Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 21

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. mikka (t) 03:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BBC North West Today weather game

Non-notable television feature, no longer exists, article updated twice only Smileyrepublic 00:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable; POV. -Hmib 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 01:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems nonnotable. not POV though. -Snorre/Antwelm 06:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into BBC North West Tonight. the wub "?/!" 07:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge in BBC North West Tonight. Such an obscure fact, doesn't warrant a seperate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge in BBC North West Tonight.--Sara22 23:38, 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 Merged. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:33 (UTC)

[edit] Manectric EX

Pokémon species are notable. Video games are notable. A single item in a single video game is not notable. Almafeta 00:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just merge with Manectric. Individual trading cards do not need their own articles, even Black Lotus and the Moxes are merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and/or Delete Nonnotable -Snorre/Antwelm 06:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable pokecruft. JamesBurns 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Starblind. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect But it isn't a video game item. It is a single trading card. Sonic Mew 11:01, Jun 22, 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 DEL. mikka (t)

[edit] Boogeymon

Fan-made Digimon that's listed as a Pokémon stub. Almafeta 00:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the stub category has been fixed. Kappa 00:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Do we know for sure that it's fan-made? It seems to me that it isn't. Tentative Keep, would consider changing vote if evidence arises that this is non-canonical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Did a little research and it isn't fan made (although it seems less notable than most digimon). That being said, I vote keep.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:51, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Pokemen are no precedent. Digimen are not even tangentially close to being up to cruft standards. Not encyclopedic. Geogre 04:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable. This is _not_ a Digi/Pokepedia! -Snorre/Antwelm 06:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Geogre. -ÅfÇ++ 06:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable digicruft. JamesBurns 07:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Digimon is worse than Pokémon, but they are notable sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Sjakkalle, but I think this is too substubbish to keep. Let's delete it and allow for someone to actually write some prose there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We kept all of the individual Pokemon articles, because like it or not, it had an impact and still stubbornly clings to life. Digimon was nothing more than a cheap knockoff of a popular fad, and worthy of note, but articles for individual digimon (particularly useless articles, like this one) should be removed. --Scimitar 14:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As somone who enjoyed the show, I am offended by all the childish bashing of it above. I can say that this is not a fan-made creature and is "canon". However, individual articles about Unremarkable characters like this are uneccisary. Delete it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Cain (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever it is, it is subtrivial information of no encyclopedic value. Martg76 22:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Digimon crap or delete, animation trivia, no context, no hint of encyclopedic notability. Oh, look who first voted "keep" with a reason unrelated to the article topic. Barno 14:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. --W(t) 05:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks more like a hoax to me. -- Natalinasmpf 05:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.  Grue  15:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Mackensen (talk) 22:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 03:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was DELETE. Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 21:30 (UTC)

[edit] Pakash M Apte

Resume cruft submitted by the subject of the article, seems to have had an intereting career but I'm not sure it meets the criteria for biographies. --nixie 00:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity. Google gives 3 hits: all of which are at the Wikipedia copyvio page about this article! -Splash 01:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! Agh! My eyes! Lousy formatting for a resume, sounds like an autobiography sloppily thrown together. Can you spell... VANITY? -Hmib 01:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- vanity. - Longhair | Talk 01:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's a verbatim copy from Mr. Apte's Microsoft Word resume. If written by Mr. Apte himself, it's nnanity. If written by someone else, it's a copyvio. I've marked it as such. — JIP | Talk 12:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Looking at the history page shows this had already been discussed and answered on the Talk:Pakash M Apte page. He is the author. It is vanity. I've reverted to a VfD only. Now delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Etacar11 22:43, 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 merge with Richard Feynman - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:05 (UTC)

[edit] Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm

Not notable. While Feynman is one of my personal heroes, a single quote about him, which is basically a joke, is not worthy of an entire article. He didn't even say this. The article should be deleted but the entry can be merged with the Richard Feynman article, if a way is found to fit it in. --Alabamaboy 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge if this is a particularly well-known bit of Feynman lore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge- there's a "quotation" section on Feynman's page, it can go there. Stilgar135 02:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Richard Feynman. JamesBurns 07:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete In my original post, I pointed out that this isn't an actual quote of Feynman's but something a person named Murray Gell-mann said about Feynman. As such, it should not go in the quote section of the Feynman article.--Alabamaboy 13:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, merging info if required. DJ Clayworth 14:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge- I agree with Stilgar135 Rangek 17:54, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Merge--I notice this is already included in the main Richard Feynman article, which makes deleting and merging effectively the same thing, right? Gary D Robson 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Gary D Robson; not separately significant enough to warrant a redirect. Barno 14:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke, merge info. Gazpacho 15:52, 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 del mikka (t) 03:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Buonauro

Delete No accomplishment beyond being a blogger who committed suicide. Bloghate 00:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP is not a memorial. 239 Google hits which is low by blogger standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Barfooz (talk) 02:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.Yuber^(talk) 04:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i was born at 5:52am on may 27th in florida, did you know that? i'll be 25 tomorrow morning.

when i was 12 years old i made a time capsule and i wrote myself a letter. the capsule was to be opened in 12 years.

so, last year, i opened it up and read the letter. i really let 12 year old me down. of all the dreams he had, i hadn't done any of them.

but i don't have dreams anymore. i only have nightmares.

when i dream now it's dark. there's no way out of it. there's nothing to take me from the darkness. there's nowhere to go. it's hot and dark and quiet. no matter how far i go, i can run forever, and it never ends.

that's what i dream. that's what i see every time i blink.

