing now. I will also vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

• This is a vanity page and is biased towards the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Member (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

• This is a factual list of student and faculty accomplishments. The information in the article has no opinion or inflated statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.39.220 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 21 June 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it isn't a copyvio. Seems like a reasonable start at an article. Needs a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
• Keep as above. I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this. -- Visviva 7 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
• Cleanup and copyvio-check per Tony Sidaway. Now you know how all of us deletionists feel, Visviva :) --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:37 (UTC) Delete as confirmed copyvio unless someone wants to whip up a new school stub. --FCYTravis 7 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
• Delete original content as copyvio from here [11]., Keep the rewritten stub from the temp page. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
• Delete Pottsville High School/Temp; as an unnotable school. Dunc|☺ 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
• Keep the new stub. Kappa 8 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
• Keep for the sake of putting school deletions to rest. Xoloz 8 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Comment Someone has added the VfD template to the as-yet draft page for this school. Please bear in mind when discussing and voting and try to identify which version you're referring to. The main article will be deleted as a copyvio in any case so it's probably more sensible to discuss the deletability (or otherwise) of the draft article. The draft page is Pottsville High School/Temp. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Keep stub. Kokiri 8 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
• Keep all schools. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. The /temp one obviously. DoubleBlue (Talk) 8 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
• Delete all schools that aren't nationally notable. --Idont Havaname 8 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
• Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 8 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Keep on improving Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 9 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Keep Nominating schools is wrong. CalJW 23:05, 9 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!) 10:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinist Church, USA

This denomination does not exist. The original content was derived from a satyrical article on the internet. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:25 (UTC)

• Delete. It certainly seems to be fictional. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
• Comment: Isn't that a copyvio then? --IByte 7 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
  • I'm uncertain whether one of the creators of the content might have copied it onto Wikipedia. It is "copyright Calvinist Church, USA". Bogus entity ... bogus copyright? Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. KissL 09:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and be quick about it. Good grief! Jim Ellis 02:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Are we sure it doesn't exist?:

• First Calvinist Church, USA
• First Calvinist Church, USA

--Vizcarra 20:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Very sure - it is a satire. For example, Compare Five Points of Calvinism (TULIP) to this list:

• • Supreme Sovereignty of God*
  • Total depravity of humankind
  • Unconditional election
  • Perserverance of the Elect
  • Irresistable Sovereign Grace
  • Death of Christ for the Elect only [Limited Atonement]

Mkmcconn (Talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, but a request to have a redirect to Calvin Theological Seminary has been requested, and will be granted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calvinist Theological Seminary

This seminary does not exist. The original content was derived from a satyrical article on the internet. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)

• Comment. What do you make of this and this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

  I agree with Doc (below) that the two links are from satisfactory, though neither simply uses the words "calvinist theological seminary" — both of them refer to what seems to be a specific institution with that name (unlike the other two Googled links, which I ignored for that reason). I'm voting for delete, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

  • Comment One sentence in the first article reads: "The Calvinist theological seminary was the first institutionally separate graduate school in the United States:", the article then lists several calvinistic theological seminaries. That is, this kind of graduate school was the first institutionally separate graduate school to exist in the US. That leaves one link. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • A phone call reached the creator of the site, who said that several students from a variety of perspectives at a well-known seminary created this parody site, and Calvinist Church, USA to encourage discussion of Calvinism.
  • The first of your links simply has the words "calvinist theological seminary" occuring somewhere in the text. The other page lists "Calvinist Theological Seminary" among the credentials of the staff person. If there is such a school in South Africa, I do not know. There's a possibility, however remote, that these credentials are bogus. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
  • There is a seminary in Kempen, which is calvinistic. Thus, an article on the internet refers to the "Calvinist theological seminary in Kempen", but that is not the name of the seminary. It is a description of it.. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)

• Four googles for 'Calvinist Theological Seminary' - two speak of 'a' Calvanist Seminary and thus can be ignored - the other two are those cited by Mel and are dubious. This tells me that this seminary is probably unverifiable and certainly not notable - delete unless both can be established --Doc (?) 7 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)

• Redirect as a likely search variant of Calvin Theological Seminary. Do not merge. None of the material referring to this fictional school is relevant to the real one, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax unless the place in South Africa can be verified and someone wants to write an article about it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
• Delete Let's try to maintain some level of integrity, at least in the Christian related sections of Wikipedia. Jim Ellis 02:29, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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!) 10:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afro-Latin American

Article is riddled with inaccuracy. There have been copyvio suggestions. The name appears to be a not notable academic genre that is not an appropriate name for black latinos. If we have to have an article on these people we should delete this and start again SqueakBox July 7, 2005 18:35 (UTC)

• Keep, Inaccuracy can be fixed. copyvio was never proven and still can be re-edited. Here's a source to start with:

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2003/10/07/dna.htm

There's plenty of information about the Garifuna and black in Mexico as well. --Vizcarra 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

• Keep, unless someone comes up with a better name and/or copyvio shown. Certainly, there should be some sort of article on WP about this racial group; cannot vote to delete without being given a better alternative that accomplishes that goal. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:29 (UTC)

• Keep, I think there is a lot of interesting information and the article can fixed. Nanahuatzin 8 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Comment. Latin American redirects to Latin America. If Latin Americans aren't deserving of an article for what reason do we need an Afro-American article. Sounds rascist to me, SqueakBox July 8, 2005 18:39 (UTC)

African Americans do have an article, so by your own argument, not having a Afro-Latin Americanarticle would be "racist" as well (discriminatory).--Vizcarra 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

Americans have their own article, Latin Americans don't. Also (from what I know) most Afro Americans identify themselves as such. There is no article for Afro-British inspite of the fact that my experience is that there is much more race consciousness in the UK, and much higher levels of insidious rascism, than in Latin America, and I suspect the same can be said for the US. By singling out black Latin Americans without writing an article about Latin Americans as a whole I would argue we are being rascist, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

• • There is a Hispanics article. Perhaps Latin American should redirect there instead of to Latin America; that would certainly make sense to me. I still don't see what any of it has to do with Afro-Latin American; even if Hispanics hadn't been written yet (and, again, it has been), I don't see how that would imply that it COULDN'T be written by a willing user, or that Afro-Latin Americans are more important than Hispanics. Nor do I think accusing people who disagree with you of racism is appropriate; please see WP:FAITH. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 00:33 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable topic. Latin America does discuss Latin American cultures and peoples (if briefly). Uneven coverage of related topics is not a valid reason for deletion; however it certainly is a valid reason for article creation and expansion (for example on the Culture of Latin America).--Pharos 9 July 2005 03:47 (UTC)
• Keep per Pharos, though a less combersome title would be welcome. carmeld1 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linguistic classifications are in every sense discrimination; discrimination by race is racism. Sarge Baldy 03:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Please explain. How is this different than African American?--Pharos 03:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not, I don't like that categorization either. I find it particularly a nuisance when Wikipedia calls white Americans "Americans" and African Americans "African Americans", which I feel clearly decides what people are considered "normal" in the United States and which are "abnormal". Sarge Baldy 04:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia definitely shouldn't call white Americans "Americans", but certainly there's something to be said about African American culture, no?--Pharos 04:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I would say that's useful information, although again I don't like the title and would prefer something without a racial distinction. After all, that culture is more the culture of slaves exported from Africa and their descendants, and not that of Africans who immigrated of free choice afterward. It's also a culture adopted by a number of European-descending Americans. Also, notice that Culture of the United States ignores that culture entirely and talks exclusively of American culture as being white American culture. Note also there is no article on "white American culture", since that seems entirely synonymous with "American culture", and therefore the whole article on US culture is devoted to people descending from Europe, and other immigrants are administered under third-class subcategories. Sarge Baldy 04:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • African is not a race, so it is not a "racial distinction" but rather about origins and about culture. The other propose name Black-Latin Americans is more about skin color, which could be discriminatory.. "American culture" used to mean "White American culture" when whites where a stronger majority, now it doesn't, otherwise hip hop and rap wouldn't be part of American culture. It's not that non-European sub-cultures were considered third-class as much as they were considered minorities (which they currently are, more than 70% of Americans are mostly European). --Vizcarra 18:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Linguistic classifications are in every sense discrimination; discrimination by race is racism" That is hardly an argument pro-deleting the article, being that we have articles about nigger, redneck, white cracker, dyke, queer, faggot, Kraut. Afro-Latin American is, by comparison, very tame of a term. --Vizcarra 18:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I've been slowly coming in and adding information and editing on this page. I've run websites and forums on Afro Latino cultures for several years and have studied it quite a bit. Afro Latin American studies are "developing" right now. It is developing in the academic fields of Latin American studies and African/African American studies. There is quite a bit of research available on the topic, although I believe it is under-represented and understudied. It seems like the "accuracy" problems are more about semantics here. As far as label goes - the real issue is whether or not this should be under African American or not. In Academic fields, African American is starting to become more accurate and inclusive by addressing "Africans in the Americas." But, that is not a complete transition and may never finish. The entries for US African Americans (afroestadounidenses) is dense as it is and would require vast reworking to include the history of the African Diaspora in more than a twenty other nations. Considering this is an English language portal, a focus on the curent English language meaning of African American (US Blacks) seems appropriate - as is a separate reference to Afro Latin Americans (Afro Latinos or Afrodescendientes). As far as "racial or cultural labels" - the history of these cultures as identifiable communities and groups started with racial distinctions that pushes their original diverse culture together and continues to affect those communities on that level. It's appropriate. 14 July 2004 -- Cacimar

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Note to nominator, please refrain form adding a link to Kappa Kappa Gamma in the heading because it might lead to that article being deleted by accident. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Pritchett and Kelly McNeil; both Kappa Kappa Gamma membercruft

Entire text of article is "Jennifer is a University of Texas badass student who will be graduating in Dec. of 05! She is sure to become something of merit and is definitely someone you should get to know while you can. She will be a very notable Pi Phi, and more so than any of the ones listed above." Damn it, this sort of stuff really needs to be a speedy. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

