Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 17

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

[edit] NoHunters

Gaming clan, vfd is questioning the relevance of this article and whether it counts as a vanity page. Firien 08:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable vanity. Feydey 09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I almost put this up for speedy delete, but It didn't meet the Criteria for CSD. Delete on account of vanity. —Kjammer 10:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be some gaming clans that are notable enough for articles of their own, but this isn't one of them. -- Captain Disdain 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Gaming clan with no demonstrable effect on the actual world. (Why do they hunt Japanese theatre actors, anyway?) Geogre 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. K1Bond007 22:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevant information with Starcraft, delete the rest.--Poli 03:57, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Vampire: the Masquerade. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 09:58 (UTC)

[edit] Kindred (vampire)

Extremely minor topic that has no scope to exist beyond a minor stub. Should probably just be merged into the Vampire: the Masquerade article. Cyclone49 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Stage/5848/vtes.htm- they have been the ultimate case for VSU, don't dismiss them that lightly- 'Freezer 10:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no need to expand or merge. Kappa 11:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC). Actually since was linked from a real topic (Kindred) a merge is better. Kappa 21:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Vampire: the Masquerade. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 11:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (a seasoned RPG'er)
• Merge per Francs2000. -- Captain Disdain 12:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (likewise)
• Delete: A fan term for fans about fans, not distinguishable from others. A dictdef. Breaks deletion policy, and I'm surprised at anyone who can know the policy and vote "keep" on this. Geogre 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Just as a note: it's not how fans distinguish themselves, it's actually written into the storyline of Vampire: the Masquerade, which is why I said merge. Not trying to change your mind, just wishing to clarify things a little. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The article is to blame for my misunderstanding, as it seemed to be indicating that there were actual people using the term, rather than fictional ones. The fact could be merged, of course, but I'm not sure the article needs a merge. Geogre 21:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unimportant outside the fiction, and a terrible redirect. The disambig at Kindred could be fixed to just point to Vampire: the Masquerade, if this is actually an important fiction. CDC (talk) 16:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Vampire: the Masquerade. JamesBurns 00:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect (not that there's much to merge...). -Sean Curtin 00:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Really, this should have been edits to two existing articles: More on kindred in the context of the goth/vampire subculture, and a wiki to this in Vampire: the Masquerade. If there were anything noteworthy to merge, I'd agree with you, but there's nothing there, and I see no reason for an article called Kindred (vampire) to redirect anywhere. SwissCelt 01:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 19:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ottavio Quattrocchi

Marked as speedy, changed by me to vfd. Quattrocchi appears to have been a friend of Rajiv Gandhi and an important player in the Bofors Scandal in the 1980s. Uppland 09:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - I don't really have much knowledge on this person or the Scandal in question, so I can't be sure of the notability of the person, but considering the name is spelt wrong anyway it probably should be deleted. Cyclone49 10:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep with rewrite Cyclone49 15:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article (and google results) establish notability. Doesn't seem to be mistitled, but that could easily be solved with a page move. Kappa 10:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He does appear to be notorious enough for inclusion. -- Captain Disdain 12:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Good rewrite Uppland. Geogre 14:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I have gone ahead and made a history only undeletion of the first version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is something odd with the history... on the history page it looks fine, but when I walk through the diffs, the resurrected original version comes second to last. Uppland 08:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm... probably some sort of bug from when I undeleted it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh yes, keep this rewrite by the way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this person is wanted by Interpol. Do not delete this useful information.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was apparently already redirected, but that was the result I was about to call for this one anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:27 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy

• Not notable, vanity, unverifiable. -- The Anome 10:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the contributor of this then blanked the VfD notice: I've put it back. -- The Anome 10:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy delete: Notice those great big copyright symbols and trademark signs? Wonder what they mean? "Fictional" series, not series of fictions, I suspect. Geogre 14:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Turn back into a redirect to Recurring South Park characters: all the links are meant for the South Park character, and I would wager that most of the searches for "Timmy" are intended to find him. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Recurring South Park characters. This doesn't require a disambiguation. Nestea 17:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: If we make it back to a redirect, we're going to need to protect it. Geogre 21:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stupid. Chunitaku 21:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 00:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• What Geogre says also applies if we delete it, indeed doubly so, since in that case there will be a second group of editors trying to write an article about the South Park character. ☺ Revert to Redirect. Uncle G 01:59, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Redirect but it has been already done, anyway.--Poli 03:59, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 03:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Dodd

Some kid whose claim to fame is bumping into Metallica at an airport. I asked the user to verify this information and his only suggestion was that I write to Lars Ulrich directly. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 11:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't hate. Comment by User:163.1.227.76, the article's author.