--this is quite said however ;_;

• Delete wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 07:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Not a memorial. It is sad, but it's how well you whistle in that darkness that separates those who live from those who do not. Geogre 15:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote on the article, not on the nominator. Just because someone may have made mistakes in the past does not make them wrong. Delete as WP:NOT, per above. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I hope every one of you dies slow and alone, with no one to remember you and with just fading pieces of paper in drawers indicating where your service is to be held. --Jscott 17:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What an astonishingly inappropriate comment. Please read Wikipedia:Civility. Gamaliel 17:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thoroughly in keeping with the user's past comments and behavior, however. Geogre 19:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neither of your responses inspire me to withdraw my position. Also, Keep. --Jscott 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a memorial (consistent WP precedent and policy), uncivil editor is making sure to be remembered by Wikipedian strangers as a poopyhead whose funeral should be skipped. (Don't take this comment as a serious statement like Jscott's.) Barno 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Agree on the not a memorial entry... but should we look at merging with blogs an include something about social impact of blogs, highlighting that some early bloggers had documented their life on blogs prior to their death (I'm thinking also of that other guy who manage to get his murderer busted because the last entry on his blog mentionned the murderer was at the door. --TNLNYC 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very sad story, but article does nothing to establish notability. Also, other inappropriate nominations by Bloghate are hardly grounds for keeping this one. RadicalSubversiv E 22:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep or merge would be ok too but not suere where Yuckfoo 22:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, wikipedia is not a memorial. carmeld1 02:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment To begin, I think that every Vfd that Bloghate nominated, should be reverted, as he/she nominated quite a few articles in a short period of time, with lack of a valid reason. As for this article, it was created on 24 Jul 2004, and I am quite sure that many wikipedians have seen it since. The votes for deletion stating that WP is not a memorial, is the lazy vote, I am sorry to say. It is quite unfortunate that the majortiy of the web has turned a great deal of his websites into memorials, rather than displaying his accomplishments. This article has been on Wiki for almost a year, Michael Buonauro must have been notable for his art and writing, and because a blog hater, nominated it along with several others, its up for removal. In the time it took to vote, or for me to even write this, the article could have been brought up to a higher standing, than just a memorial. Which by the way, I am doing as soon as I quit. Also, Google is not the only research tool on the net. (rant complete) <>Who?¿? 05:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles that don't belong here which go unnoticed for a long period of time until someone lists them for deletion. And his article still does absolutely nothing to establish that he is in any way notable or encylcopedia. (Obscure web comics regularly get deleted on VfD.) RadicalSubversiv E 06:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article, in its current state, does not prove notability. However, there are other articles of very famous people, that only have one or two lines, and do not get deleted. Article lack of content, or poor layout, should not be grounds for deletion. Its just unfortunate, that this article got nominated in the manner it was, and may prove notability if someone actually did work on it. Either way, I dont know who he was, nor do I know anything about him, would rather the article be filled with content than deleted. <>Who?¿? 07:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Non-notability not established by nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 01:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nonnotable. It is notability, whisch must be established, not vice versa. mikka (t) 03:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:14 (UTC)

[edit] Bartcop

Delete Nicely put together ad for a site but blogger ads don't belong in wikipedia Bloghate 00:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No vote. Alexa turns up a ranking of 44,565, pretty good for a blog I must say. -Hmib 01:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Some NPOV work on the article would improve it, but ok article on notable site. -- Infrogmation 02:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known blogger. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:24, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - note the nominator's username. Disruptive nominators pushing POV on VfD... Barfooz (talk) 02:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with the "blog" classification. The site was created long before the concept was popularized. Regardless, Bart is routinely referenced in relevant outlets such as Air America Radio, Democratic Underground, et al, and is very well-known in the left-liberal milieu. —Seselwa 03:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't some random livejournal. GeeZee 04:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can extremely popular be verified/measured? Peter Grey 05:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Word `extremely` removed, left popular, as it seems it is. -Snorre/Antwelm 06:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep First edit 2003. Seems notable. Do not trust nominator (see name). -Snorre/Antwelm 06:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; if people believe this is disruptive, they should consider discussing it with User:Bloghate, or filing an WP:RFC. Radiant_>|< 09:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; perfectly good blog.--Anurag Sharma 17:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I'd reccomend edits to remove POV items. --TNLNYC 22:21, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:12 (UTC)

[edit] Jorn Barger

Delete Famous for running a blog and that's it... no other significant accomplishments Bloghate 00:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The man is a pioneer in blogging; he coined the term 'weblog'. That should be significant enough. Google for john barger blogger turns up 133,000. -Hmib 01:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough that his activities are covered by mainstream news media. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable blogger. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Meets notabilty requirements. -- Infrogmation 02:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - note the nominator's username. Disruptive nominators pushing POV on VfD... Barfooz (talk) 02:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. [Vote by Yuber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)]
• Strong keep, coining the term weblog seems noteworthy in the blog field to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; if people believe this is disruptive, they should consider discussing it with User:Bloghate, or filing an WP:RFC. Radiant_>|< 09:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If I understand the article correctly, Jorn Barger coined the neologism weblog and is an influential member of the blogosphere. This listing is disruptive and an RfC should be filed against the nominator. Hall Monitor 16:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If coining the term "weblog" and having over 32,000 hits on Google is not noteworthy enough then I don't know what is. --  B.d.mills  (Talk)
• Keep Bloghate has an agenda and I think this person is significant enough to stay in. --TNLNYC 22:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this does seem to be disruptive Yuckfoo 22:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's well known in Internet/Usenet/Web development circles, and his site predates the phenomenon of blogging as a "craze"; it's ridiculous to cite him as a "mere blogger" (even if that were a valid criteria for deletion). *Dan* 03:41, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Barger should probably be the first blogger on WP. I'd even trust him to edit his own entry. Dystopos 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Duh, keep. claviola (talk to me) 20:46, 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 del mikka (t) 03:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fizzy Conspiracy, Abreu, Artur, João Cruz, and Pimentel