Kelly McNeil is also a non-notable KKG member whose article was created by an anonIP with no wikification or outside validation. Looks like some sorority girls messing around. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)

• Delete all. I feel richer for knowing that Jennifer likes PB and mayo sandwiches. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
• Delete Kappa Kappa Gamma SUCKS!! Haha. No seriously, delete. --Moritz 7 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
• Delete. A speedy would be fine (I won't tell if you don't). -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)
• Delete and vote on your choice of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 --Carnildo 7 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
• Like, Delete Jennifer Pritchett, Kelly McNeil, and any other sororicruft, but keep Kappa Kappa Gamma. I know it's not part of the nomination, but since the article is Wikilinked in the header, I thought it was at first – just thought I'd point this out to anyone who's as dense as I am. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 01:26 (UTC)
  • My apologies: good catch. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)
• Delete nn sorority vanity. Obviously the sorority itself can stay (at USC we called it "Visa, Visa, Mastercard" ;) ), but these girls aren't notable. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)
• "Keep" this because this sort of thing gives Wikipedia its charm. (Unsigned vote by Keldreth, user's only edit)
• Userfy. This could have been done without need for VfD. Speedy is not necessary, a little user education would be more sensible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting these be userfied to User:63.161.169.68 and User:63.161.169.64? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural Intelligent Design

Breach of WP:NOR, Original research Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

• Delete: Google test results [12] support my assertion that this is an attempted at a neoglism. Text is compied straight from main Intelligent Design article--Tznkai 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• No Delete:

The "Intelligent Design" page is currently heavily focused on links with God or creationism, even though the hypothesis does not actually deal with those issues.

"supernatural Intelligent Design" was an intitial attempt to split the parts of "Intelligent Design" which are focused on religion into a separate page, to allow a better representation (if possible) of the subject. Yes, the text came from the main page, with the intent that it would be eventually removed from the main text.--GodWasAnAlien 2004-July-07

• Delete, not sufficiently notable to be represented in a separate article jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
• Delete. OR, non-notable. The user who voted "No Delete" has 2 edits. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork, nothing useful here that can't go in the Intelligent Design article. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
• Delete per [[User:BD2412/deletion debates|BD2412]. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:22 (UTC)
• Delete original research and POV fork. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Also, any distinction between "supernatural" and "religious" is tenuous and idiolectical. I do, however, think that intelligent design (coming from the Raelians, is at least funnier than intelligent design coming the fundamentalists. Xoloz 8 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
• Delete Joke137 23:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Padilla

Is this article encyclopedic or just a vanity page? geodynamo 7 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

• Delete

• Vote by Peterlean (talk · contribs) (aka geodynamo) Wikibofh 7 July 2005 19:22 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity page. --Durin 7 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page! UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Jacob Sze"

not notable. DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree; I was just about to nom this for VfD, in fact, when you did. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity page. --Durin 7 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
• delete nn UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
• Delete this and the same article appearing under a new title without quotation marks at Jacob Sze --Tabor 7 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
• Delete post it at monster.com - ColoradoZ July 7, 2005 22:56 (UTC)
• Delete nn cv vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)
• delete. not notable. idiocy. Avriette 02:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Grpunkim 18:40 July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although Im sure theres no reason to vote its already gonna die... Redwolf24 02:54, 20 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!) 10:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JTFE

Is it usefull? Lmatt 7 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

• Delete ad. May be vanity as well, since the site that hosts the plugin is non-official and made by one person. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• delete UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy to User:Dmadden82. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julie Ann Clark

Well-written, npov bio of, sadly, a completely non-notable (if seemingly on the bright side) student at BU. May or may not be vanity, but is certainly nonencyclopaedic. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

• Userfy if poss, or delete. jamesgibbon 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
• Userfy as per jamesgibbon. Jaxl 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
• Arguably a useful little article, an investment in a leader/winner of various activites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmadden82 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 July 2005 Note: this user is the creator of article in question
• Userfy/delete - Sorry, but it is obviously about yourself. Try using your user page to talk about yourself. - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
• Delete and vote on your choice of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 --Carnildo 7 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Delete, and the image. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
• Delete rampant vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
• Userfy. -- Jonel | Speak 8 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
  • Also, deprogram the poor girl from the cult that is the IR department... (this comment is, of course, mostly joking). -- Jonel | Speak 8 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)
• Userfy. --Idont Havaname 8 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
• Userfy. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
• Userfy and note that this VfD's probable result would be unlikely if Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 passes (which alas seems very likely). VfD is smarter than an administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Userfied and deleted. Content now at User:Ryanb. Garrett^Talk 06:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan bohn and Ryan Bohn

Vanity. Delete. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)

• Delete: Darn you ;) You caught this one right as I was gonna VfD it. Needless to say, it's utter vanity (User:Rbohn created the entry for Ryan bohn? I don't think so.). jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User has also just created Ryan Bohn.jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
    • Heh, I was just about to add this to this page. Good work :)
      • That's how we VfDers roll ;) jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. I left the guy a message on his talk page... --Moritz 7 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
  • Did the guy change his username or what? It's User:Ryanb (not rbohn). User talk:Ryanb. --Moritz 7 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
    • My fault. I had the username wrong. You're entirely right. jglc | t | c 8 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no reason why this stuff shouldn't be speedied. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
• Userfy. I suspect this is an errant user page, being the fellow's first edit and all. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
• Userfy as per BD2412 UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Congrats on the baby. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The number 12 looks like you

Band vanity. Delete. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - no context. Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• delete *sigh* another unnotable band... UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
• delete not notable. Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Weak keep 2 albums on allmusic.com. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
• Keep Two albums meets WP:MUSIC Cyclone49 8 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC specifies that the albums must come from a "major label or one of the more important indie labels." The label Eyeball Records defines itself as a minor label, and therefor doesn't qualify. (After all, anyone with a CD burner and an IRS form can declare themselves a label and bublish their own records.) --Icelight 22:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The junglists

Band is a "local ska band" whose only claim to fame is having won a Battle of the Bands and having an EP for sale.... on eBay. Vanity, bandcruft. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established, most likely vanity. --Moritz 7 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
• delete *sigh* another unnotable band... UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was CDC (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 07:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toothing

Deliberate and admitted hoax that didn't even last a month. Habap 7 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

• Delete nn hoax, per nominator. By the same group of vain hoaxers as Greenlighting. -Splash 7 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, forum vanity. Quale 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
• Delete to destroy current non-notable content, then redirect to teething. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Redirect to teething as per BD2412, but no need to delete first. Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• keep - a hoax it may be, but it was certainly a popularised one (both in the press and online). The article fully admits it is a hoax, and is an informative little article about the phenomenen. it's not as though there's a more deserving article of this name, or we're running out of space, so I see no reason to delete. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
• Keep Edison's 250 failed attempts to build a light bulb weren't obliterated from history, so why disregard this technological experiment?
• Delete and redirect per BD2412; failed hoax is not notable. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:25 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call it "failed". Perhaps it wasn't as popularised elsewhere in the world, but certainly in the UK the concept of toothing got significant press coverage; even a bbc news article: [13]. I think people should be able to look the term up in Wikipedia, even if it's only to find it was just a hoax. The term has been widely enough used! UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)

Just to add to my last comment, this is a made up term, not used to describe anything other than this phenomenen, yet it gets 115,000 google results. Surely that goes to show how widely it may have been believed and used. It also inspired a Wired, ABC and BBC news article, as well as stories in a significant amount of the UK's newspapers and magazines. It was also discussed on Slashdot. It may well have been popularized significantly more in the UK than elsewhere in the world, but the term did gain usage. It may be a hoax, but it was certainly one which was believed upon. As long as the article retains a NPOV, explains it was a hoax etc etc, I see it as a useful definition and explanation of the term. I might add also that it was a term I had heard of long before reading this article, and one which I was interested to find is now an acknowledged hoax. Surely the article should remain so that other people may do the same. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

• Keep per UkPaola, media coverage indicates notability. Kappa 8 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Keep per UkPaolo Chuck July 8, 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Keep per UkPaolo. Xoloz 8 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
• Delete This may have had some breadth but it had no depth. Hoaxes come and go, and this one was not persistent enough to merit inclusion. ChangingMyNameAllTheTime 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
• Keep per UkPaolo. Article makes clear it was a hoax, and the hoax got media attention. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
• Merge into Bluetooth (this being connected to that technology) and redirect - Skysmith 8 July 2005 10:51 (UTC)
• Keep per UKPaolo. It certainly doesn't hurt the encyclopedia to have this article. KissL 09:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this article belongs here because it is an issue that was talked about in the media. --ZeWrestler 15:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to be able to look it up and get the information needed. -- Lightkey 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Informative. I appreciated the article and am glad that I saw it.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrion Fields

Low related Googles, NN. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable link ad Naturenet | Talk 7 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No Alexa rating, few Google results. I removed it from Advertising Network... (Is that an okay thing to do before the VfD process is finished?) --Moritz 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
• delete ad UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• Delete this and all others like it. Aaron Brenneman 9 July 2005 06:31 (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 no consensus two months later (-: so kept. JYolkowski // talk 14:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dante Salvatierra

Here's a guy who got 1% of the vote when he ran for congress in Nebraska last year. Not even a major party candidate. Possibily a vanity article. No real accomplishments. Come back when you're a congressman. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)

• delete per R fiend UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• keep If one or two thousand voters cast their precious ballots for him he deserves a kilobyte on a Wikipedia server. Fg2 July 8, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 01:20 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent on failed candidates. Xoloz 8 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. He got 1904 votes and the article doesn't quite look like vanity. KissL 09:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kissl. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 20 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. CDC (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ameen Dorri

Delete - Vanity listing. None of the links on the page are valid. No google for Ameen Dorri and Iran except for new entries throughout Wikipedia linking to this new article. Creating user is adding this person to many many pages as if this person was a great authority. Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