• Delete. Hate doesn't enter into it. Notability, however, does; even if the story is true, it doesn't make Mr. Dodd important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. At best, this chance meeting would make him into a footnote in some other article or the centerpiece of an anecdote best told somewhere else. -- Captain Disdain 12:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete. I am a huge Metallica fan, and have heard of James Dodd. The importance of the consequences of their chance meeting makes it worthy of inclusion. He was mentioned by Lars in an interview with a drummer magazine, possibily Drum!, and was widely circulated in fan forums a couple of years ago. Jc57 13:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Jc57 (talk · contribs)'s first edit on Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 13:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Please take note to the following WIkepedia guidelines: Please do not bite the newcomers Understand that newcomers are both needed by and of value to the community. By empowering newcomers, we improve the diversity of knowledge, opinions and ideals on Wikipedia, enhance its value and preserve its neutrality and integrity as a resource. Jc57 14:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not biting, just pointing out in a forum that gets more than its fair share of sockpuppetry that you have only just signed up for a user-name. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • By slanderously suggesting I am a mere sockpuppet, you are merely trying to detract attention from some of the skeletons in your own Wikepedia closet, such as the utterly inappropriate page on Glory hole, and the completely unsubstantiated one on Cassandra Latham, and thus the intrinsic lack of repsect other Wikepedians must have for you. Furthemore, this is no place for personal comments, if you have any more defamatory remarks about me, please use a private forum. Jc57 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • There's no need to get personal about it. Pointing out what I did above is a common practice here, simple as that. So you're not a sockpuppet? Fine, end of story. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 14:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither of those pages is inappropriate. Pointing out that your vote was your first edit is not slander; pointing out new users and users with few edits for the benefit of admins counting votes is common practice on VfD. See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 23:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy, perhaps. If he is notable, then the article needs a rewrite. Sonic Mew 14:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Bite them? No, they don't taste good. However, some newcomers attempt to learn the policies and comply. Others stamp their feet and start vandalizing. The former should be welcomed and showered with wikilove. The latter should be shown the door that leads to GameFAQs or Everything2 or something else. The article is vanity and its subject is not encyclopedic. (How many people who are not Metallica fans have run into them at the airport, I wonder. Should they be included? Can we have a List of people who have touched Metallica members?). Geogre 14:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Radiant_>|< 14:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as vanity. This article does not establish notability. The attacks above are discouraging. Brighterorange 15:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GeeZee 17:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I find the propensity for wikipedians to use 'vanity' to slander articles amsuing, given the amount of space they afford themselves and time they spend on their user pages. Furthermore I fail to understand how a single user can be accused of vanity on 2 pages with different subjects. 163.1.227.76 21:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The rules for user pages are not the same as the rules for pages in the main article namespace. Vanity page is not slander. The search feature also does not search user pages by default, so userpages have much less outside visibility. — Gwalla | Talk 23:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User pages are the proper place for users to write about users. That's probably pretty obvious. At any rate, this is just silliness. Delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why not. Chunitaku 21:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. At best, give the guy one sentence in Download Festival. --Xcali 22:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 00:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Ludicrous vanity. Meeting someone famous people once does NOT merit an article (I doubt that even the hardcore inclusionists would argue against that). The saddest part is that even the meeting Metallica at the airport claim isn't verifiable. "James Dodd" +Metallica" returns just 15 Google hits, most of which are forums and none of which seem to be about the events described in the article. So it's not just non-notable, it's totally unverifiable to boot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Xcali. --Adun 05:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, one of the tens of thousands in similar situation. Besides, just about anyone could make that claim, since the band members cab hardly remember everybody they have met. Newcomers are advised to behave and listen, not to begin yet another rant. - Skysmith 08:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. Although this may be little more than an amusing anecdote, it is far more interesting than the vast majority of trashy things on this site. Besides, I googled it, and, a long way down the line, found it to be verifiable. Thus, it must be retained. 129.67.97.115 17:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Saying that it's more interesting or less worthy of deletion than trashy articles isn't really a reason for keeping. See Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. --Idont Havaname 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• SAVED!. Thank you User:129.67.115. I admire your honesty, and persistance in research. I assume all previous comments are now defunct, and that this page shall remain. Caster Troy 22:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You assume wrong, seeing as 129.67.97.115 didn't see fit to provide us with anything that would allow the rest of the world to also verify anything. But then, I doubt you are very surprised to hear this. -- Captain Disdain 16:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Skysmith. --Idont Havaname 23:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: Caster Troy (talk · contribs), Jc57 (talk · contribs), 163.1.227.76 (talk · contribs) and 129.67.97.115 (talk · contribs) may all be the same person - compare user contributions -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Francsy, can you please stop criticising the supporters of this article and try objectively commenting on the material. I remind you that by contacting Lars Ulrich, at the address already provided, you can empirically prove the truth of the article, and thus conclude the debate outright. Thank you. Caster Troy 23:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to do that. That's quite an extreme length to go to in order to prove the validity of an article. If there is no other material available anywhere else that validates this article then what Wikipedia would be doing by keeping the material is aggrandising an otherwise non-notable individual, which is not what this project is about. Wikipedia is about providing factual information, not about making anyone more famous than they need to be.

I also shouldn't have to criticise the supporters of any article on Wikipedia. However your actions have left me little choice. You have tried every underhanded trick in the book in order to get your non-notable pages kept: you have vandalised my talk page [7], you have created multiple accounts (as pointed out above), you have vandalised the discussion pages for the articles being deleted [8] and you have insulted and generally spoken down to a lot of people [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Why should other users on Wikipedia show you any respect whatsoever when you have thus far not shown any to our community yourself? -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Open an RFC for User:Caster Troy and aliases. — Gwalla | Talk 21:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Un-be-bloody-leviable. I was merely wanting to participate in a non-sexual orgy of intellectual virtue and learning, but this has been denied to me by self-serving, narrow-minded, superannuated, and above all, nasty people. If I do not receive apologies from all those that have targeted me as a young, innocent schoolboy in a world of old, haggard men, then I shall be left with no option, but to leave the Wikipedia community, and, I do feel, deprive it of one of its most incisive, inimtable, and innovative members; the choice, as Bruce Forsyth often says during the gameshow 'Bruce's Price is Right', which, incidentally, has a more famous catchphrase - 'come on down!', is yours.Caster Troy 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 28 June 2005 05:14 (UTC)

[edit] InteractionWiki

Advertising for non-significant wiki. Wiki has only 12 pages in content, most of it testing pages. Znode 11:37, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Delete - agreed. CDC (talk) 19:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Beat me to it, delete. --W(t) 20:38, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. "...a little experiment that we hope will bear fruits to better serve the Interaction Design community". Get back to us when it does. — Gwalla | Talk 23:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Redirect to Akilattirattu Ammanai following a merge. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

[edit] Akilam Two, Akilam Three, Akilam Four, Akilam Five

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Akilam One. None of these articles provide any context, none of the titles are known to Google. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: No guru, no method. No article in any of these. All are speedy candidates under criterion #1. Geogre 14:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Akilattirattu Ammanai. Same applies for the subsequent number permutations of this. Wikibofh 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Kappa 20:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please change your vote with regards to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, your opinion here is not consistent. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
• Delete all, these are almost speedy candidates due to lack of content and context, agree with George. JamesBurns 00:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, unless it can be demonstrated that there is enough content for these pages to be more than stubs. - SimonP July 1, 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • Please change your vote with regards to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, your opinion here is not consistent. ~~~~ 1 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
    • What do you mean? Those pages are clearly not stubs. - SimonP July 1, 2005 21:58 (UTC)
      • When you take away the "full text", image, and introductory fluff (the increadibly obvious matthew 1:9 is the 9th verse of the 1st chapter of the book of matthew, and the text describes part of the genealogy of jesus - extremely obvious because the text is and he begat X, who begat Y, who begat Z), most are little more than stubs. ~~~~ 2 July 2005 10:09 (UTC)
        • Even with all of that removed Matthew 1:9 is still longer than all of the articles listed here. It is also duplicitous to cite the shortest of 107 articles as a standard example. - SimonP July 2, 2005 15:28 (UTC)

• Merged. Things like this should not be put on VfD, we have Wikipedia:cleanup tags for a reason. I've already merged them into Akilattirattu Ammanai. They should now be redirected there. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 2 July 2005 16:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 30 June 2005 16:07 (UTC)

[edit] Plaque conspiracy

A search term used in a cartoon. This is going a bit far in detail of trivia. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just delete. -- Captain Disdain 12:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Merge with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Cyclone49 13:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. I doubt that an actual article can be made out of this. Sonic Mew 14:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: No merge. It's a ha-ha moment. Ha-ha moments are moments, and unless we want every single supposed joke to be in the article (and therefore for someone to decide the article is big enough to fork), just delete. Geogre 14:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is too minor to even go in the episode descriptions the way the Aqua Teen Hunger Force is set up. DS1953 14:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre and DS1953. Just a throwaway joke in a single episode. — Gwalla | Talk 23:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough to merge with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Silver Dragon 23:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trivial non notable one episode joke. JamesBurns 00:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:04 (UTC)

[edit] Dan'l Ryan

Not notable, google doesn't know him. Feydey 12:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Headline Text: Wikipedia is neither a memorial nor a genealogy site. If there is no discussion of the life and description of his deeds, then there is no article. "Dyin' ain't much of a living, boy," as Jose Wales said. Geogre 14:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not memorial, or genealogy. No mention in Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn. Failing that, create a new section in Bighorn article for named casualties, and merge this there. Wikibofh 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, that's the only way this could ever be encyclopedic. SwissCelt 01:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Name + occupation + date of death + place of death. (Not even the correct name and rank, either.) Get thee to Wikitree! Delete. Uncle G 15:24, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable likely hoax. JamesBurns 00:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep. Scimitar 19:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taijin kyofusho