Band vanity. "They are currently working on a debut album and gigs throughout the country." -- Longhair | Talk 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable yet.-Splash 01:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Band vanity. +*Include in delete, all links from subheading `Lineup`.*+ -Snorre/Antwelm 06:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 07:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia won't help you get a record deal. Geogre 15:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:47, 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 del mikka (t) 03:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Florida cluster relocation

Not an encyclopedia article. Not notable outside Wikimedia. Angela. 01:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- fancruft :) Perhaps merge into History of Wikipedia?- Longhair | Talk 01:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge a line or two into History of Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:39, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Comment: There's already two lines covering the move at History_of_Wikipedia#2005, "On 7 June 2005 at 3:00AM Eastern Standard Time the bulk of the Wikimedia servers were moved to a new facility across the street. All Wikimedia projects were down during this time." -- Longhair | Talk 01:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, there ya go!  ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 02:43, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• First choice is Move to Wikipedia: space; no objection to deletion. Minutia does not belong in article space unless notable outside of Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 02:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated in Longhair's comment. GeeZee 04:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete into history of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • *slaps Ta Bu with wet trout* You cannot merge and delete (see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion), the edit history of the merged content needs to be preserved. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to metapedia. Dunc|☺ 12:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Merge into History of Wikipedia Jtkiefer 19:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Probably not notable enough for a mention in History of Wikipedia. It's a piece of trivia. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-worthy trivia --Neigel von Teighen 22:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Meta. I was the creator, and even I agree it doesn't belong where it is.
  --Baylink 19:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - trivial - unimportant even to the history of wikipedia. Wow - they did some routine server maintenance and upgrading. CDC (talk) 21:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the downtime didn't even last that long. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:08, 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 del mikka (t) 03:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marques de Tavora

Delete. Massive unsourced, unwikified text dump. Tagged with {{cleanup-importance}} since May 21, with no edits since. I don't read Portuguese, and I've been unable to find any verifiable information (in English) about this subject. The Portuguese Wikipedia has an article with nearly the same title, but it's very short, and of course, I can't read that either. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:00, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. 112 Google hits for "Marques de Tavora". Subject might possibly (as far as I know) warrent an article, but this POV orphan ramble can IMO be ditched. -- Infrogmation 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Is this an essay? A letter? A statement? Rant rant rant I can see, but? Please delete or make sense -Snorre/Antwelm 06:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete essay. JamesBurns 07:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed VfD, the writer of this article would certainly want you to believe that it is encyclopedic. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed VfD, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee—an eight foot tall Wookiee—want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm arguing to delete a nonsense essay, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're at your computers deliberating and conjugating WP:NOT... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must delete! (sorry, I had to) --Scimitar 14:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh no, the Chewbacca defense! We're doomed! Anyway, the Marquis of Tavora was real, and part of a royal scandal that led to the execution of the entire Tavora family by order of the Marquis of Pombal, then Prime-Minister of Portugal. This, however, is an unwikified text dump. So I abstain. --Pc13 18:54, 2005 Jun 22 (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 del mikka (t) 03:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural consultancies

Delete. Tagged for cleanup since May 21, with the only edit since being to stub-categorize it. 34 unique Googles for "cultural consultancies" and 709 for the similar "cultural consultants". Neither the article nor the provided external links give me much of an idea of what a cultural consultancy is, and my Google search wasn't much help, either – everything is written in Marketese. In addition, the article seems to be just a vehicle for the external links. If anyone can make sense of this, be my guest, but if Wikipedia needs an article on this subject, it wouldn't hurt to start from scratch. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for all the reasons above - Barfooz (talk) 02:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Almost seems like vanity. Author/editor anonymous and only other addition is Millennium Institute which should also be deleted for same reasons. There is a notable industry (use of Sociology etc), but article should be made NPOV, broader etc etc. This thing looks like a bad Yahoo entry. -Snorre/Antwelm 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Absolutely take out Millennium Institute. These are something close to blatant advertising, and if there is a real industry back there, I'd wager it's covered best at a far more natural title. Geogre 15:53, 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 del mikka (t) 03:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schubert Crest and Schubert Family

Same multiple author as similarly Vfd'd Rafal Olaf von Schubert, don't believe a word of it them, and needs scrutiny if it is they are to remain here. Delete both, SqueakBox 21:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Schubert Family is identical to Schubert Crest; merging votes. --cesarb 20:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete. --cesarb 01:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Shouldv been picked up with Rafal. -Snorre/Antwelm 06:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: WP is not for genealogy, and the "article" is just so someone can show off a picture. No information in the article at all, and it's nearly a speedy for self-annihilating content. "It originated in Germany, but people disagree." Geogre 15:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is alot of information in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosswonder (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 Jun 2005