For context of this sudden flood into Wikipedia, here is a list of recent articles this individual has been added to (sometimes as an authority or major supporting politician):

• 15:10, 7 July 2005 (hist) (diff) The world in 2004 (→Middle East)
• 15:07, 7 July 2005 (hist) (diff) 2004 (→May)
• 15:03, 7 July 2005 (hist) (diff) List of current Iranian Friday prayers Imams
• 20:58, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Modern Iranian scientists and engineers (→D)
• 20:52, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Iranian reformists
• 20:49, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Culture of Iran (→Persian contributions to humanity)
• 20:46, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Iranian presidential election, 2005 (→Conservatives)
• 20:41, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) List of political parties in Iran
• 20:39, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) Politics of Iran
• 20:35, 5 July 2005 (hist) (diff) List of Iranian philosophers

I have tried to find any notability on the web but have been unsuccessful except for articles written in Wikipedia by this same individual. Somehow this person claims to be an Imam, scientist/engineer, reformist, politician/political group, philosopher, and the inspiration (despite his age) of the Militant Clerics Society. - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

• Delete, beyond egomaniacal. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:37 (UTC)
• Delete rampant vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
• Delete This person is fake.--Sina 9 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
• Delete I new to this great website and still just learning. I didnt want to do anything until I figure things out, but this is much to grave. I born in Esfehan (been in US for 2 years) and I know that there is such a person as Ameen Dorri that was born in 1990. No joke, no lies. There is such a thing as Islam's Students, but they were not made in 2004 or whatever this article is claiming. This is an old organization made during the time if Imam Khomeini. I dont know what this article is, but I suspect it is a twist. The question I have is how anybody knew this person? Ameen Dorri is around 15 years old for heaven's sake! Sure, he was a brilliant prodigy for his age, but most definitely not how the article describes him. I say delete, however keeping in mind that this person exists though he is not really that important to have an encyclopedia article written about him. That is crazy! (unsigned vote by Az Iran)
• Keep On a second thought, I think it would be good to keep this article however revising it to make it factual. Ameen Dorri was one of the only prodigies from outer Esfehan and I knew him personally. I will just revise the page, if that is alright with you?(unsigned vote by Az Iran)
• Delete hoax or entirely NN. KissL 09:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CHAMBERMUSIK

POV, ad. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

• Blanked due to copyvio now. --Moritz 7 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)
• Delete NE, ad. KissL 09:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TheMediaMatrix.com

POV ad. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable advert - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 20:36 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Jaxl 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
• Delete ad; also WP not a website directory. KissL 09:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gardened hierarchical folksonomy

Seems to be a neologism. About a dozen Google results, which all cite jordanwillms.com heavily (the source given for this article as well). An interesting idea, but not one that has caught on enough to be encyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Folksonomy. FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

• Delete. Folksonomy is a close call, making this a clear delete. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:35 (UTC)
• Delete per FreplySpang. Can be re-created if it achieves widespread use. Chuck July 8, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki these three articles to Wikibooks. I see a lot of delete votes here, but from reading the comments made by them, many of them say this belongs in Wikibooks. Therefore, I will submit these articles to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Events with Muhammad

Up for deletion are Events_with_Muhammad:_1, Events_with_Muhammad:_2, and Events_with_Muhammad:_3. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

• Delete the lot. If they were encyclopedically notable, they would belong in a page with a real title; as it is, better to just stick whatever biography they're quoted from in the References section of Muhammad. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC) PS: Or put them in Wikisource, if you want; they don't belong here, but they might belong there. - 21:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic - basically rehashed source material? CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. And there's more. Striver has been trying to evade controversy on the main Islamic history articles by creating dozens of his own. Striver does not admit that the Muslim traditions he wants to include, the hadith, are extremely problematic as historical source material. As many secular, Western, scholars have observed, instead of the sources closest in time being the ones that are the fullest and the most detailed, the Islamic historians seem to have more and more material as time passes. Western scholars believe that most of it has been invented for polemic purposes. If he wants to include the standard Sunni, Shi'a, and Ibadi hadith collections in Wikibooks, that would be fine. A service to the world community. Importing a mass of dubious material into Wikipedia, as if it were fact, is not a service to anyone. Zora 01:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Zora, you miss the point. The point is not to bring the hadith COLLECTIONS to wikipedia. The point is to REPRESENT THE MUSLIM VIEW ON THE SUPOSED EVENTS. Now, it is true that Muslim have hadith as the main source for our BELIFE, but that does not matter one bit. For all you care, it could be the figment of our imagination, why we belive the event happened is TOTALY IRRELEVANT. As for hadithes, i have explained it extensivly, hadithes give a glimps her, a glimps there. It does not give the whole event in one shot. So i go to non-primary source of hadithes and report how they managed to puzzle together the event. Just take a look at the "external source", its full of prominent Muslim sites giving THEIR VIEW of what happened. They could be wrong, it could be non-factual,they might use FULL BIAS when doing their reconstruction, but IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY OR HOW THEY CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, im just REPORTING THE MUSLIM VIEW OF THE SUPOSED EVENTS. in fact, im going to make that clear in the articles, i sugest that everybody takes a look att the uppdate ill make to the articles.

--Striver 02:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

So, done!

Now, It clearly says

• Its not facts
• its a representation of MUSLIM BELIF OF THE EVENT, wich is all that matters, since it is what Muslims belive that matter to them'
• It says why the event matter (as if that would be necesary considering wikipedia contains Dog poop girl)
• It shows it is NOT USING HADITHES, rather, it use MUSLIM RECONSTRUCTION from the hadithes.

I really fail to see how it can be deleted or transwikied with all that said.

--Striver, upset with Zora. 02:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• not delet yes of course it rehashed source material, what did you think encyclodpedias contain? original research?

It can not be included in a biograpy, it would clog the biograpy and make it unrideable. And what about everybody else that are involved, are whe supposed to clog upp their biograpy as well?

Just take a look att the Battle of Bassorah, its obvious that it can be included in a biography, not to say in the biography of every single one included in it.

Its the same with this series, all the event Muhammad (as) did can not fitt in his biography, that is long enough as it is. And yes, they do have a relevance. If ti was me doing stuff nobody would care, but we are talking about the person that over one billion people are trying to imitate. What more could be relevant than report on actions that over a billion are imitating?

Marjas dedicate THEIR ENTIRE LIFE to read stuff like that so they can tell people if is allowed to listen to music or if its allowed to have an abortion: THIS IS THE MAIN SOURCE OF EVERYDAY ISLAM, the day-to-day practices of Muhammad!

Of course this would not fitt in a bok, but this is not a book, its a electronic encyclopedia and of course it does use other ways than books. I does not have everything on pages, it has one event per article so and all relevant persons can link to that event. This event tells a lot about how the Sahaba acted in their private life as well. It is the farthes thing from uninportant and it is set upp in best way possible: NOT everything in one long meaningless article that nobody care to read, rather, on event at a time so it can be linked to it whenever it becomes relevant..

Remeber this is not a book, information is not costly to keep and it has a value. Its not trash, its the preserved day-to-day life of the peoble that over one billion are imitating.

--Striver 7 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)

• Delete. I still fail to see the purpose to those pages and it is hopelessly misnamed. If anything, you should expland the page on Muhammad to include some of this information... I fail to see how this would clog the biography... if it did, someone would split it. and there is not too much uncylcopedic information here anyways. And i do not see the point of having every small event in his life mentioned... If people wanted to find out about that, they would read the Qur'an... There's not listing for "Jesus has tea on December 4, 20 AD" and there's not reason to. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 7, 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Convincing argument, but I still think its a bit too much for an enclyclopedia but deletion would be a waste. Hence, I change my vote to transwiki to Wikibooks. Seems logical as an encyclopedia is meant to be a compendium while books can be as detailed as they want to be. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 00:12 (UTC)

• Comment My friend, trust me, if i would put even one fourth of that in the Muhammad biograpy, it would be deleted within the houre. It simply does not fitt in the biograpy.

Your analogi with Jesus (peace be upon him) does not work for several resons:

• the only source to what Jesus did is in Bible, more or less. And it follows a very short period of time, less than three years. Muhammad on the other hand has over 20 years of his life writen down, every single thing he did, done to including relieving himself!

• Jesus life is not the source for such an extensive work as Muhammads life is. People dedicate decates, over forty years, onlu to learn what he did and why he did that. That information is then prosest and the detailed Muslim Jurisprudence is derived from it. Have you ever wondered why Muslims men cant have gold rings? Since Muhammad forbade that during his life. Now, trust me, its imposible to include all that details to the main article, or any artice, but it dosent mean its irrelvant! It affect Muslims day-to-day life, in contrary to Jesus teaching that are mosltly allegorical. When did u turn you chek the last time?

• Muhammads life is NOT in the Quran! Let me repet that, its NOT in the quran! Ther has been sugestiosn to make a vers-to-vers comentry of the Quran. If that is important, then Muhammads Sunnah is equaly merited to be included to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the hadithes are not to be read anywhere in a single narratative flow, people dedicate their entire life to sift troght the material and get coherent view of all the details. Now thanks to computers that can be done instantly, you just need everyones biography and link the correct event to the correct biograoy!

I repeat, this material can not be found in the Quran, in can not be found in a ordered manner in any book, its spread over volumes of books in a non-cronological order, and not even in one pice, its it often takes 4 hadithes in diffrent volumes to make sense one event! People dedicate their live to this, its not a small matter, its not easly available and it is definitly worth to represent in a encyclopedia that aimes to collect "all human knowledge"! Think about it, it may sound as every-day event to you, but remeber that it shapes the life of over on billion people that strive to mimic Muhammad's smalest action, including how to greet eachother! Its not godnight-tales!

I mean, if Rich Bagger can have a articel, i dont get why events that shape 1/6 of the world cant have an article! Take a look at hadith and sunnah and you will see that what im saying is correct!