Taijin kyofusho is only the Japanese translation of anthropophobia/sociophobia, not a culture-bound syndrome. It doesn't merit an independent namespace. Hermeneus 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to be distinct from anthropophobia/sociophobia. Failing that, merge with one of them. Kappa 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Distinctively different from those. -- AlexR 13:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it's an astoundingly unlikely search, so it could comfortably be merged back to sociophobia. Geogre 14:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Not all articles are found via searches - this one is linked from a couple of pages. And it is not the same as sociophobia, there is a very considerable difference between the two - you could say that two distinctively different phobias just happen to have the same symptom. Hence it cannot and should not be merged into sociophobia. -- AlexR
• There are 482 google hits [16] for the title in English so it's not that unlikely to be searched for. Kappa 20:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I did not search for this article, but found it through a link. What's more, I seem to remember my prof. talking about this order in my psych class, and saying how it was an excellent example of a culture-specific disorder. It isn't sociophobia, it isn' similar to sociophobia, therefore it shouldn't be merged with sociophobia. - ZelmersZoetrop
• Keep It is not clear that "taijin kyofusho" (TKS) is a culture bound syndrome [17]. Nor is it clear that TKS is merely a translation of DSM-IV social anxiety disorder [SAD], although it is sometimes used as such. There is evidence to distinguish TKS from SAD and there is a scientific literature focusing specifically on TKS. For example, students scoring high on a factor associated with "offensive-type TKS" (a category previously validated [18]) scored low on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Japanese version, suggesting that they could be diagnosed as having TKS but not SAD [19]. Myron 18:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - For the reasons above. But I recommend that it be flagged with an improvement tag. --Erielhonan 05:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was... well apparently redirect but there is no agreement as to where this should be redirected. I will solve this temporarily(?) by making this page a disambiguation between ethanol, the alcohol in wine, and aqua vitae. When agreement is reached as to where this should redirect, or when someone wants to be bold, it can be turned into a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit of Wine

Dicdef. Physchim62 13:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect instead -- AlexR 13:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to ethanol: Very peculiar entry. Seems like it started off as something quite inappropriate and then got cleaned, without really solving the problem. Redirect this and all variants on the term, as I suspect there are a few more about. Geogre 14:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just as oil of vitriol redirects to sulfuric acid, merge this to ethanol. Uncle G 15:08, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Assuming it is legit, then merge as a mention in ethanol and redirect to thereSandpiper 15:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  • It is. alcohol even explicitly mentions "spirit of wine", and we could redirect there. However, this (as well as the article itself) tells us that "Spirit of Wine" is, specifically, ethanol. Uncle G 17:57, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• I've had a better idea now I've finished trawling through Category:Chemistry stubs: Merge/redirect to aqua vitae (somewhat better stub). Physchim62 21:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Aqua vitae. JamesBurns 00:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep, no consensus to delete, with the issue being whether or not Mr. Voirin is notable enough for Wikipedia. Goldstein307 28 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Delete Carbonite | Talk 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

[edit] James Voirin

Delete not notable. Or userfy.Google returns 2 relevant hits from "James Voirin" and one for James Voirin AND JASON project. Appears to be a research student who can make his page when he's made his name.-Splash 14:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep For the record I am the author and I am not Bryson Voirin. I am merely a local environmentalist, though not nearly as notable, who is familiar with his work. Further, you are only finding two entries because he does not go by "James" but rather "Bryson." Steward of the Earth 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Bryson Voirin" and "JASON project" still only yields 2 google hits. That's not notable enough, IMHO, but the page can be made once the world has got to know him.-Splash 15:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• delete both James Voirin and Byron Voirin fail the professor test, and appear to be a grad student (nice page). I might be persuaded if he has done something really profound, but none is mentioned. That said, the author appears to be knowledgeable about the subject area and should be welcomed to contribute other articles. Dunc|☺ 15:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Actually I could see an article being written on Professor Meg Lowman, and possibly mention made of Bryson Voirin therein. But professors get deleted for insufficient notability, never mind students. Delete — RJH 15:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is aburd. Also coming from New College are Rick Doblin and Lincoln Diaz-Balart They don't have PhDs either, but no one is trying to have their pages deleted. Further, Wikipedia has countless articles on other environmentalists who haven't gotten PhDs, and no one is deleting their articles. The solution is to write another article-- on Meg Lowman, not to delete the limited amount of material already written on capopy research and researchers. Steward of the Earth 15:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Who said anything about New College? From from Rick Doblin article: "earned a doctorate in public policy," he founded an organization, and he sits on the board of another. Lincoln Diaz-Balart is a member of the U.S. Congress. --Xcali 15:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't aware of Doblin's PhD... Voirin nevertheless is just as notable. He also founded an organization, the Center for Canopy Research, which wasn't mentioned because I did not get to complete the article. Steward of the Earth 16:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Account created after VfD started on this article; only edits have been to this and related pages. Hermione1980 23:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • There does not appear to be such an organisation Googe "Center for Canopy Research" Google "Centre for Canopy Research", hmm.Dunc|☺ 17:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • delete: According to the article, Rick Doblin does have a doctoral degree. However, the important criterion for an encyclopedia article about a person is notability, not the posession of a PhD. The article in question does not establish notability (and google confirms), so it should be deleted. Brighterorange 15:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn research assistant who got to attend a conference. --Xcali 15:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. not even a graduate student. only an undergraduate student. (new college of florida does not even have a graduate department). if even most professors at major universities dont get pages because they are non-notable, pages on such undergraduate students as this one are also non-notable. strong delete. guslto 16:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable environmentalist in Florida. Goldstein307 28 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

[edit] Gigantic Fish (Miguzi) (name unknown)

This article appears to have started as nonsense, someone put it up for Speedy Delete then someone took it off and tried to make it respectable/a real article but as is obvious by all the tags on this that its a very convoluted article and it is not even clear what its on. I looked on Google and cant find anything that corresponds to this at all. I vote delete as it seems to be nonsense that slipped through the cracks. CunningLinguist 15:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Miguzi I guess. Kappa 21:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Relevant or not, a child obviously wrote this. It's one sentence, too! Chunitaku 21:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing relevant to merge, not a title anyone will type in (so a redirect would be pointless). — Gwalla | Talk 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Gigantic Fish, then Redirect to Miguzi and then Merge salvageable content into Miguzi after {{cleanup}}. Do not simply merge since other characters apparently have their own (small) pages. On the understanding that Google doens't reckon anything for this and so could be fictitious. -Splash 00:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Miguzi. Delete nothing left to merge. JamesBurns 01:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing to merge. --WikiFan04^{ß 20:07, 17 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Geek Love Radio. Usually 2 deletes and 1 merge will be a consensus to delete, but this time I am calling this a merge instead because a similar VFD debate on Adam Struve is headed for a merge result, and we want some consistency in the results. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:09 (UTC)