  User's only edit. --cesarb 20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Martg76 22:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. I'm sure I saw that 'coat of arms' turn up before and get deleted, but it doens't turn up in the deletion log. oh well. -Splash 01:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Look in the logs for Schubert Coat of Arms and you will see the deletions. However, the deletions were because the page consisted of nothing more than an image; after that page was protected, Schubert Crest was created with at least some content, and I unprotected Schubert Coat of Arms and turned it into a redirect. --cesarb 07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep has information. Squeakerbox stop deleting the information--CanadianPride 16:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep has a large amount of information. What does this have to do with the relevance to Frank Schubert, just put that under debate. Squeakerbox stop deleting the information--HistoricalAce 16:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Comment. I firmly believe that CanadianPride and HistoricalAce are the same person; ie a clear case of sockpuppetry, and almost certainly the same person as the 3rd anon keep, SqueakBox 17:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  I was just getting ready to say the same thing... --cesarb 17:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Comedy act. --Wetman 03:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A lot of information now. I would like to make a source section. I found that Carl von Schubert and Kai Schubert are related to Frank Schubert as well as Rafal Olaf Schubert, altough not directly (Grandfather). I will try to gain more information on this a post credible sources for it.--JBLINNER 02:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  User's second edit. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Antandrus (talk) 02:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  That is 4 keep votes by the same person, SqueakBox 02:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep there is sufficent information. If anything the "Schubert Crest" should be a redirection the "Schubert Family". Wikipedia is for information, and what I can see there is a lot of it here, although needs some clean up. love --Sara22 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Strong belief that Sara is another sockpuppet of same person, SqueakBox 23:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• CommentLet the Schubert Crest be deleted, or just be a redirection to "Schubert Family". Let's keep "Schubert Family"--CanadianPride 00:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Note: duplicate vote. --cesarb 00:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Sorry, I did not want to vote again I wanted to make a comment. I've put the COMMENT in bold now.--CanadianPride 01:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Strongly disagree. We should delete them both, SqueakBox 01:41, Jun 24, 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 del mikka (t) 04:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Internodeuser

The ArbCom case for this user is over. The user is banned for one year. His user page still contains personal attacks and other rants I'm not bothering to read. -- Longhair | Talk 01:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since the Arbcom unanimously considered this user page "inappropriate" in its ruling, I see no reason to keep it around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 04:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've taken a look at the arbitration records, and it appears inflammatory to me. Perhaps provide a link to the arbcom decision after deletion? Enochlau 05:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to me that this userpage is in violation fo a Arbcom ruling and several wikipedia polices. Jtkiefer 07:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a userpage used to disrupt wikipedia. JamesBurns 07:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, we're finally doing something about deeply bad faith userpages. Good. Strong delete, and please consider nominating the three or four 'hate lists' that some people have made in the past months. Radiant_>|< 09:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per reasoning above. --Scimitar 14:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and provide a link to the Arbcom case as reasoning. --Sn0wflake 14:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• More evidence of Longhair's obvious bias against completely insane conspiracy theories promulgated by ranting psychotics. Delete.

Comment: Guilty as charged Sir! -- Longhair | Talk 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nestea 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like Tim Canterbury from The Office I can't believe I'm actually hearing myself say this, but sometimes we need to keep evidence around to show those who knew nothing about the original incident what happened -- & why the contributor was banned. Just because it's in Wikipedia doesn't force anyone to look at it. -- llywrch 00:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Review the ArbCom case if you're short on evidence. The user page came along right near the end of my brush with this user, and may not even be part of the evidence submitted. -- Longhair | Talk 00:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: the evidence is available at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser/Evidence--AYArktos 00:25, 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 Keep both. Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:21 (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 speedied — Gwalla | Talk 21:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max Slaiman

I considered speedying this, but decided to get concensus (I know it's misspelled). Zero google hits, probably some guy writing about himself. In the original article he said he would become president. I cleaned it up, but it's probably a waste of time. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 01:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -Barfooz (talk) 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No information: it doesn't even say what his disfigurment is, or how he overcame it...or anything. No Google hits for "Max Slaiman": unverifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 03:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Gwalla. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 13:43, 2005 Jun 21 (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 del mikka (t) 04:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of dubious historical resources