It is WAY do much matterial to fitt in a biography, not even 1/10 000 would fitt in a biograpy, and even if it did, is it supposed to be repeted in every biograpy that of those whom partake in the event? This is the best solution, to have an article series, and link all involved to that article!

I mean, c'mon, this is not something i make money on, and its nothing WP looses money on, i just want to have Muhammads Sunnah represented on Wikipedia!

--Striver 8 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

• Delete These articles are source material. It looks like what the author wants to do is write a book. I suggest WikiBooks for that.Tobycat 8 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
• Delete all per Tobycat. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
• Keep and move to wikibooks, I can certainly see value in something like this, but wikibooks is a better place. Also while the Muhammad and Hadith articles are fairly mature, the Sira article is in need of development. Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 8, 2005 03:51 (UTC)
• I agree with the idea of a transwiki to the books section, if not a wikiworship area. This type of stuff is bound to keep showing up, so might as well have a place for it. — RJH 8 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)

• comment Well, the problem is that this things do not come from a single source. Its important to undertand it, one event is usualy described manny drifrent sources and to make a coherent and cronological order out of it, one article needs to be done that includes all material relevant to that particualr event. Its is not from a book rather, from bits and pieces of manny hadith collections. --Striver 8 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • In that case, since it seems you are doing the work to combine information from these sources, this would qualify as original research and should be deleted. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

• Comment

Well, i see what you mean, but tell me, is the Hitler article coming from one single book?

Its like this:

Ther are several hadith that explain one given event. Scholar that have more knowledge than me have gone throughe the chain of narrations of them and authenticated them. The authentic hadithes can be found in diffrent collections, here for example. In one of those collections one can say x whent to home and ate a burger. the next hadith in the other part of the collection says that after x ate his burger, he whent to work.

Now, is it original research if i make a article that claims x whent home, ate a burger and then when to work?

In manny cases even puting the hadithes together is done in diffrent biograhis of the sahaba. Manny of this event simply would not fitt in a article biography of muhammad, since everything he did is recorded.

However, they are relvant, specialy while doing the biography of the sahab, in those cases it can be benefitial to link to those events instead of repeting them in every single biography.

Take for example Events with Muhammad: 1. in whose biography should it be included?

• Salman the Persian
• Bilal
• Ammar ibn Yasir
• Suhayb
• Khabbab ibn al-Aratt

This cant be included in Muhammad, that article is to long as it is, however, it can not be included in any of the other biographies eather, since it is Muhammad that is the main character!

Oh, by the way, i found that event in a web site, but al of them dont come from the same website, that what makes it "not a book".

--Striver 8 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

It still is a book as its not a compendium see above. Just because they come from different sources doesn't mean its not a book... just a multi-souced book. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 9, 2005 00:12 (UTC)

transwiki to WikibooksOk, im convinced about that argument, lets move it to .. was it wikibooks ?

--Striver 9 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)

hmm.. on second tough, i disagree... i ... i mean, i source says.... a event took place at 1, 5 and 7 am, a second source says what happened at 2, 6 an 9 am, and a third source gives the names, and i combine that in a article that says the events of "1,2,5,6,7 and 9 am + names" is that a book? no. is it original research? no. Its a legitimate article. Thats my view. Im sure they did not find everything in Dog poop girl in one and only source, and that is not transwikied to Wikibooks... conclusion:

• not delet, its a legitimate article, no book, no original reasearch, it a extension of several biographies, if any biography is legit, then the extensions are legit as well.

--Striver

• Delete 10,000 pages of every detail of a man's life, no matter how important, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Neither do a simple series of collected quotes from multiple works. If you were to write an article on, say Muslim views on the Nature of Heaven, and then include the references you have now in Events_with_Muhammad:_2 to demostrate that there would be no elderly people present, then that would be entirely acceptable. There needs be no direct back linking from every Sahaba to every event in which they are involved with.

• Coment I understand what you are saying, but remeber that that hadith carries more issues than that. It need also to be duplicated to Muhammads sense of Humar and also in the biography of the people engaged in the event. In that view, its better to have it in one article and link to it from every other place.

Further, whe are not talking about "10,000 pages of every detail of a man's life", rather "THE man" 1'200'000'000 people try to imitate.

--Striver 23:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I am quite aware of just how import a man he is. However, Wikipedia is not a set of instructions for how to live as a good Muslim. Furthermore, by requiring all of these interlinks, you would be trying to create tens of thousands of pages, each of which would have to link to thousands of other pages detailing every mention of that person, or that event, in any context. And you would be creating at least half of these pages under what are essentially non-sensical, non-searchable, and non-encycoledic titles. This last point is the most relavant here. This VfD refers only to the three pages in question, not to whatever grand designs you may have. And "Events with Muhammad 1, 2, 3 etc... ad infinitum are simply not suitable titles for articles. --Icelight 23:54, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete asap. Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please stop creating this kind of sprawling, pointless, extraneous, poorly written article, brother. This is precisely what we have been complaining about. 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like a poorly written novel, not noteworthy. Feel bad for author wasting time. Amicuspublilius 22:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Folksonomy

Well written article, but it is still non-notable blogger wankery devoid of real content. Just because some self-proclaimed, vain "online journalists" repeat a meme on their web-site in every post doesn't mean it is fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 193.77.153.149 7 July 2005 15:24 (UTC)

• Keep. Has been extensively discussed in a graduate-level library science paper [14] and a Wired article [15], among other sources whose reputability is above that of a "self-proclaimed, vain, 'online journalist.'" 700,000+ hits [16] on Google. The "Examples" section should be either severely trimmed or removed, though; otherwise it verges into web directory territory. If the goal of the section is really just to illustrate examples of folksonomies in action, 2-3 examples should suffice. Chuck July 7, 2005 18:34 (UTC)
• Comment - original nominator. User:193.77.153.149, apparently did not complete VfD process, so I am adding it to today's page. No vote (yet). FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Oh, okay, the anon nominator added it to yesterday's log even though it was VfD'd today (according to the timestamp). Well, I've put it here and deleted it from the 6 July listing. FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful discussion of new topic in information theory, something Wikipedia is uniquely qualified to address in a timely way. betsythedevine 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• Keep and prune example list. From my brief review of the Google results it looks like "folksonomy" has caught on. Besides, Jimbo has been sighted talking about it: [17]. :-) FreplySpang (talk) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

• It's not quite him talking about it, though. :-) KissL 09:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Keep the term exists, and is popping up all over... who cares if bloggers created it, and what difference would that make in any case? I came to Wikipedia today specifically looking for this word because I kept seeing it and didn't know what it meant; I see no reason to delete a term because someone has a problem with the blogosphere and what emerges from it.

First edit by 71.128.137.140 - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC).

• Keep: a newly current term describing an interesting and specific phenomenon of the web, Wikipedia the ideal place to check and indeed develop its definition. Why on earth delete?

First edit by Ashtreex - Aaron Brenneman 8 July 2005 10:58 (UTC).

• Keep: tagging is just taking off. While I'm not fond of the word "folksonomy" to describe tagging, more and more people do use it.

anonymous comment from User:63.150.49.66. —Stormie 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: this is useful stuff Sbwoodside 00:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: i am kind of astonished that someone would vote to destroy this article. it is a fascinating idea no matter who the 'wankers' are that overuse the word. imagine if the oxford english dictionary had failed to insert words that it considered 'used only by wankers'? i heard people talking about this word as an alternative to library of congress classification and the only reason i was able to find out wtf it meant, quickly, was because i looked it up on my old standby, wikipedia.

anonymous comment from User:70.185.250.195. —Stormie 13:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: While I hate neologisms like blogosphere and folksonomy, the concept is certainly relevant to a significant web population and should remain as an article. The list of examples is too messy, in my opinion (though I cleaned it up a bit). Nobi 10:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a useful page that givesa good into to a topic coming up in lots of settings including higher ed...and students love wikipedia so it is great to find the concept included here.
• Weak Keep per FreplySpang, though I'm disgusted by all this sockpuppetry. KissL 09:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: While this article needs editing, it describes a real phenomenon that is gathering significant momentum.
• Keep: Not the nicest neologism, with a potentially difficult international life, and lack of multilingual equivalents, but one that gives a name to an important alternative to traditional classification systems. David.orban 19:00 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: until now, the only people who have heard of this new term are people who actively depend on it daily, therefore other people outside of the realm of influence can't really apprieciate what it stands for or what it defines. please be in a habit of investigating a term before just impulsively disqualifying it.
• Stong Keep: Important topic; weak justification of ignoring it.Paul.Wicks
• Strong Keep: The term Folksonomy has risen quickly into the lime-light. The page may need some adjustment of content and some clarification but there should be an entry for Folksonomy within the Wikipedia ( if for no other reason than to prevent the Marketeers from taking it over)
• Strong Keep: This is a real and important phenomenon. I am citing it in an academic paper right now --Aaron Krowne 04:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sockpuppets have convinced me. Gamaliel 04:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: the term has been used and the concept employed so extensively by reputable and relevant sources such as (for example) the Guardian newpaper (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/global/whatisfz.html) that it cannot plausibly be dismissed merely because some people haven't heard of it or apply an ad hominem objection to some other, arguably less reputable sources having used the term or employed the concept also.
• Keep: supporting terms will be defined over time Rossmay
• Keep. I hadn't heard it before, but 387,000 google hits is enough for me. Shanes 20:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but send to heavy cleanup. Needs a fairly extensive rewrite or enhancement and possibly some trimming of the examples (they may need their own page). --TNLNYC 22:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a soap box, or a collection of neologisms, and this violates all three. →Raul654 01:04, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Term is used widely. Rrreese 01:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary - the voting is overwhelmingly in favour of "keep", and the article has improved considerably in the last seven days. I propose removing this from VFD in 72 hours, unless someone can provide a compelling reason to continue this debate.Manning 01:27, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, it's overwhelmingly keep because of the blatant sockpuppetry going on. →Raul654 01:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I respect your position Raul, but I'm personally satisfied that there is something of substance here. However I'm happy to leave it on VFD though - was just trying to clean some stuff up. I'll just keep watching and allow the discussion to continue. Manning 01:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know if it is so much sockpuppery as it is just lots of different people coming here after minor publick attention. See here. Don't see anything wrong with that, though. Shanes 01:54, 15 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 merge back into Nikla Tesla, from which this was forked, and delete this. CDC (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla's Tributes and honors