• • Err looking at the articles again they are duplicates of the article I intended to merge with, so I will just redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:15 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Lech

12 hits on Google for ("Richard Lech" "geek love") after removing the podcast.net directory. Using (Subzero1037 "geek love") gives 35, all from the same forum site. Might be notable next year if the book makes it big, but I don't think he's notable yet. --Xcali 16:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 01:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Geek Love Radio, since the article doesn't establish his notability beyond the show. Factitious 10:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge with Geek Love Radio. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

• Actually it is a duplicate, so I'll just redirect instead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:15 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Struve

Partner to Richard Lech (above). Same rationale. A couple more hits than Lech, but it's the same story. They're mostly webforum hits for his username. --Xcali 16:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 01:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The show's been on the air for a year now, and it's comfortably established in the realm of popular indy/net-radio. Getalis 18:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Geek Love Radio, since the article doesn't establish his notability beyond the show. Factitious 10:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:28 (UTC)

[edit] B1ot

Non-notable: google search produced many hits, but all from user profiles or posts on gaming boards, none actual content or commentary on this individual. Also I feel it is likely that this article is merely a vanity page. Gblaz 16:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 01:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NatusRoma 06:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was No consensus (5 votes keep, 3 votes delete). Scimitar 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lisp2dot

9 Google hits, only 3 from outside the author's university. I'm sure it's a nice program and the author finds it quite useful, but it's no lsof. --Xcali 16:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Nice little tool. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but is it notable enough for an encyclopedia? That's really what I meant by my comment about lsof. I wasn't saying that it wasn't useful; it's just not very widespread like lsof. --Xcali 20:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't apply notability to computer software. This is a pretty useful piece of open source software in a field I'm very familiar with. If I encountered it I might want to look it up on Wikipedia, so other lispers writing documentation probably would too. I trust my judgement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just not encyclopedic. --Tabor 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded, agree with Tony Sidaway. JamesBurns 01:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero possibility of expansion. The source code for this utility is <100 lines. It's a tiny awk script that is basically the software equivalent of a substub. Software is actually an excellent place to apply notability criteria because it's usually straightforward. In general software is simply not encyclopedically notable unless it has a significant user community or it has historical significance or it employs a novel algorithm. It's a very bad sign if the only available information is from the author's site, or verbatim copies of the author's description. Notable software will almost always be reviewed or discussed on other sites. Without this you have the software equivalent of original research. Quale 09:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not original research. The sofware can be verified and its results confirmed by examination and testing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. First, that's simply false in general, because in many cases software can't be verified by wikipedia because of environmental requirements that are hard to meet. With commercical software verification can be hard because it may require purchase. Now, directly to the point. Who has done this verification? If no one has had any interest in verifying or saying anything about this software at all, and wikipedia alone has to do the verification, it is original research and vanity to boot. I'm challenging you to find a single site other than the software's home page that has anything interesting to say about lisp2dot.Quale
    • Comment: I don't understand what you're trying to say here, Tony. Of course, it's verifiable. The software exists. The question at hand is whether or not it is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. I've written many useful scripts, including some that I've posted on the web. Just because they work doesn't mean they should have articles about them. --Xcali 04:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, I also trust Tony's judgement. Kappa 14:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable utility. Gazpacho 04:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and expandable, despite being <100 lines of code. No apparent downsides to having this article on Wikipedia. Factitious 10:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep NSR 10:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:29, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tontie

Newly-created entry about "A flash based version of the classic "whack-a-mole" games." (this is entry's entire content). Googling for "tontie"+"wack-a-mole" returns 167 hits. It seems to be just another one of those games that someone programs, everyone plays for a week, then is quickly forgotten. jglc | t | c 17:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I've played that! It's sort of an advanced wack-a-mole. Not really a notable Flash game, especially since it's just an enhanced version of a game seen so many times before. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable games cruft. JamesBurns 01:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Duncharris. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yshmael Salas

Non sense, autobiography, autobiografy about his future life and his death. To delete. Cate 17:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I;ve heeeeeeeard of dis homo som-where he be a veeerry important guyman.--65.92.123.75 17:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. I'm not sure of the rules for speedying, but this would seem to me to be an ideal candidate as being nonsense. Ground Zero 17:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. It's a CSD (nonsense, as it portrays future events as having already happened) and I tagged it as such. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, this appears to be an attack page (or very strange vanity); Google reveals a high-school student with this name. Sadly, it's already propogated to Wikipedia mirrors. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:22, Jun 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caramba Restaurant

Advertising for a restaurant. Speedy delete? --Ian Pitchford 17:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Advertising. Unless someone from the area wishes to claim that it is somehow unusually notable. Gblaz 17:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It certainly is no more notable than dozens of other restaurants in the area. Plus, it's not my favorite. Delete -EDM 23:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 01:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mob 40s

Stub for a non-notable punk band whose name returns 60 hits on Google, many from local punk music forums. jglc | t | c 17:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Gorrister 20:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails Wikipedia music guidelines. JamesBurns 01:06, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Since I Was Six

Nonnotable precursor to nonnotable band Mob 40s. --Xcali 18:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Gorrister 20:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Thanks for catching this one. It slipped by me, somehow. jglc | t | c 20:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails Wikipedia music guidelines. JamesBurns 01:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 18:47, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Augustat

Nonnotable member of nonnotable bands Mob 40s and Since I Was Six. --Xcali 18:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable. Gorrister 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 01:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was copyvio, but as article is a duplicate delete and redirect. —Xezbeth 07:15, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Sultan

Obvious copyvio, nothing links here, but most importantly this article is a duplicate of Sultan bin Abdul Aziz. This should not be merged because it is copyvio. ---User:Hottentot

• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 01:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems is along the corridor. Three doors down. Uncle G 01:35, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete; however, it was used as a source to List of Latin phrases, so redirect --cesarb 2 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

[edit] Coram_Deo

No articles link here. NPOV. Essentially an advertisement for Calvinism. I added the phrase "Coram Deo" to List of Latin phrases with a shortened (and more neutral) definition from this article. --Flex 18:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)

[edit] Sheila gavin

Vanity page. Non-notable teacher of non-notable high school, neither found on Google. Znode 18:36, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• delete --MarSch 18:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, teachers are great, but most of them aren't particularly famous or influential. Kappa