• Deletion - Strong POV bias, inappropriate for Wikipedia. Discussion page of article has already had initial discussion of deletion based on this bias- eleuthero 02:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- POV list - Longhair | Talk 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This information belongs on the pages of the works in question with explanation of why they are dubious. (If the article is kept, should we add Wikipedia to it?) --Xcali 04:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Noting dubious historical resources is not a bad idea, but the items mentioned don't belong together. Livy's histories, for example, were not journalism in the modern sense, but more like docu-dramas, and were relatively accurate by that standard. A historical source that was biased or fraudulent by the standards of its time would be noteworthy. Peter Grey 06:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All historical sources are "dubious," in the sense that they should all be regarded with a healthy skepticism. Beyond that, any comparative exercise is unsalvagably POV. Xoloz 06:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although a renaming to a better title might be in order. This is mostly a list of items which are not widely accepted by historians, and such a concept is valid. Looking at the page history, I see that this list used to include such items as the joke history book 1066 and All That. Incidentally, there is a good chance that there is a better version somewhere in the pages history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite Whether to trust a source is an important part of history that deserves its own article. If this is rewritten from that perspective, with the list just being a section of the article, (with at least one line of explanation for each,) then it will become a useful article. Sonic Mew 13:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a good idea to deal with the topic you suggest, perhaps as a subsection under Historical research, or as a point of interest in the History or Historian articles. To convert this article to such content, though, it would essentially need to be totally rewritten and renamed. This might as well be deleted, in other words, because, although your concept is related to this one, there is virtually nothing useful to be transferred. Xoloz 18:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Asking to be abused, POV. DJ Clayworth 14:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, runs counter to 'citing sources'. And POV. Radiant_>|< 15:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The list is inherently POV. That's enough to kick it out. However, it is up to each author to indicate when there are doubts about a source used in an article. While I might well agree with the dubiousness of X or Y on this list, I can also go into any article that cites one of them and indicate the nature of the doubts about its validity. The List serves no vital function and cannot be rid of POV. Geogre 16:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pure POV. Who determines if a source is dubious or not? There are historians that would put the Bible in this list. Gorrister 16:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Inherently POV, or one thing, but for another all historical sources have bias and are "dubious". --Scimitar 19:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Works of ancient historians not usually relied on for accuracy or something better or Merge with some other details into Works of ancient historians or something better named. The History of the Kings of Britain is very definitely regarded as unreliable, partly because it includes roman emporers with highly inaccurate family trees. ~~~~ 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Some of the resources listed here are obviously unreliable, although this list may be very difficult to NPOV. You (Talk) 22:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to meta. Quoting myself from the Talk page: "It would be far more on-topic (& less controversial) there. In any case, I would regret it were this piece of Wikipedia history to be lost." I haven't actively defended my position there because attention to this outdated page comes & goes. -- llywrch 00:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. The victors write the history books. One person's dubious resources are another person's trusted resources and vice-versa. It's not Wikipedia's place to tell people which is which. Kaibabsquirrel 05:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up. Useful list. JamesBurns 06:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and perhaps rename. There are a fair number of plausible historical facts for which Herodotus, the Old Testament, the Qur'an, or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are the principal source; and often, the original and sometimes the only source. I tend to agree that doubts about their historicity ought to be discussed at the articles in chief, and that the list should limit its editorializing to criteria for inclusion. Smerdis of Tlön 18:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. mikka (t) 04:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

[edit] Titan Aresta

Vanity. Self-promotion by author of non-notable stick figure webcomic "Man and Goat" (no Alexa data; 180+ single-panel installments) — Gwalla | Talk 02:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity--NymphadoraTonks 03:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - I would like to make several points. First, this article is not self-promotion; the author of Man & Goat resides in Canada (http://goatart.com/index.php?p=11), yet the article in question was written by a New Zealander. Second: Gwalla's derisive mention of 'stick figures' is a merely a refection of his personal taste, which should not be a factor in any decision on an articles fate. 180 panels is consistent with the length of time since its release; weekday installments for almost 10 months. Finally: Alexa's methods, as well as the very notion of web 'rank', are flawed, and its results are meaningless for niche sites such as this. 203.109.252.196 04:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll concede that it's not strictly self-promotion; I was not aware of Mr. 203.109.254.50's nationality, and the article's style and content seemed consistent with the usual vanity pages that float through VfD. However, the mention of stick figures has very little to do with my personal taste, and very much to do with the amount of expended effort evident in the comic. The Alexa test is common for articles on websites that do not establish notability otherwise, and this one doesn't. — Gwalla | Talk 05:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable/vanity. No publication data (except webpage). The strip with the most views on the site has less than 150 views. The most comments any got is 14. This thing is less notable than a less-than-avarage blog. -Snorre/Antwelm 07:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia, like all encyclopedias, is inherently conservative about coverage. Since it is a tertiary source of information, nothing that is not well attested and discussed elsewhere should be included. New artworks are pretty much out by that criterion alone. Further, there are explicit prohibitions on advertising and autobiography and "vanity articles" (e.g. self publishing). Geogre 16:04, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:18 (UTC)

[edit] Elle milano

Non-notable band who "don't want to be signed" but do seem to want their very own vanity article. Physchim62 22:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Above user did not list this under the VFD page and I am doing it no under VFD June 21 as opposed to the original creation date of June 19th.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC as they are unsigned and it seems like there is very very litle notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Plus, "WE AREN'T SIGNED, SEE!?" behavior leans towards advertising, anyway. --Sn0wflake 14:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The band, she is not yet notable. Unsigned bands can be notable, but that requires a great passage of time. E.g. The Fans were hugely instrumental in Athens, GA's music scene, but they only made a 45 single for db records. How do we know they're notable? Lines of influence. How do we get that? About 10-15 years after the fact. Geogre 16:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising/spam. Google gives a decent, though not great, pile of results for them. I'm not sure that they pass WP:MUSIC. --Idont Havaname 20:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 22:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't have a problem with bands that aren't very well known having their own articles, but I think that if Elle milano want an article, they or someone else should write out a better one. Under the current circumstances, few people, if any, are going to read this page. (previous unsigned comment by 208.60.220.171 (talk · contribs))

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 speedy deleted as hoax/patent nonsense. (African Wombats don't exist). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan todd

This is a vanity page. Doesn't appear to be notable. Lawn gnomes? African wombats? --  B.D.Mills  (Talk) 03:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE Not even a vanity page. Just nonsense. Gary D Robson 03:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Crush with lawn gnomes and wombats. --  B.D.Mills  (Talk) 03:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Patent nonsense. --Xcali 04:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm quite gullable when it comes to unbelievable things, but "By the age of 2 he was nationally recognized as the foremost authority on the mating rituals of the endangered African Wombat" takes the biscuit. Speedy delete as patent nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, Jun 21, 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 del mikka (t) 04:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:17 (UTC)