Consists of text duplicated from main article. Allowing sub-page would only encourage grotesque lengthening William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 20:59:30 (UTC)

• yet more excess Tesla-phila (he was a great chap, yes, but doesn't deserve this slavish adulation) William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 21:03:16 (UTC).
• Delete. Jesus, people, JUST WRITE A NIKOLA TESLA ARTICLE. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:18 (UTC)
• delete too much already Merge with tesla, but trimmed. It only should be in one place Salsb 7 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

Note - Just to let ppl know that this was split off from the main Tesla article because some individuals (like William M. Connolley, among others) was complaining about the article size. Now that it's split off, he'd like to delete it (Salsb seems to be editing with the same POV). It belongs either in the Tesla article or as an individual article. Dcarrano, that was what was tried and because there are ppl which edit with a anti-Tesla POV, they take the information out. 216.185.232.203 8 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Keep/Merge, this should be merged back into the main Nikola Tesla article, but if not it should be kept because Nikola Tesla is very notable. For example won the IEEE Edison Medal, and a 2.8 Gigawatt Powerplant is named after him. He is also the only IEEE Fellow on a National Currency. The Amount of anti-tesla bias on the talk page of the main article is sad. Klonimus 8 July 2005 09:40 (UTC)

Ahem... for the notice of those last two people ***the information is already in the Tesla Article***. Its been split off into its own subpage, whilst being retained in the article too! Does that make sense? No. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 11:20:05 (UTC).

No it's not in the article, it has been removed. What I'm saying is that the contents of this article should be merged back into the main article. Klonimus 8 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Ah, OK, fine: thats exactly my position. No one is suggessting that the text should leave wikipedia (perhaps trim a trifle...). When I put up this VFD, it was in the Tesla article as well. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 19:04:49 (UTC).

• Delete, that's overkill on one particular person. Tesla is notable but this is trivial. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Quick note to admins, I'm in the process of merging this back into the main Nikola Tesla Article. Please let this stay up for a bit. Klonimus 9 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

• Delete title, merge content back into main article. -Willmcw 23:02, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Snow Raven

I have no clue what this is. I abstain from voting. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

• delete UkPaolo 7 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
• keep It's no different from having individual articles for each Vampire:_The_Masquerade clan or Warhammer 40,000 race. Microtonal 7 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 21:39 (UTC)
• Delete Bad precedents don't make good policy. --Wetman 7 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)
  • What makes it a bad precedent? Please be specific. Microtonal 8 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
• Delete, and this reads like it's copy/pasted from a book or website except for the intro paragraph. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 13:43 (UTC)
• keep it isn't cut and pasted, i wrote it all myself, and only intro paragraph reads the way it does becuase it is the most recently written section. the reason this article is so large is because this is my own faction and i wrote it first. it was my intention to write articles for all the other factions as well, time permiting. which reminds me, i need to register an account. -the offending party
• Keep I see no reason for this page to be deleted, and no reason has been stated. --Goog July 8, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
• Keep per Microtonal. KissL 09:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This looks like a classic clan advert for an MMORPG. Convinve me otherwise, and I may change my vote. Wikipedia isn't the place for these. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 09:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)}
• keep advertisement for a MMORPG, i don't know where you got that from, but anyway, that isn't the case. the Snow Ravens are a little-known faction in the science fiction boardgame that had its heyday back in the late 80s, know as Battletech (for those who want proof it exists, go to www.classicbattletech.com ). there are online games for Battletech, but not like WoW or Everquest or such; one, MegaMek is essentially an electronic representation of the boardgame and another (which name eludes me) is like the Battletech version of Space Empires. oh and there's the Mechwarrior games. well long story short Battletech, which many long thought to be at death's door has come back to life (the gaming community that is) and more source material was produced, wherein, a little-known faction known as the Snow Ravens, have gone from being nobodys to well, a a fairly well known faction lets say. i have a great affinity for this faction, and i wrote an article that was so well-written that much to my own amusement, it was mistaken as copied from a book. Snow Ravens are notorious for talking, and so i chose to write not only the article for them first (as opposed to the other Clans) btu also make it the biggest, because their reputation for garrulousness has gotten to be pretty bad these days. i apologize. still, it would be nice if someone would tell me what i did wrong in the first place, geez, everyone is so mysterious around here. - the offending party
• keep There's no precedent I can find for deleting a wikipage concerning a fairly popular subgroup of a fictional property--that being the Battletech and Mechwarrior universe. This being a very informative page and there being little to no substance whatsoever in accusations of delete-worthy offenses, I see no reason to Delete. --Sennou Yukari. 12:01, 15 July 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 speedy deleted. CDC (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick neuman

I'm working overtime today. In case you've seen my other VfDs. Anyway...obvious vanity. Delete. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:12 (UTC) I already speedied this. Entire contents were: "A pretty nice guy from Toronto, Canada". DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jew York Times

This article was speedy-deleted back in May. The speedy-delete was opposed and the article recreated. The person recreating the article tried to follow the right practice and immediately created the VfD discussion page. Unfortunately, the page never got posted to a VfD day-page. On 7 July, someone asked on VfD Talk that this discussion be closed because "It's been up for vfd for 2 months now." Not realizing that the discussion was never posted for community discussion, it was incorrectly closed. As a procedural matter, I am re-opening the discussion and posting it to the current day page. The 5 day discussion clock starts now. Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an offensive name, but I have described that.EdwinHJ | Talk 00:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You created an article, immediately listed it for VfD yourself and then voted against deletion?! Joe D (t) 00:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I listed it VfD so it would not be speedy deleted. EdwinHJ | Talk 00:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This article has been listed and speedy deleted before. Monkeyman 23:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete freestylefrappe 19:35, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. For what it's worth the current publisher of the NYT is neither Jewish nor a Zionist, his family which owned the paper in previous generations were anti-zionist Jews. Also, the NYTimes effectively buried reports of the Holocaust because they were afraid of being labeled as "too Jewish" - a discussion of this situation is very interesting and belongs on the main New York Times article, a few sentences on an epithet is not helpful to anybody. GabrielF 17:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete soon. Agree with GabrielF, discussion of this should be in the NYT article, not in a seperate article. Ground Zero 7 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a dictionary definition. Recommend against transwiki because I can find no evidence that it is in common use. Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
• (comment restored from edit conflict) You did not follow the proper procedure for listing an article for VfD. Please follow the procedure outlined at WP:VFD. --ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
• Delete. --ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
• Delete (and sorry for deleting it without it going through vfd properly) Dunc|☺ 7 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Delete not-notable slur CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 21:22 (UTC)
• Delete FearÉIREANNImage:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^{(caint) 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)}
• Delete asap. BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable slur. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)

• Delete. What they all say. —Theo (Talk) 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:27 (UTC)
• 588 Google hits. Not only should it be deleted, but I'm not sure the factoid of this slur is even worth mentioning in New York Times. -- Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Delete. My guess is that this is just plain wrong...if it's not, then it's certainly not noteworthy. The slurs (usually though, it's just good-natured ribbing, and often from Jews) I've heard are Jew York City and New York Jewniversity. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 01:27 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Xoloz 8 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable slur. 69.196.8.106 8 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
• Oy vey, delete this meshuggene article. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 8 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)
  • hahaha. Vote Yes for Angr for honorary admission to the WikiCabal! :-p Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 06:46 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and POV. ~~~~ 00:43, 12 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. CDC (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth katanos

No google hits on this supposed killer of Luke Skywalker. Fanfiction, presumably--not for Wikipedia. Meelar (talk) July 7, 2005 21:15 (UTC)

• Delete, fanfic/nonsense. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 21:31 (UTC)
• Delete - fiction CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
• Delete. Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic. Jaxl 7 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
• Delete Personal nonsense. --Wetman 7 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
• Delete. One man's fantasy. -- BD2412 ^talk July 8, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.virginiabeats.net

Clearly advertising, non-notable - Aaron Hill July 7, 2005 08:39 (UTC)

• Spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
  • Not quite, see WP:CSD. --ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, ad. --ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

[edit] Flameviper12

Vanity, NN. ArmadniGeneral 7 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)

• Speedy delete--naryathegreat | (talk) July 7, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted as newbie test/nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 8 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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. CDC (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damian Montero

More vanity DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Xoloz 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. ColoradoZ July 8, 2005 03:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Norris

A story about a guy with "cult status" in some particular school. Unverifiable, non-notable. CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I'm not sure what's going on with all the redirects, but this article has about 0 verifiability. If it were provably true, even then I would suggest merging it into the school article to which it applies.