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Shaw

• Delete. Shaw was dark horse candidate for mayor of NYC in 2005 who didn't make it onto the ballot because he didn't get the requisite 7,500 signatures. May have been marginally notable in 2005, but certainly isn't any longer. KarlBunker 11:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't have a dog in this fight as to keeping or deleting, but I am sort of uncomfortable with the idea that once notability is established, it can later be revoked. Have there been debates about this on Wikipedia already? Chubbles1212 00:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Notability certainly can be revoked after established by afd consensus - it's a policy, in fact. See WP:CCC. In this case, however, consensus for notability was not established due to poor close of afd. Bwithh 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Candidate who failed to even get on the ballot. Not notable then, even less notable now. Original afd closure was totally out of process - there was one single !vote comment, a keep made by the creator of the article??? Afd should have been relisted to generate further discussion. Bwithh 04:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have anything invested in this article either way, but I just want to note that the outcome of old deletion discussions that result in "keep" can be revisited, usually by opening up a second (or third or fourth) AfD on the article, and linking to the earlier AfD(s) in the nomination. Also, remember that this VfD occurred over an year ago, when relisting may not have been so common, but the closer did keep the VfD open for 13 days, so please don't be so hard on him. Nonetheless, as per WP:CCC, notability can be revisited on later good faith AfDs, especially in such a marginal case.-- danntm ^T _C 17:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. No hoper candidate in election fails WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 04:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reformatted this AfD because the old format broke the automated parser. See page history for older deletion request. Mackensen (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

[edit] Xenox

Delete.This is non-notable and appears to me to be advertising. I will note that this article was speedied previously, and that the anonymous creator remoeved the speedy delete tag.WAvegetarian 18:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN.--Nabla 16:22, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep, I've heard about the lan-party, maybe 'cos i'm from norway. I find this article informative, and it tells me what xenox is (if i'd ever wonder). You say it's 'advertising', but tell me, how do you write an article about a lan-party without sounding a bit 'advertising'? what's the difference between info and advertising as long as all the information is true and objective? 22:31 (GMT+1) 28 June 2005

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus --cesarb 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Aaron Rowe

Vanity page of non-notable writer. Play produced not notable, only appears on college website. Weblog obscene. Contains unencyclopedic references. Znode 19:10, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 03:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Rowe's work has a cult following, and as such is notable to some. The page history implies it is not a vanity article. Warnings should be placed on obscene outbound links, and obscene quotes should be removed. Explodicle 22:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Hi, kids! Aaron Rowe here. I can't vote on this because that would be a conflict of interest, but I'd like to note for discussion that I didn't make this page, nor did I ask for it to be created. It was created by fans of mine and is as such not a way for me to jerk my ego.
• Keep and cleanup. Rowe is an up and coming writer of our era. Many people know of him and support him and wish to find more information on him and the only place to find it is Wikipedia. If the goal of this site is to provide information then definately keep it. Hellishdreams
• Delete not notable. I can find no evidence of a cult following of his work. If someone can provide evidence I could possibly change my mind. Rocky 15:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Obscenity shouldn't really be a condition of whether or not a topic is encyclopedic (although warnings about source material are certainly fine). In addition, there are many articles on obscure topics on Wikipedia, and given that Rowe seems to be gaining popularity (I hadn't even heard of him just a couple years ago), I think it's reasonable to keep this one. ADDENDUM: Wasn't one of his web sites mentioned in Time or Newsweek or a similar major magazine? I'm dead serious here...I remember someone pointing it out to me maybe a year ago? Frankg 15:00, Jun 23, 2005 (EST)
  • It was Time magazine, but I have no idea which issue. Explodicle June 28, 2005 21:15 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was move discussion to CFD. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 00:27 (UTC)

[edit] Unix-shell programming language family

This category has been replaced by Category:Unix_programs/Shells and is no longer necessary. All of the component articles have been moved.

• Apparently refers to Category:Unix-shell programming language family, so should go on WP:CfD instead. --Tabor 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky Howard

Non-notable musician of non-notable backup band. Both musician and band failed Google test. Znode 19:37, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Delete - not notable. Gorrister 20:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 01:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zoolanders Law

• Delete. This is a neologism.WAvegetarian 19:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. K1Bond007 22:07, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, copyvio. JamesBurns 01:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rhobite 08:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism --Xcali 04:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the author owns copyright, but this is still a neologism and should be deleted.--nixie 06:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Pinocchio

Best I can tell, this was a one-off comment made by a columnist/retired general and posted on a single web site. No evidence that this nickname was picked up anywhere else, or even re-used by its creator, so it's utterly unnotable. Even a redirect to David Hackworth wouldn't be very useful, because this is from just one of his many, many columns. CDC (talk) 19:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A simple Google search shows that it did spread, although very little. It made it to Wales, and was picked up in one French article. Is it worth turning it into a footnote in the Pentagon and White House (or the Bill Clinton) pages?

Urhixidur 23:54, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough. Pavel Vozenilek 00:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable slang. JamesBurns 01:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided, because have seen this term on atleast 10 websites, make sure you guys don't vote it away merely on the grounds of patriotism.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applestamp

Neologism. 205.217.105.2 19:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• BJAODN. WAvegetarian 20:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Another entry to vote on! --Wetman 03:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete is definately non-encyclopiedic. --Sstabeler 17:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dylan rosenthal

Subject is supposedly a 16-year-old actor. Googling "Dylan Rosenthal" +"Cheaper by the Dozen 2" (his only really notable alleged work) receives 0 hits. [IMDB Entry] for CbtD2 does not show him. "Dylan Rosenthal" + actor on Google gives three hits, two of which are from a local paper. He seems to be a young actor who may potentially become Wikipedia-worthy, but, as his career stands currently, he is not yet notable enough. Delete. jglc | t | c 20:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This autobio looks like a delete right now. Feydey 20:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, how big does he have to be to qualify? I feel the standards of qualification are not etched in stone, so many people in here at were popular in the 80s and early 90s may also sadly face a VfD. Antares33712 21:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have two issues with the entry: First, it is unverifiable. I'm not so sure he's really in CbtD2. Second... you raise a good question. How well-known do you have to be to be notable? jglc | t | c 22:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Since Cheaper by the Dozen 2 won't be released until next year we can't really say he's been in the movie. It's still being filmed. IMDb doesn't list him and my attitude towards IMDb is that an entry there doesn't necessarily mean you're notable enough for WP, but no entry there disqualifies you here (that is, if you're a film actor). This doesn't even say what role he allegedly plays, I wouldn't be surprised if he's an extra. Obvious delete. -R. fiend 23:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 01:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable (yet). Martg76 09:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish sufficient notability for me to vote keep. Gamaliel 09:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)

[edit] NewsIsFree

Ad. --W(t) 20:27, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Keep. Not obviously an ad, and certainly a useful article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup - Article reads far too much like an ad, but the site has an Alexa rating in the 10,000 range, so it's certainly notable enough for an article. --FCYTravis 06:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cleaned it up a bit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep, no consensus between keep and merge --cesarb 2 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of web browsers (security)

Wikipedia is not a compilation of browser statistics from a security website. --W(t) 20:37, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC) I linked the wrong article in the heading, sorry about that. Fixed now. --W(t) 22:01, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Keep, encylopedic comparison. Kappa 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) withdraw vote for the moment. Kappa 22:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, statistics are human knowledge, encyclopedic. Flayked 21:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a lovely, concise and useful article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The only column in the table that isn't already at Comparison of web browsers is the final one. I see no reason why this was made into a separate article, rather than simply being added to Comparison of web browsers ("uncorrected publically announced security vulnerabilities" falls under "general and technical information"). A break-out article that shouldn't have, and is the poorer for having done so. Merge. Uncle G 01:32, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Either merge to comparison of web browsers or delete. --minghong 05:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that in comparison of web browser are fare more browsers than which Secunia monitor. So either there will be some browsers (table rows) without security column or will be better to keep it on special page. --Ptomes 06:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not the problem that you make it out to be. Look at the way that Comparison of filesystems handles filesystems where no-one has yet obtained the data. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
      • OK. --Ptomes 09:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Comparison of web browsers (security) have been nominated for deletion. While it's an interesting compilation of information, somebody not sure it belongs in an encyclopædia.