[edit] Andres brender

A good candidate for userfy, but most likely just delete. JeremyA 03:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No point in userfying for an anon IP, and besides IP has only edited twice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right, userfy is the wrong word. I meant politely suggest to the anon editor that he might like to register for Wikipedia and make some useful contributions. I don't like to be too fast to declare vanity because, it seems to me that for a proportion of new users it is not so much vanity, more just a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. JeremyA 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I get where you're coming from, but remember that in these parts, "vanity" isn't that much of a dirty word. We use it in the sense of "vanity press", and it just means an article written by its subject (or someone closely involved with its subject). That doesn't necessarily make it a bad article, or necessarily imply bad faith of the author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Geogre's law failure: He can't be bothered with the shift key or listing any accomplishments (where you go to school isn't an accomplishment). Geogre 16:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn., vanity, self-promotion. jni 1 July 2005 06:25 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

[edit] Warren Smith

Pretty sure it's vanity. Rhobite 03:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --mtz206 12:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:54, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 21:43 (UTC)

[edit] Kareem Allam

Looks like vanity. Rhobite 03:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. According to the article he's "Widely considered to be one of the most controversial figures in conservative politics", but he gets only 21 Google hits, suggesting that he is not widely considered at all. I see no evidence of notablility. -- Infrogmation 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. He can come back when he runs for elected office. And then we'll NPOV the heck out of it. Ground Zero 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: He's a pollster. I don't think he should come back when he runs for office, either. I don't even think regional folks should be in when they win, but that's a different debate. Vainglory. Geogre 16:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:57, 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 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 speedy deleted as unverifiable nonsense. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bieronski test

Neologism. No Google hits. Likely a comment on one of the author's teachers. --Xcali 04:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 04:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost looks like the production of a student who failed a math test and avenges himself by writing about how ridiculous the whole test was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack on a non-notable test. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Definitely a boo-hoo from a student, but I can't quite see pulling the trigger on it for libel, as he left the teacher's name out of it, sort of. Geogre 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it be*i thinks its a warning for future students who need to kno of the tactics the teacher usesUser:Aabid Patel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.171.225 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy or strong delete as attack page and nonsense; I don't know why this isn't covered under WP:CSD. Above vote was by an anon. --Idont Havaname 20:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and a word to the creator: it gets worse as you get older. After a while, you're not even expected to have enough time to finish. humblefool® 21:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is necessary to give a reason for deleting this? If yes: it's rubbish --Neigel von Teighen 21:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it be While the professionalism of of page may be called into question, there are some interesting ramifications to the deletion of such a page. The very premise of Wikipedia is that all relevent information is encouraged to be submitted. While the information contained within may be of an obscure or esoteric nature, it is important that it remain on the public domain. HaroldK 21:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.20.7 (talk • contribs)
• Comment The two votes for "Leave it be" are very suspicious. It looks like an attempt to forge nonexistent users. I didn't supply a reason for deletion earlier, but I believe the article should be deleted for these reasons: (a) borderline libel, (b) not notable, (c) neologism, (d) unverifiable. Any of these is grounds for deletion. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 03:59, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

[edit] Six Things

Non-notable webcomic, does not meet inclusion guidelines. Started this year, only 89 strips so far. — Gwalla | Talk 04:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Wikipedia is not a web guide - Longhair | Talk 05:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo for a non notable comic. JamesBurns 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Should the webcomic inclusion guidelines be linked from the list of webcomics page? Cnoocy 13:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a very good idea. humblefool® 22:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable comic. Gorrister 15:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've created a shortcut called WP:COMIC. HTH. Radiant_>|< 08:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stub created as part of list of web comics. Almafeta 23:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)

[edit] Omaha Jets

Unverifiable. Entire article reads: The Omaha Jets are an O.B.A. team based in Bellevue, Nebraska. Only 26 Google hits (unrelated including a fantasy football team), see [1], notability not established, Delete. JamesBurns 05:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable fantasy team. Megan1967 05:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• See also several other articles at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Outdoor Basketball Association. sjorford →•← 13:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Also delete the others. These are not quite fantasy league or rotissere league, but they're so far down on the local and private level as to barely register as worth having an article on as a phenomenon. Individual teams are known only to their participants. Geogre 16:16, 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 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 speedy deleted for the reasons listed in the votes. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Group for framing syllabus:

Not an article. Appears to be some sort of lesson plan. I speedily deleted it a couple times but the user kept re-creating it, so I figured I'd get consensus with a VfD. Rhobite 06:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete again. It looks like someone is using Wikipedia to make a personal website. If possible, leave a message for the author that this is misuse of Wikipedia and if he persists, he may/will be blocked. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete with prejudice as nonsense. Xoloz 06:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 07:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again, preferably speedily. jni 08:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, attempt at communication between teacher and students, attempt at webhosting. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, Jun 21, 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 FCYTravis 5 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)

[edit] Macdev

looks like Advertising or other spam 24.44.37.202 07:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteAdvertising see cyborg marker--Porturology 12:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• MacDel. Although there are many Google links, most of them seem completely unrelated to the subject. - Sikon 14:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; 83,000 google hits; possibly the company is of some note, but if article is kept it needs to be rewritten. -- Infrogmation 14:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; I change it a little bit guys, check that and tell me if it's better. Blaklyte
• Keep, barely. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:28 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