• Vote by FabioB (talk · contribs) -- Wikibofh 7 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

• Vanity, unverified. Delete, also delete the chain of four redirects leading to this article. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)

Done A curate's egg 8 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. Vanity. Wikibofh 7 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)
• Delete --FCYTravis 8 July 2005 00:35 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity. DS1953 July 8, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
• Delete nn, ridiculous. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
• Delete- someone had removed the vfd tag A curate's egg 8 July 2005 09:09 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted at creator and only editor's request. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)

[edit] Scientist fun

This is - err - fun and all, but is not an encyclopedia article. CDC (talk) 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 7 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
• Delete. Thunderbrand July 7, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't understand ... it's NPOV, verifiable, not a copyvio; this is a sterling example of wikipedia should be. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
• Keep -of course I'd vote this way being the originator, but let me try to justify. This is fun, it's not meant to be 'just fun'. An extensive list compiled by a variety of people both scientists and non-scientists has the potential to give a true insight into the life of a scientist, beyond the usual "dry" descriptions of laboratory work. It is my intention to take the input I receive in this article and to use it to write a wikipedia article on a "life in science" that includes not only the dry and rational aspects, but also the fun and offbeat aspects. So while this may not be an encyclopedia article per se, it is still a useful list. Furthermore, I can't see how it qualifies for any of the deletion categories under Wikipedia's current deletion policies. Whether it would under the proposed policies is arguable. It's not like I'm some vandal or something. Check my other contributions. Synaptidude 7 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does qualify for deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia articles are not "personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic." (Yes, your contribution is funny and can be preserved at WP:BJAODN, but it is in no way encyclopedic.) - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
• But it is neither a personal essay nor is it intended to state my personal opinion. It is intended to collect an encyclopedic list for purposes previously described. Synaptidude 7 July 2005 23:05 (UTC)
• Merge with My amusing pastimes with a scientific air. --Wetman 7 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic nonsense. ColoradoZ July 7, 2005 23:15 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not the place to write humorous essays, administer surveys or compile research. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 23:45 (UTC)

• Delete. Attempt at humorous essay. No idea why scientist equals plays with chemicals in the author's mind, either. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 01:14 (UTC)
• Delete & BJAODN - Sorry, you may have meant well, but this is not encyclopedia material. Firstly, based on what you say, it constitutes original research. Secondly whatever you say, it is, and only has the potential to be, a list of jokes. Wikipedia only has facts - and if they are facts, they are highly POVified. It's already listed on BJAODN so delete. (And we don't think you're a vandal). —EatMyShortz 8 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

• • OK, I bow to the wisdom of the community at large. Since no one else has added to the article, I believe I can request it's removal as the original authour. So: I acknowlege that I made a mistake in posting this article, and hereby request that it be deleted. Put it out of its misery. Synaptidude 8 July 2005 04:45 (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 deleted already. Woohookitty 07:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 60 Second Assassin

Not notable. delete UtherSRG July 7, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

• Was copyvioed and author removed the banner. The same author has been creating a large number of copy-paste articles with no context, and has ignored talk page warnings. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim musicians

This page has just been created, and then moved/automatically-redirected to a propper new name (:Muslim musicians from Egypt). Please note that this was a new "article" not the "category" with the same name; to which it, old & new, is/are sub-linked). Md7t 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

• Delete, Muslim musicians from Egypt article can stand on its own. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 23:47 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork, duplicate content. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clayton James Cubitt

Phewww! Did somebody open up a big can o' Promotchurass? Something in here really stinks of it. Could it be the tone of the article, or that his personal site & WP are hits 1-3 on Google, or the effective-self-promoter feel of other hits, or the not quite 3500 hits on

"Clayton James Cubitt"

-- wait, no, "146 of about 3,490"? In any case, for n-n & apparent self-promo, nominated and vote of Del. --Jerzy·t 2005 July 7 22:02 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, the person who posted the article orginally also posted 8 or 9 other articles on other photographers, so I doubt that at least originally the article was self promotion. As to the subsequent edits, who knows. Regardless, I followed several of the links and it does seem that he is a relatively notable photographer. I don't know what number of Google hits should be expected from a fashion photographer, but it seems that the quality of the links was pretty good (not Wikipedia mirrors or link farms but real sites and blogs). DS1953 July 7, 2005 23:05 (UTC)
• Delete 146 - nontability not established, self promotion. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
• Comment Those who consider the content relevant evidence of the intent to self promote will want to check the article history since VfD-tagging, since two anon IPs working 5 min apart have since contributed by dialing back the gushing.

--Jerzy·t 2005 July 9 10:28 (UTC)

• Keep Alleged vanity status not adeqately demonstrated. CalJW 23:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DS1953. KissL 10:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Atkins

NN, vanity Marked for VfD as it is clearly non notable (probably false) vanity. - FabioB 7 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Delete clearly vanity - ColoradoZ July 7, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)

Delete Vanity. nn. -- BMIComp (talk)

Delete nn Friday 7 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

• Delete vanity with a capital ewww. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, guys, a friend wrote this about me. I think it was supposed to be a joke. In any case, I am absolutely for a deletion. Please. Please, please, please destroy this. -- batkins

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 06:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:An1990

All-caps spam, same content as ELASTICOS SELECTOS. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

• Umm...if user talk pages can be deleted in this fashion, then Delete. --ArmadniGeneral 8 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)
• Based on this user's other articles and the deletion discussions for them, he doesn't appear to have any interest in further legitimate contributions to Wikipedia. As this could be construed as advertising, and there's no big loss if this talk page goes away, I'll say Delete unless the user objects. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 01:17 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's his own page, who cares what he has on it. Cyclone49 8 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
• Keep. It must have something to do with the user. It should be moved to his user page in this case. I don't see this as inappropriate in the user space. KissL 10:31, 12 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. CDC (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zodezine

Heck, I like charity organizations but is this organization notable to be in Wikipedia? It failed the Google test miserably. Results 1 - 2 of 2 for Zodezine. (0.21 seconds). Reasons for nomination: Not notable and possible vanity. Krystyn Dominik 7 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

• Delete nn. KissL 10:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Lau

No notability established. There may be notable persons with this name, but not the subject of the article. --Tabor 7 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

• Delete. Last sentence gives the game away. David | Talk 7 July 2005 23:01 (UTC)
• Delete obvious vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Invisible? Is he some kind of superhero? --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 8 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish economic law

Unwikified antisemitic nonsense. Bears some resemblance to the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. David | Talk 7 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

• Delete yesterday disgusting bit of anachronistic jew-baiting. Grow up and join the human race. ColoradoZ July 7, 2005 23:23 (UTC)
• Delete, reprehensible. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 23:50 (UTC)
• Speedy this antisemitic rubbish please. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 23:51 (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. Woohookitty 21:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loreot A. Juelar

A vanity page. This guy's a nobody. Hathawayc July 7, 2005 23:25 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)
• Delete Hopefully, will be eligible for speedy soon, but I don't think it is now. Xoloz 8 July 2005 03:04 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 8 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Fist of Fun. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Quinlank

Nominated as a speedy for 'personal nonsense'. It is not nonsense - the character was real but unfortunately the article didn't state the context. I have removed the Speedy notice and transferred to VFD without prejudice (but see below). David | Talk 7 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

• Keep. Borderline case but I would say he is a notable character; just needs context. David | Talk 7 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
• Delete. Or, failing that redirect somewhere. We get all sorts of stuff liek this, but no article on Captain Ahab. -R. fiend 8 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
  • Were the outcome of this VFD to be a merge and redirect, the obvious target would be Fist of Fun. David | Talk 8 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
• Merge to Fist of Fun. KissL 10:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hooper

Vanity page. Nine Google hits give the manager of a postcard advertising company in County Dublin, Ireland. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 7 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 7 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Clear vanity. Forbsey 8 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive Bloggers

Old VfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers2

Not notable Skrewler 01:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alexa ranking is 760,324. --Joel7687 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - There was an acrimonious debate over this entry just a few months ago, I see no good reason to revisit the subject. - SimonP 02:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vote pending further review (see below) Despite claims that they're important in the political scene (on the talk page) in Canada, I find no actual media coverage to that effect. If they're as important as the New York Times (again a claim from the talk page) you'd think there'd be at least ONE reference to them on Google News... but alas, nothing. Doesn't really seem to be many comments at all to blog entries, suggesting not a large community. Low Alexa rank. Nothing to suggest there's a reason to have an article. --W.marsh 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone can verify the claim of their importance, then I'd quite possibly change my vote. But claims alone != proof. --W.marsh 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oh god, not this again. What a pain in the ass this debate was last time. All sorts of newbies and anons and arguments and name calling. Someone even claimed that deleting the article would harm polticial debate in Canada. Anyway, nominal delete, because that's how I voted last time, and I don't think anyone ever convinced me otherwise. -R. fiend 04:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please keep in mind non-American systemic bias identified in Wikipedia. Using Alexa ranks to support deletion of non-American entries is a biased situation, because of the low national populations of other countries compared to the US (Canada has 1/10th the population).--Simon.Pole 05:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then divide the rank by 10 (or even 50) and it doesn't meet the proposed guidelines of WP:WEB. By your logic any non-US site, no matter how trivial, should be included. --W.marsh 05:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Should Alexa rankings even be applied to websites outside the United States? It seems that the criteria for Alexa "notability" is based on the U.S. experience. This in itself should exclude its application to non-US sites.--Simon.Pole 06:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • This is largely a discussion for elsewhere... but I don't think Alexa is just U.S. thing. Maybe an english-speaking thing, but I think it's a pretty valid barometer of the popularity of english-language sites. At any rate the site being in Canada doesn't account for it having a rank 50 times lower than the WP:WEB guideline. But traffic is just one part of the decision here... I was just a bit bothered that it's unreliability was the only reason you cited for keeping. The lack of any real verification of this blog's importance is much more at issue, I think. --W.marsh 06:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Alexa is a self-selected sample, suffering from selection bias and the results are highly suspicious to someone with my statistical training. I can think of all kinds of reason why Canadian leftie blogger audiences would be more likely to chose not to install spyware on their computer. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The bottom line is that it's a valid ballpark estimate of traffic... not accurate enough for most statistical purposes, but enough to estimate popularity. Even Slashdot, the poster site for the anti-IE/Anti-spyware mentality, gets a high rank and has double digits of IE/Windows-using readers. But this is an argument beyond the scope of this AfD I think. --W.marsh 06:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. -- As notable as my mother. (she's not unless you have a list of porn stars with huge tits) 65.34.232.136 05:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh but we do!. -R. fiend 05:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Still, those actresses are more notable than Progressive Bloggers. Skrewler 05:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do we really need to list every blogging group on wikipedia? And if you start saying that there's a lot of American blogger groups entries in wikipedia, please point them out so I can VFD them as well. --Timecop 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable blogging group in Canada. Simon.Pole made it quite evident in the last AfD discussion that this site is politically notable in Canada with a fairly large number of media citations, notable memebers, etc. Luigizanasi 06:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a link to any of those media citations? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to be informed. I can't find the references, I've looked. --W.marsh 06:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Alot of the references were in the last vfd, and are actually collected in the Progressive Bloggers entry. I'll list some of them here though:
      • Role of Canadian blogging groups, including Progressive Bloggers on the Gurmant Grewal national political controversy discussed on [CTV]
      • Progressive Blogger member Dominion Daily weblog entered in the Parliamentary record during a constitutional debate by Seantor Anne Cools.
      • Columnist Antonia Zerbisias at Canada's highest circulation paper the Toronto Star regularly cites Progressive Bloggers as a source of news and ideas eg. 1, 2
      • Progressive Bloggers includes notable Canadians as members. These include pop star Matthew Good, Young Liberal Executive Co-Chair Jason Cherniak, and candiates for Parliament from the national parties including NDP member Crystal Leblanc.
      • The Progressive Bloggers "opposite number" the Blogging Tories, has almost the same qualities, including national public figures members like Adam Dafallah, national party candidates like Stephen Taylor and a good number of sitting MPs like Monte Solberg,Jeremy Harrison,Steven Fletcher, Jeff Watson and Andrew Scheer. Blogging groups, both left and right-wing, have national political signicance in Canada, something, judging by the reactions of non-Canadians, does not exist elsewhere --Simon.Pole 07:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for that information, I've retracted my vote for now and will review those further when I get time tomorrow. --W.marsh 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a no-brainer in the Canadian media; this site is used as part of any good barometer of Canadian public opinion. Deleting this article would be a mistake, and I think significantly demonstrates an offhand US systemic bias on Wikipedia. It *is* tantamount to saying that Canadian political debate (which naturally contains a lot of debate about US policy, for reasons any Canadian would see as obvious) is irrelevant. As a Canadian, I'm inclined to object to that. References to PB or 'Canadian Blogosphere' as 'non-notable' here seem to be offhand and poorly informed. I don't hesitate to say that an American isn't going to be naturally inclined to make an informed choice about this. There are, after all, only 30 million Canadians. . . for US perspective, that's NYC and surrounding areas, and we're a pretty politically splintered group. That said, the Alexa rankings make perfect sense, and actually don't justify deletion based on overall popularity. Overall popularity among whom? Americans interested in Canadian political scandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.129.117 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep for the above reasons. --Merovingian 07:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Anybody who seriously wants to base a deletion argument on Alexa ranking alone needs to ponder these numbers very carefully. Every one of these is a legitimately notable and important Canadian media outlet or blogger whose actual importance within Canada is completely unreflected by its Alexa rank:

Rabble - Alexa ranking 112,658

The Tyee - Alexa ranking 114,045

Colby Cosh's blog - Alexa ranking 263,925

Andrew Coyne's blog - Alexa ranking 360,265

This Magazine - Alexa ranking 818,198

• And hey, let's save the funniest for last, shall we? Rick Mercer's blog gets an Alexa ranking of 3,439,915. RICK MERCER, one of the most influential Canadian media personalities in existence, only ranks in the 3,000,000 range? Excuse me?
  Any metric which ranks all websites on a single scale is inherently going to favour American website traffic to the expense of other countries, and can quite easily misrepresent the actual importance of a non-American site to its own national context. Alexa is simply not a reliable gauge of a Canadian website's importance within Canada -- it's a reliable gauge of how many Americans visit a Canadian website. If a site as undeniably important as Rabble can't even meet the stated guidelines, then there's something seriously wrong with the guidelines. Every Canadian voter in this debate has clearly stated that Progressive Bloggers are notable enough. If our actual experience doesn't overrule the obviously flawed metric of a website whose statistical method isn't even regarded as valid by professional statisticians, then why don't we just let Alexa ranking stand as a speedy criterion and save everybody the trouble of thinking their opinion actually mattered or something? Notable enough within Canada to keep. Bearcat 07:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because something is supposedly notable in Canada and not in the rest of the world doesn't mean it deserves it's own article. Should a country of similar importance, say.. Christmas Csland had a blog group be notable because everyone on christmas island reads it.. of course not. Also, because blogs are webcentric, Alexa is a good metric for their notability. Of course using Alexa as a metric for Time Magazine doesn't make any sense. Skrewler 09:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - This is ludicrous. User: Skrewler, who put this article in Vfd in the first place, has just admitted that the criteria for notability is the United State of America. What a joke. Are non-American to be treated as second class citizens on Wikipedia?--Simon.Pole 16:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Christmas Island is hardly a country "of similar importance" to Canada. And Alexa is only a good metric of how many Americans read a website. Citing Alexa without context is essentially endorsing an "American stuff is automatically more notable than any other country's stuff just because it's American" policy. Bearcat 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable/trash Adamn 08:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the first two sources cited by W.Marsh. Include them in the article if they're not there yet. (If Alexa doesn't show the notability of a website, one should not complain about US bias, but find alternative means to back up its inclusion) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blogcruft and canuckcruft. Dottore So 10:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Whatever else we have is always an argument by analogy. Looking at this article, we get unverifiable claims and, essentially, an ad for a particular blog. Blug. If there is a systemic bias, it's the bias created by slashdotted votes whenever a forum/blog/website comes up for deletion. Geogre 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  13:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm sick of these far-right yahoos trying to crush the opposition with dirty-pool tactics like this.Dawg9:10, 15 November 2005 [DST]
  • This is not a war. I could care less if you're left or right, frankly I don't even know the difference. This is a not notable article promoting a blog. That's why it's on VFD.
    • Right. Which is why you've moved to delete Blogging Tories too. I must have missed that.
• Delete, not notable. Fer real. I don't care what country you're in, if nobody reads your website even adjusted for population, your website's not notable. Although, I dunno, maybe I'm just ruthlessly promoting systemic bias against the country I'm from. Lord Bob 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And how exactly do you propose to judge that "nobody reads the website even adjusted for population"? Bearcat 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no certain measurements at hand, of course, but the evidence listed above by others is circumstantial but, in the situation, persuasive. I choose not to assume that, lacking evidence, this blogger group is notable because they say so. Lord Bob 17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Lacking evidence? The evidence already presented in the article is fairly substantial; if you can't see it, Simon.Pole summarized some of it above. Do you seriously find anybody else's argument-by-Alexa-rank persuasive in light of the fact that a blog as widely read and talked about as Rick Mercer's doesn't even manage to rank in the top 3,000,000 according to Alexa? Or were you just asleep during the whole Gurmant Grewal thing? Bearcat 18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I've read the article, and the "evidence" does not impress me. And as for Mr. Mercer's blog doing so poorly...guess what? As a blogger, Rick Mercer is not notable. As an actor, he is. Just because a famous person's blog isn't notable doesn't mean that all traffic rankings are crap. Lord Bob 18:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          • "Not impressing you" is not generally my bottom-line metric of notability. Its role in the Grewal affair spells notability whether that personally interests you or not. Citations by Antonia Zerbisias spell notability whether that personally interests you or not. And I'm most certainly not conflating Mercer's significance as an actor with his significance as a blogger; his blog, specifically, is one of the most-talked-about Canadian blogs on the web. Unless you're proposing that it's somehow possible for people to talk about Rick Mercer's blog as much as they do without anybody ever actually reading it, the dichotomy just doesn't do Alexa any favours. Bearcat 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, if my reasons for deletion don't impress you, then that's too bad, one fewer 'delete' vote on this AfD. But I stand by them, and we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Clearly, neither one of us is going to convince the other. Lord Bob 18:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd be more impressed if you were actually attempting to address and/or refute the stated facts — how does PB's role in the Grewal affair not equal notability? how do regular citations by Antonia Zerbisias not equal notability? how does citation in the Parliamentary debate record by Anne Cools not equal notability? etc. — instead of relying on the "because I said so" school of assertion. But whatever floats your boat, I suppose. Bearcat 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • (So much for me agreeing to disagree!) Anyway, regarding citations: in my opinion notable people citing you does not automatically confer notability onto you. Said citations are not mentioned on the Wikipedia article on Progressive Bloggers, incidentally. And their role in the Grewal thing seems, to me, almost trivial. As in, the only mention of Grewal in their article is in the 'trivia' section. Actually investigating what role they seem to have played bears this out...ooh, look out, one of them made what amounted to a diff. Notability is a subjective issue, we all know that. And I do not think these guys meet it. Lord Bob 19:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Both Blogging Torries and Progressive Bloggers enable Canadian web users to access blogging communities of like minded individual. These communities enable anyone to engage in a common forum across Canada where ideas and politics can be shared and critiqued. Without these blogs, Canadians from the grassroots to the top would not have a central online source to measure what other like minded individuals think on topics important to them. This in my opinion makes them notable. --Jtorgers 19:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  user's second edit, has only editted this AfD. Lord Bob 19:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I have a feeling this might not be the only new user we're tagging today, since they're calling out the vote on us. Lord Bob 19:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah this really is getting needlessly nasty. While I think the site is probably notable at this point, the attitudes and actions of the people supporting it (who all appear to be connected to the site) really don't make me want to vote to keep. Trolling for votes, acting like it's some big conspiracy against Canada, labeling critics as "The Vile Syndicate" in various places... that's not going to endear many people to your blog. I guess some don't care though. --W.marsh 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Case in point right there... geeeeeeeeeeze. I'm trying to agree with you and still just get abuse. --W.marsh 20:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The nastiness is being perpetrated by this "Lord Bob" guy, a self-admitted supporter of the Canadian Conservative Party, who has crawled out of the woodwork in the midst of election fever in Canada, and is doing his party-hack thing right here. Nothing from "Lord Bob" about the notability of the Blogging Tories entry. This kind of thing is another reason to fear the election of Stephen Harper: rabid intolerance, intellectual dishonesty and a love of censorship. Don't take my word for it: read "Lord Bob."John Baglow 15:11, 15 November 2005 (DST)
      • ...riiiiiiiight. Lord Bob 20:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • John and Simon, would you both please tone down the rhetoric and keep this discussion on topic? This isn't about bombing or war, and it's not a nefarious Tory plot to sideline progressive discussion. It's just a debate about whether or not the article is notable enough on its own merits; the argument is easily made without resorting to ad hominem attacks. And while it is true that a single contextless Alexa-rank cutoff can distort the notability of a non-American site, it's not a conscious and intentional plot to institute American bias; it's just an accidental side effect of a policy that wasn't designed carefully enough. So would you guys cut out the conspiracy theories and stay on topic, please? Bearcat 21:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Well said! Lord Bob 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for saying that, seriously. --W.marsh 22:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. I needed that. What is Blogging Tories' Alexa rating, btw? John Baglow 17:44, 15 November 2005 (DST)
            • Sorry. W.marsh called me out. He was actually citing my user page in this vfd, which I took as a personal attack. So I replied in spirit. I'll keep it professional in the future.--Simon.Pole 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry you took my quoting you that way... that wasn't my intent. I was just responding to how I perceived this discussion/situation. --W.marsh 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Non-notable except to the people who write in it. And the puppets? Eeeww. Ifnord 21:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If this goes, Daily Kos -- which is directly comparable to this in both purpose and level of influence within its specific political context -- will have to be considered deletable per precedent. Bearcat 21:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, bearcat, maybe you should VfD Daily Kos yourself, you have my vote! Skrewler 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're the one who thinks these things aren't notable, not me. Sarcasm duly noted, though; can you actually explain to me why Daily Kos is notable enough for an article but a site serving the exact same function in another country isn't? Bearcat 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Femmina
• Keep - Notable group of Canadian bloggers. Bloggers are becoming increasingly influential and Wikipedia should maintain a comprehensive coverage of significant bloggers and groups. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. 86.139.205.160 23:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  User:86.139.205.160's first edit. Two other edits on another political blog AFD. Luigizanasi 03:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is clearly NOT notable. --Impi.za 00:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  user's eleventh edit, has only edited AfDs. Lord Bob 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it real