I think that there is another interesting comparison, for example:

• Comparison of web browsers
• Comparison_of_operating_systems_(security)
• Comparison_of_operating_systems
• Comparison_of_layout_engines
• Comparison_of_layout_engines_(CSS)
• Comparison_of_layout_engines_(HTML)
• Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XML)
• Comparison_of_layout_engines_(XHTML)
• Comparison_of_layout_engines_(graphics)

So I think this type of comparison should stay on Wikipedia, becouse they are interesting and important for many users. They also have relation with topic such as web browsers, security or critism of Microsoft for security of products. They are based on facts and reports from renowned and highly regarded security firm - Secunia and can bee anytime monitored and easily updated.

But I respect your opinion and I wait for result. I won't have been too disappointed and stick around though. --Ptomes 06:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC), creator of this comparison

• Comparison of operating systems (security) is another one of your creations, and on Talk:Comparison of operating systems (security) editors have suggested exactly the same merger (to Comparison of operating systems as simply another section) as here. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Mergify - per UncleG. Great effort and work, Ptomes - the Wiki spirit lives within. However, I disagree with your reasoning for not merging. If Secunia does not list these other browsers, that is not reason to disinclude them from listing them. Surely there are other sources that could be used - BugTraq, perhaps? --FCYTravis 06:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you think bugtraq.ru? I don't understand this language. :( I would like to cooperation with somebody on that. I try include Securityfocus but the problem is that this source doesn't update status of vulnerabilities (for example - fixed). I have not been found another useful source yet. I welcome any suggestions. But this is not problem. The problem is, what Wikipedians and Wikipedia users want. Do you want one another column in browser comparison page with information about vulnerabilities or do you want well aranged browser comparison of security, where anybody can see big diferences between browsers? I think exactly that is purpose of this table, but I said I will respect result of this discuss. --Ptomes 07:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The choice is not the dichotomy that you paint it as being. This table, minus the three columns duplicate columns, can be simply merged into Comparison of web browsers as another section. That way, you'll get the collaboration of other editors that you state you would like. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
      • OK, you conviced me. I agree with merge with Comparison of web browsers. --Ptomes 09:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to not have duplicate information that needs to be kept updated. Vegaswikian
• Keep, this is a useful source of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. Would also accept a Merge. StuartH 23:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merged in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers#General_information What do you think? I think, that the main purpose of this table-comparison is away :( It is not well aranged :( Now nobody see big differences at first sight :( But it is what most of you want... --Ptomes 14:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I think in browser comparison are many obscure, non-modern, non-used and prehistoric browsers - pointlessly :( Now in this comparison is everything hardly finded. I think rather we should comparise actual, modern, well-knowen, latest vesions of browsers (IE 6.0, MF 1.0.x, O 8.x, N 8.x, K 3.4.x, S 2.x). Anything more is nonsense. Every (obscure, prehistoric and modern) browser on the world belong to the list of browsers, but no in this comparison, I think. --Ptomes 14:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Either merge into Comparison_of_web_browsers#Security (isn't that why that section already exists?) or split Comparison_of_web_browsers into seperate articles for each comparison (OS support, browser features, etc.) --taestell 14:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge It is informative and useful. But merge in Comparison of Web browsers article. Squash 30 June 2005 02:04 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep but move to Toxicity (song). Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 08:40 (UTC)

[edit] Toxicity (System of a Down Single)

I don't see why this song needs its own page at all. 86.130.154.235 20:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, if any SOAD song should get an article, this would be the one - it was the #1 song on a #1 album, and has been parodied by Tenacious D (who claim the lyrics sound deep, but mean nothing - which is okay because rock never had to mean anything). On the other hand, there's plenty of room left to cover this on the page of the album, which shares the same name. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:32, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • My mistake, Tenacious D parodied Chop Suey. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• It is notable, but my God, it's one sentence. Delete unless cleaned up IMMEDIATELY. Any improvement on this article would inspire a Keep from me. Keep. Mike H 22:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is intended as an article about the song, that information should be merged/added into Toxicity, but there's no information there. If it is intended as an article about the single, which was only released in the UK and Denmark, there's not much to say about it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless turned into a real article very soon, in which case move to Toxicity (song). I'd say redirect to the album (which is the best choice for song substubs, when possible), but the title not about the be searched for, and the album has the same name. -R. fiend 22:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost a speedy candidate with its lack on content. Non notable song. JamesBurns 01:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It IS a rather notable song, actually. The fact of the matter is that the article fails to show notability...or much of anything else. Mike H 03:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I rewrote it with my extremely limited knowledge of the band and Google. No vote from me though, since I'm still pretty "meh" about it. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 05:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, thanks Shirimasen. Kappa 14:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Toxicity (single) or some such name since its about the Single-release and not the song itself. Whether the song is notable or not is questionable but the single release was a chart-topper for a LONG TIME and is therefore notable in itself, so keep. -CunningLinguist 23:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As songs are generally more notable than singles, I would say that the article should be made more about the song and moved to the "(song)" title, with information on the single included (this seems to be how most songs are handled). Otherwise I can imagine someone writing a separate Toxicity (song) article, arguing that it's different from Toxicity (single) because one is about the song and the other about the single. In fact, if there were an Ashlee Simpson single, that probably would have happened already. -R. fiend 14:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Wiccan Quagga 09:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (and move to Toxicity (song)). chocolateboy 22:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - secfan 14:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Kiand 15:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and move to Toxicity (song). Song is significantly better known than its limited single release. --Kiand 15:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shah Azizur Rahman

del this hoax, unless someone quickly writes a correct stub about the person. mikka (t) 20:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but delete everything beginning with the second paragraph & make that a stub; the rest is either poorly-written English beyond salvaging, or a hoax. -- llywrch 22:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. If anything should be said it would probably be best to start from scratch. JamesBurns 01:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know what JamesBurns is talking about, but this man isn't a hoax. The date the article has is wrong, and there is utter POV in the article, but he is verifiable as real (see Prime Minister of Bangladesh). Keep and Cleanup immediately. Mike H 04:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand: the man was a PM of Bangladesh (see also an article on his party). I've converted the page into a stub. Bambaiah 06:33, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Heads of state and government are inherently notable. —Seselwa 21:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saiyed shahbazi

Not sure if this is patent nonsense, so we'll vote. This looks like crap, so unless someone can convince me otherwise, my vote is delete Antares33712 21:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity. A quick check at Google returns only 51 hits for Saiyed Shahbazi, none of which suggest that he is a Sufi of importance. Also, no pages link to this one. -- llywrch 22:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 01:16, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 07:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No true Scotsman