[edit] Cyborg_marker

advertisting 24.44.37.202 07:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. I'm guessing this is a brand of paintball gun. --bainer (talk) 09:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with bainer Delete --Artorius 14:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as obvious advertising. Remember to delete the associated images Image:Blue-silver.jpg, Image:Case-soft.jpg, and Image:Yellow2.jpg at the same time. -- Infrogmation 14:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as advertising. --Sn0wflake 14:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No Delete, I'm the one that place the marker there. I'm not part of the Macdev campany. this is not advertisment. I place the marker there because it's the one that I'm using and I wanted to put the info and spec of that gun. I did not place any price or any place were you can buy the marker.--Blaklyte 17:30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

[edit] Crusading Otter

Appears to be an autobiographical/vanity page. Consider for deletion. Bobhobbit 07:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 08:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. Gorrister 15:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 22:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Save I love this band's humor, and I have to say, it IS well put together as a page. George The Man 22:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the article's creator. --Etacar11 22:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Though it is slightly partial, does it make a difference if that's what I believe? Is it NOT well put together? George The Man 19:03, 2 Jul 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 28 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

[edit] TAO (software)

Advertising 24.44.37.202 07:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I've toned down the advertising a bit. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, does not seem to be too out of line if the latest edits are taken into consideration. --Sn0wflake 14:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned up and expanded. JamesBurns 06:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the most known free ORB, being developed for years. Pavel Vozenilek 01:32, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:21 (UTC)

[edit] United States President George W. Bush speech to Congress on September 20 2001

It's already on Wikisource: September 11, 2001: Attack on America. Eixo 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 08:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Source material, already in wikisource. Delete as duplicate. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, duplicate content. --bainer (talk) 09:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplicate content. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per above. -- Natalinasmpf 12:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above jamesgibbon 14:58, 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 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 DELETED as a copyright violation. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] April 29, 1992 (Miami)

Pages with only song lyrics are not encyclopedic. Delete unless rewritten completely. jni 08:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete wikipedia is not a lyrics database. JamesBurns 08:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete. Lyrics are a big no-no. Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless they were published prior to 1923, in which case they would be perfectly good for Wikisource. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a content repository. This is probably a copyvio also. --bainer (talk) 09:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no lyrics in Wikipedia, please. — JIP | Talk 11:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:12, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete Any lyrics are considered as copyvio, so that makes this whole article copyvio. Sonic Mew 13:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This should have been listed as a copyvio, but as long as it's here let's just delete it here. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. If it were a notable song, then a temp file should possibly be written but there is no evidence that it has been a single or award-winning track. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 22 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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

[edit] Armitage shanks football

Non notable student kickabout. the wub "?/!" 09:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Leithp 09:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A refugee from the local newspaper's "Who'd a Thunk It" section. Local, amateur, and not really "infamous" as it claims. Vanity article. Geogre 16:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this article is, I'm afraid a hoax. Armitage Shanks is a well-known manufacturer of toilets, and "Newcastle Albion Wanderers" and "Gymru Norfolk Albion" are without doubt fictitious football teams, with names intended to sound amusing to British readers. I laughed though, not least upon reading some of the justifications for deletion provided above, and will certainly archive a copy for myself :D --jamesgibbon 15:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps BJAODN, of course... — Matt Crypto 00:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Dell55, I have a winners medal to prove the existance of this trophy. It resembles a toilet seat.-- unsigned by User:144.32.128.112
• Keep. Tournament has been played for last 20 years and has become a York University institution. I'm looking forward to next years final. I saw the 2005 final which was mindblowing..-- unsigned by User:144.32.128.112
• Keep. Article is needed to mark the importance and achievements of this great tournament past and present. .-- unsigned by User:144.32.128.68
• Comment- Two of the last three votes made by User:144.32.128.112, the third by User:144.32.128.68. I have added the appropriate attributions. (Oh, and Delete. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)
• Delete, Someone's trying it on... -- Arwel 30 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:23 (UTC)

[edit] Phulpreet Sindh Sodhi

Autobiographical article by student born 1985. Uppland 09:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 10:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, no claim to notability. --Etacar11 23:00, 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 del mikka (t) 04:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phobia (attitude)