  vote by 207.200.116.66 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as blogcruft, and I say this as neither an American or a Canadian. I'm leaning towards individual country "blogosphere" (shudder) articles as weak keeps, but any subset NO unless there's a damn good reason. (CC of my Blogging Tories vote cos I don't want to sound biased) - Randwicked 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't believe much of the opinion that goes on there, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it.Semperf 02:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. One of Wikipedia's recognised strengths is that it is up-to-date, especially on recent phenomena. We have articles on every single imaginable video game, most music albums you care to mention, practically every single piece of software out there, a number of usenet newsgroups, Wikipedia did better than the regular news media on recent events such as the London bombings and Hurricane Katrina, and so on. Where else but Wikipedia can people find hopefully neutral information on the recent and increasingly important phenomenon of blogging, especially political blogs, which are not neutral by their very nature. NPOV articles on Blogging groups (not necessarily individual blogs, mind you), perform a vital service to the world at large. Luigizanasi 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The deletion of this entry appears to be part of an organized effort among several users to erase all blog-related entries from Wikipedia. The organizing list is here. I've noted elsewhere that they even put J.D. Lasica's entry up for deletion. If that alone doesn't show a profound ignorance about what is actually happening in the world, well, they must be in high demand for jury duty.--Simon.Pole 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that User:Timecop has proclaimed a "War on Blogs" on his user page. His user page also says that he is a leader of the Gay Nigger Association of America. The GNAA is a notorious group of organzied trolls on the internet, who actually forced Slashdot to go their original karma system because of unrelenting spam. Looks like they're targetting Wikipedia now. Great. --Simon.Pole 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This definately a GNAA exercise. User:JacksonBrown who voted delete above had a huge GNAA slogan on his user page that was removed by administators (you can see it here). I don't know what else to say. The GNAA is organizing a mass deletion of blog-related entries. All blog-relate vfd's should be stopped immediately.--Simon.Pole 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Whats with the systemic bias of the GNAA? Skrewler 09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Note: User:Timecop is actually the "President" of the GNAA, as you can see in this "press release" from their website. This whole vfd is a farce.--Simon.Pole 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• You know, I thought it was a bit odd how many sockpuppets were kicking around with nothing but AFD votes on blog articles to their names. I really should've been digging harder. All votes which are identifiably GNAA sockpuppets are to be considered struck from this debate at once. Bearcat 10:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As this is a discussion all "votes" which do not provide a rational are to be considered... oh, wait a second, isn't that the job of the closing admin to decide? Gee, maybe I'd better keep the commands to myself then.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 23:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. --86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Bearcat 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Every political blogger out there wants it's 5 minutes of fame, and wikipedia really isn't a grounds for that. Google's cache is all you really need, not worth writing about, or reading for that matter. --Depakote 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Bearcat
    • How is this user a sockpuppet? Skrewler 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simply not notable. Incognito 13:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Dawg (yep) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? im a sock puppet simply because I agree with the deletion of this article? Can we atleast see some proof of your inane childish accusation? Thank you. -Incognito 13:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Same with this one, what criteria are you using? Skrewler 09:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Anybody calls me a sock... will, um... get socked. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • sockpuppet Dawg (nope...freakofnurture = legit user) Bearcat 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blogcruft. Reyk 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how this would be inherently less notable than Daily Kos in the absence of a "Canadian automatically equals unimportant" criterion. Bearcat 01:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Stop using the "better than the worst article" argument, since pages fall and stand on their own merits, not as a group. If you really think that article does not belong in Wikipedia, nominate it for deletion. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a "better than the worst article" argument. If you think it is, you might want to read a bit more carefully. (Hint: it would be absolutely impossible to even begin formulating a claim that Daily Kos was anything less than an instant keep; I'm asking what makes this different.) Bearcat 05:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Canadian blogosphere, since I went through all of the links provided above, and I could not find any evidence that this site had any overwhelming influence in Canadian politics. That said, I believe the content does deserve a mention in the overall blogosphere site, since as a whole, it does possess more influence than in other countries. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable for anyone who's interested in Canadian blogging, same as Blogging Tories. -- The Invisible Hand 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  user's eighth edit. Lord Bob 08:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep __earth 13:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Slartoff 03:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly more notable than GNAA, which we have an article on. - Nunh-huh 04:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How so? According to Alexa, GNAA is 400,000 while progressive bloggers is 800,000. On top of that, in contrast to progressivebloggers.ca, gnaa's claim to fame is not running their website. Skrewler 05:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it is because being constructive, or being serious, brings notability, or because teenage pranks don't bring notability. Or all three. - Nunh-huh 05:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Canadians seem to be in agreement that this plays a significant role in Canadian politics. That seems sufficien§t to keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If every Conservative had their way the only things posted on Wikipedia, or any other site for that matter, would be Conservative propaganda. HisHighness420
  • Hey fellow tree-hugger. I hate conservatives too! FUCK BUSH!! Hey, lets stomp them out of wikipedia once and for all, let's get rid of Blogging Tories you can vote here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blogging_Tories Thanks, friend.
• Keep Because, as discussed above, this is part of an organised campaign by known trolls. mennonot 17:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Failing that, Merge with Canadian blogosphere. Because, as discussed above, this is part of Progressive Blogger's war on wikipedia. Thank Bob that this is a discussion and not a vote. That means that since there has been no evidence presented that this is important to anyone outside the rabidly incestuous blogging community, it will probably be deleted. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  I choose to believe that you're thanking me. You're welcome! :P Lord Bob 06:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • There's no war on Wikipedia being waged by Progressive Bloggers. There is a war on Wikipedia being waged by a bunch of deletionist trolls called GNAA, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat 17:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Next time I'll use </sarcasm> to make sure that you understand. It's usually the sign of a weak argument to attack the person rather than simply presenting a compelling reason that they are wrong. Anyone who wants to keep this based upon a "campaign" instead of the evidence should have their recomendation completely discounted, as they are not adressing the issue of this article. I don't care if the GNAA are sodomizing nuns in the name of Cthullu, they have their facts correct - this is a non notable blog zealously defended. The fact that we aren't having a calm and measured discussion about facts speaks volumes, but that instead the arguments seem to be "because canadians say so". Both this and the previous AfD are examples of special interest groups shouting down common sense. Be proud, be very proud.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you should go back and read the comments in chronology. It was the GNAA who introduced the irrationality into these discussions by calling arguments "bullshit" and wikipedia entries "retarded."--Simon.Pole 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, the first really irrational entry I see is - Yeah, I really don't care what you Americans think. Trying to impress upon you what is notable in the other countries of the world is up there with taking out the garbage in my book. You can bomb the shit out of other countries, and destroy what they've made -- but that doesn't mean you have to bring that attitude on Wikipedia.--Simon.Pole 20:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
          And you still have failed to adress the basic issues of WP:V and WP:CITE. brenneman^(t)(c) 01:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, there's nothing irrational about that statement. American bombing is a fact, producing many dead facts. Furthermore, when I am accused of seeing "conspiracies against Canada" (the statement this quote responds to) when Wikipedia has clearly identified a systemic bias against non-American entries, I am not the one being irrational. I did not mince words about how unsavoury it is to have to respond to foreigners saying Canadian entries are not notable. Only from an American point of view would this be seen as "irrational." Just as the view that Iraqis might not want Americans occupying their country is "irrational."--Simon.Pole 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin whore

delete one line dic def probable neologism -- pcr^talk 8 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

I think someone could make this a better article. It is not a neologism, Alia in the Dune series was called this.--BirgitteSB July 8, 2005 00:04 (UTC)

• Delete, maybe not literally a neologism but certainly not in frequent enough use to require WP coverage. Dcarrano July 8, 2005 00:33 (UTC)
• Delete non notable phrase, dicdef. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. (Alternatively, transwiki to Cookbook [18] ;)) KissL 10:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Oxymoron at best, neologism at worst. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:22, 15 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.