It's an uncommon phrase with little or no encyclopedic value. Belongs in another wiki Barneygumble 21:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, important to keep. "No True Scotsman" is the best way to introduce the subject as it is about as politically correct and innocuous as you can get. Scotsmen don't really care about sugar on porridge. Only when people understand the fallacy expressed in this way the can we move on to more controversial "no trues" such as "No true Christian supports abortion" and "Not true Muslim supports terrorism" --Mike Young 06:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no true wikipedian would vote to delete this. Kappa 21:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think I understand the concept here and it may be encyclopedic, but is this really the best name for the article? --Xcali 21:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well "Scotman" seems to be the most common complement to "no true" [22], and atheisim.about.com says there are no alternative names. Kappa 22:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay. Then keep it. I wasn't sure if there was a more "official" name for this fallacy. --Xcali 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.This is an important phrase. Plus, this article has existed since November 2001. Why delete it now? NSR 21:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons that have nothing to do with the age of the article. When an article was created is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted. Ben-w 22:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is your POV. To many wikipedians the age of an article is an improtant factor especially an article from the very early days of Wikipedia. NSR 22:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is that it's possible for an article which meets deletion criteria to be overlooked or not nominated for some time. In other words, if there's a compelling answer to the question "why delete it now" then the age of the article alone is a pretty weak defence. Ben-w 17:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Significant logical fallacy, quite a useful concept.--Pharos 22:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No true Scotsman squats over his porridge and peas. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The "What links here" references indicate that it is an important concept. Tiles 22:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An important logical fallacy. --StoatBringer 23:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. As a "not true scotsman" it should be invaluable as a guide as to how I should act.  :) Wikibofh 00:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No true Wikipedian would vote to delete this article. Keep. -Sean Curtin 00:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep -- Great stuff, and Comment the name is fine - if there are alternatives, create redirects.[[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 00:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep O_O - gren 00:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's not an article about a phrase. It's an article about a logical fallacy. It could do with citing more than 1 source, especially since some of the material in the article seems hardly likely to have come from that source. Keep. Uncle G 01:19, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Keep. 3000 Google hits on exact phrase. Source of phrase cited. Interesting fallacy. Well-written explanation. Seems fine to me. That's not to say the article couldn't be improved, but what article couldn't? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, on the name, perhaps "No True Scotsman fallacy" or something along those lines would be better. --Tothebarricades 00:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I linked over from another page and found it to be a useful example for what I was thinking about that I might not have otherwise thought of. Other dictionaries & encyclopedias have similarly specific entries--it is a thing unto itself. Reverendum 22:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Phendimetrazine is not exactly a common word either and none has suggested to delete its article on those grounds. Please explain how this article does have little or no encyclopaedic value--have you actually read it? --81.42.164.8 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please do keep it - I came into it from a blog link and it's amusing and a clear introduction (Peter Nolan/dpnolan)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of words censored at the Sports Interactive Messageboard

Pointless, useless, ugly, stupid. Oh, also, unencyclopedic. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pointless and non-notable P0per 21:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too stupid for BJAODN. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, do not BJAODN. Congratulations, this is the third-worst WP article I've seen yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no BJAODN. Nestea 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No sources cited. Web site linked to is blank (lots of script, no actual text). No BJAODN. Just Delete. Uncle G 00:14, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete not funny enough for BJAODN though. JamesBurns 01:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we are not amused. -- Jonel | Speak 01:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and block the users who contributed it, as theres a steady stream of SI forums related vandalism at the Football Manager pages. --Kiand 20:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, mere vandalism with a junevile effort to look legitimate. Peter Grey 06:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 2 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

[edit] Heiko and Selina Niedermeyer

vanity 80.108.45.253 21:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) see at the german deletion vote (home country of Heiko) - there is overwhelming evidence that the painters should not be put in Wikipedia (translation of german phrase "löschen" = "delete") see [23]; Wiki users should develop a good understanding and a sense of sophisticated commercial infiltrations.

• Merge I'm undecided so I say this. Chunitaku 21:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Where do you want to merge the page? Martg76 09:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. I agree - I thought this article looked like self promotion when it was first added to List of painters at the start of May. Unfortunately, at the time, I was fealing too jaded to do anything about it. No evidence of their being notable. -- Solipsist 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the German vote is unanimous so far. Martg76 09:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "Selina Niedermeyer" -Wikipedia gets 101 google hits. "Heiko Niedermeyer" -Wikipedia gets 12,100 hits, suggesting greater notability, but I found no evidence of fame or prominence in the art world in a quick look at the top hits. I will vote to keep IF evidence of notability such as their work has been the subject of an exhibition or purchased by a major museum or the subject of an article in a major publication. Otherwise I'd say as the vote on the de: version goes, so should we. -- Infrogmation 23:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear vanity. Should also be deleted from List of painters#N if the consensus here is for deletion.—Theo
• Delete, 195.26.201.237 08:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) german VFD-discussion page was vandalized by a user calling himself MarsTheGod (the God of war)who made it dissapear; but it was set back bei an Admin, see: [24]; for a internet marketin expert its no problem to creat thousands of links in Google - this is to comment on Infrogmation

comment: german page is already deleted Binter2 15:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and discussing this article in 3 months again. 28 June 2005 11:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was copyvio. —Xezbeth 07:22, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Cempaka

This article appears to be just a promotional piece for a primary school in Malaysia (the article does not even mention its country). It would need a complete rewrite if it is to be kept. Blainster 22:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like a copyvio to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, look at: Entry requirements to Cempaka Schools. I recommend relabeling this as copyvio and submitting to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. --Idont Havaname 00:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio by nixie. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

[edit] Centerfold Babylon

Article about a VH1 special on Playboy and Penthouse models. tregoweth 22:43, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Why is it exactly that you feel that this article should be deleted? This is an actual VH1 special as far as I can tell, and Wikipedia doesn't prohibit articles about such matters, if I'm not mistaken. Unless you feel that an article should be created for the series in general (Babylon) and this be made a subsection of that, IMO, there is no immediately apparent reason to delete this article.--M412k 22:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Kappa 05:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up and expanded. JamesBurns 03:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Credits copied from IMDb are a copyright violation ???? MutterErde 23:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 1 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel percheron

Delete - biography is nonsense. --RonH 22:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Age of Mythology --cesarb 1 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

[edit] Age of Mythology storyline

Content already in the AoM page

• DELETE-Igordebraga 23:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to prevent re-creation. -Sean Curtin 00:10, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to main AoM page. -- Jonel | Speak 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect: Well-written, though. ChercherEccles 16:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Age of Mythology. JamesBurns 02:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 10:22 (UTC)

[edit] Ian D. Miller

Appears to be a fairly straightforward run-of-the-mill vanity page. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Upon which we can perform a standard, run-of-the-mill delete. Denni☯ 23:39, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
• Run that mill! (ie Delete) -R. fiend 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 01:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 1 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

[edit] Kristoffer ericson

Either vanity or NN depending on who wrote it. "Kristoffer ericson" jlime gets 26 Google hits. Denni☯ 23:50, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Abstain since I can't tell who's who in this field: however, often an inconsequerntial stub may be redirected to a larger category (software developer?), with all its text. --Wetman 00:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to establish that subject passes the average software developer test. Martg76 09:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable atleast due to its speciality, there are examples of other linux distributions & creators being up there (gentoo/debian/redhat...) each because of their history, popularity and/or speciality. Subject person doesnt need to be world famous. --C64 29 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)
• Keep/Redirect Never heard of "average developer test". Im no linux guru but building a linux distribution isnt something anyone can do.

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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heterophobia

Heterophobia was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-18. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heterophobia/2005-06-18.

• Delete I'm nominating this again, because I still do not see any validity in the term outside of homophobic groups who think that the idea gays and lesbians acheiving equal rights would somehow affect heterosexuals. Revolución 12:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete notable, but a really a dicdef - anything more will doubtless be covered elsewhere --Doc (?) 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination explains notability. Encyclopedic topic. Kappa 12:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I don't think there is much more to add to the article than this dicdef.-Poli (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete despite a prior VfD this article is still little more than a uncited dictionary definition and this seems unlikely to change. Axon (talk|contribs) 13:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this encyclopedic topic. This is a well-written stub. --Infobacker 13:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as Kappa said; btw, we've got a nice example at biphobia as to something which has grown into an article Lectonar 13:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Seth Mahoney 14:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, but mostly because I'm a language stickler. Heterophobia combines the prefix hetero- (other, different) with the suffix -phobia (fear, dislike). Thus, heterophobia should mean "fear of things that are different", or something similar. Heterosexophobia (or something similar) would be a more appropriate term. Sadly, homophobia (which should mean fear of things that are the same or uniform) has taken on the meaning that should be covered by homosexophobia and is wide-spread enough that we must be forced to adopt the new meaning. Heterophobia, however, is not a wide-spread word and I don't see the need for an article promoting the misuse of the word until general use has forced us to. Maybe that's a good reason to delete, maybe it's not. I don't know, but that's the way I feel. --Pagrashtak 15:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Pagrashtak, that's a terrible reason to delete, and would at best be a reason to rename. These accusations of heterophobia exist and have to be treated somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. Morwen - Talk 15:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Almost 10000 Google hits, and 5 books found on Amazon featuring heterophobia in the title http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/104-5317081-3720754?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Heterophobia&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go etablishes noteriety. However, from a quick reading on the subject, heterophobia is used to describe fear of the opposite sex in the medical community, not fear of heterosexuals. This article needs to be rewritten, but should exist. Lyuokdea 5:00 July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. In fact, -phobia defines heterophobia as fear of the opposite sex, as did a few pschology-related sites I found after a google search. --Pagrashtak 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The term does, however, get used in the way the article describes, so that definition clearly needs to be maintained in the article in some capacity. Bearcat 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article as now written goes beyond a dicdef. The accusation may be baseless most of the time, but the fact that it's made as often as it is establishes notability. Doctor Whom 17:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and real condition if rare.Gateman1997 17:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki I believe that all usage is either waggish or questionable, but given that homoerotophobia gave way to the barbarism homophobia about twenty-five years ago, this form follows, and offensive or waggish usage is still usage. Robert A West 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Lyuokdea pointed out, the only thing wrong with the article is that it's describing the phobia incorrectly. I vote that the page is revamped, but kept. Nihiltres 20:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly a significant topic. CalJW 20:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Voting keep once again. My opinion has not changed since previous vote. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. Nandesuka 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A book has been written on the topic and there is widespread usage, so not a non-notable neologism. Valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant term, not a neologism. Sietse 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a neologism, but a somewhat widely-used one. LexisNexis found a few recent uses of it, including a headline from a San Francisco Chronicle review and the first paragraph of a The Spectator article. CDC (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per CDC. --Idont Havaname 18:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neologism is not sufficient justification for deletion (for instance, inclusion of 'podcasting' etc is exceptionally useful) - nor is a dislike of the usage of a word. --Labbis 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 07:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Phylaxis

Speculation, no context, no idea what this is talking about. It was added to Columbia Pictures, which I have deleted. RickK 00:01, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Rumour with no cited sources. No context. The only locatable element of the article, Brooke Fox, is in fact a musician, who does not appear to have notable allergies, let alone comic-book-style (anaphylaxis) enemies. Delete. Uncle G 01:08, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete — could not confirm; probably just a play on words. — RJH 02:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete: This user (under aliases User:68.32.159.227, User:Shrek32, and User:216.83.121.194) has added several nonsense entries - all are generally about 4-8 year-old female antiheroes who live in the Marvel universe. He often describes his heroes as "a parody of [Marvel comics superhero]". They are ALL FICTIONAL and he has added entries for them and their video games into pretty much every single Video Game list. He has also added false entries for their movies in several lists of movies. I have been tracking this user, and his logins all seem to come from IPs in South New Jersey. It's very annoying - he is very persistent; this should be a speedy. jglc | t | c 04:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-Unless this is giving a better description...get rid of it. MLSfan0012
• Speedy Delete, I agree with MLSfan0012 and jglc, DCUnitedRock23

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Petaholmes (copyvio june 19) --cesarb 30 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)

[edit] List of Star Wars RPG stats

Copyvio (despite the talk page's claim of "fair use"). Even if these weren't copyvio, they could be copied over to Wikisource, but they still don't belong on WP. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• delete SchmuckyTheCat 00:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems is along the corridor, three doors down. Uncle G 01:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio. 23skidoo 04:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I explained why they are not copyvio; if you disagree list it in the copyvio page. DarthEren 04:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic: pokemon characters do something similar (Eevee)). Why shouldn't SW characters be able to link to game stats as well? DarthEren 09:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTc)

The articles for seperate Pokémon have details about the Pokémon, not just the stats. BulbasaurSonic Mew 10:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

What can I say, it's a list :) I thought about adding the stats to the individual character articles, but someone would probably delete them citing "copyvio". So I made a list instead where I could put up the fair use argument covering all the stats. Then the individual chracter articles could be linked to the list with no problems. If my "fair use" argument is erroneous, then the stats should be deleted. But otherwise, I don't really see why someone interested in Darth Vader might not also be interested in his character stats. -- DarthEren 22:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, Pokemon is a roleplaying game, while Star Wars is a series of movies, which makes RPG stats considerably more on-topic for Pokemon than it does for SW characters. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of people interested in Darth Vader either cannot interpret d20 stats or don't care about them. — Phil Welch 23:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyvio or not, this is not an encyclopedia article. — Phil Welch 08:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if copyvio. Delete if not copyvio. Nestea 11:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 625,000 google hits for Star Wars d20 suggests a considerable interest in the subject; certainly worth noting somewhere. It's also fairly safe to say that everyone who is a fan of the SW RPG is also a fan of the SW characters as a whole. DarthEren 17:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete With the article blanked out most of its existance, I don't think it ever got a fair shot at this. But oh well, let's make the vote unanimous so it can be gone from wikipedia. DarthEren 19:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either way This link is Broken 04:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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