Delete Non-notable neologism, should be deleted outright. Axon 09:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Huh? It's not a neologism, and is a topic of psychopathology and (for better or worse) in the popular press. This VfD nomination seems bizarre. Keep. -- Hoary 10:42, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC) ...... Sorry, I was so amazed by the notion that "phobia" was a neologism that my normal mental processes shorted out. I still think this is a bizarre nomination; but any new and sound content of the article should be merged with that of phobia or that of relevant articles linked from phobia, and it should then be redirected to phobia. -- Hoary 10:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • Please highlight what is "bizarre" about this nomination: it seems to me to be an invented term (i.e. neologism) and a quick google test only returns 200 or so hits, most of which do not appear to be for the usage as defined within the article. If it isn't I invite people to supply references in this VfD and I will happily stand corrected change my vote. Any "bizzareness" will be revealed by the outcome of this VfD. Also, please bold your vote (Keep or Merge) for clarity. Axon 10:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the lack of bolding, now corrected. But perhaps you and I are using different google tests. My own gets one million for "phobia". The word is hardly new: the OED says it has been in use for over two hundred years, defining it as "Fear, horror, or aversion..." (my emphasis). But perhaps you're treating its use for a mere attitude as a novelty. Let's see what the new article says: Usially [sic] it [sc. "phobia"] is described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the phobia. Thus it overlaps with the psychopathological usage of the word: the extension of a word with a strong meaning to everyday uses is normal in language: cf "starving", "famished", etc.; which I think are about as commonly used to describe the humdrum sensations I'm experiencing right now than they are for Oxfam's areas of concern. Here's Coleridge in 1801: "I ... have a perfect phobia of inns and coffee houses" -- thanks to his considerate addition of "perfect", this sounds like an attitude to me. So the word is widely used and two centuries old, the extension to mean mere "dislike" (etc.) doesn't seem new, and thus the description of the word or usage as a neologism seems bizarre. -- Hoary 11:30, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
      • I'm working on the basis that we are looking at "phobia attitude"[2] or "phobic attitude"[3] (hence the parenthesis) and not just phobia - it would indeed be bizarre to question the inclusion of phobia in Wikipedia, but the creator of this article has been linking to this page on numerous phobia articles[4] as "phobic attitude". Obviously some confusion here, a lot of it caused by the nature of the article in question which is why I think, given the lack of actual material within, it should be deleted. Axon
        • Ah, I'm starting to follow. But only starting. There doesn't seem to be any claim in the article, though, that "phobia attitude" is a set phrase. The creation of phobic attitude as a redirect to this article seems bizarre, since that phrase too seems little used. The article seems pretty innocuous, though: a collection of the dislikes of prudes and others. It also seems superfluous. I've no idea why the author would have wanted to create it. -- Hoary 11:48, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
          • "Phobic attitude" it is just a phrase, like "tall grass"; don't be picky. If you don't like this particular concatenation you are welcome to replace it by [[phobia (attitude)|phobic]] [[attitude]] . I am immensely surprised that you people don't see the difference between agoraphobia and Afrophobia. Not to say about Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. mikka (t) 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Given the above, I'm inclined to believe Phobia (attitude) refers to the phrase (phobic attitude) rather than being a qualifier for word phobia. The article itself gives no clues as to what phobia (attitude) refers to. Axon 11:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Look into Attitude (psychology) and look into the previous version of (medical)phobia. If you think that I missed something, please improve. 16:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • All you can derive from the Attitude article is that a phobic attitude would be a manifestation of fear vis-a-vis a given object. Ergo, a phobic attitude may consist of, say, running away from a lion. If someone is a "homophobe," he would run away screaming from homosexuals. The previous version of the phobia article (that you mentioned) is utterly flawed and a wikipedia article is no evidence that you are right (if wikipedia articles were always right, none would be edited and none would be deleted). ;-) HKT 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to phobia. There is already a list of phobias here. --Fazdeconta 11:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with phobia. Much of this can be entered under Non-clinical uses of the term. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article duplicates phobia#Non-clinical uses of the term. Some of the usefulness of the -phobia article is lost because of the size of that list - that might be better split into recognized medical phobias, non-medical phobias (purpose of this article) and neologisms not in use. Peter Grey 15:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Riposte. This article does not duplicate phobia#Non-clinical uses of the term. I specifically cut the piece out, leaving only a summary. mikka (t) 16:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If the -phobia article needs improvement, it will be more consistent to discuss ways of its improvement on the corresponding talk page. - Sikon 16:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing here to merge with phobia, and there is a much more complete list of phobias in -phobia. - Sikon 14:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So you want to put fear of height and hatred towards afroamericans back into one basket? 16:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed, that is what you do if you misuse "phobic" to refer to prejudice and hatred. Afrophobia is a misnomer/neologism that has (unfortunately) a wikipedia article. Equating hostility with phobia confuses people and makes them think that, for example, the KKK is merely frightened of African-Americans (or that the KKK's hatred stems primarily from its extreme fright). HKT 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that some people misuse the word "phobia" is not particularly significant. --Lee Hunter 16:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When sufficiently many people misuse the word it means that the word acquired a new meaning. That's how the lag]nguage lives. mikka (t) 16:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • How many is "sufficiently many?" If I say that cat means air-conditioner, and 1,000 people like my idea, should I change the wiki article cat? What about 10,000 people? 100,000? I think that when the term and the meaning you have attributed to it become standardized in most respectable dictionaries, it will have "acquired a new meaning." HKT 21:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Extremely strong keep. I specifically cut out this piece from medical phobia in order to clear-cut separate the medical from non-medical usage of the term. Each and every "pseudo"-"Xfobia" or "anti-X" article, like anti-Semitism or Afrophobia, started from one and the same phrase "XXfobia is fear or hostility towards XX". And now you are telling me that phobia (attitude) is a neologism. The medical phobia article contained all these pseudo-phobias. So the topic is perfectly valid. mikka (t) 16:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh... There is a major distinction between saying that being anti-X is defined as anti-X and saying that being X-phobic is defined as being anti-X. A=A; A does not per-se equal B. Also, other flawed wikipedia articles shouldn't be cited as proof. Rather, they should be changed/deleted. At least you admit that they are "pseudo-phobias." The question is whether pseudo-phobias and neologisms should be on Wikipedia. At most, articles like Afrophobia should begin something like: "Afrophobia is a popularized neologism that is often used to refer to...." HKT 20:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sigh...Grunt... Since it is fashionable now to slap the label "phobia"onto any kind of dislike, we need one single article that says what you have just written: that this usage of the word phobia is not medical, that these are not "phobias" in the long-sustained meaning. mikka (t) 21:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Sigh...Grunt...Bypkl6qy&uge@ri... An addendum to phobia will fill this need quite well. It could go something like this: "In recent years, a misapplication of the term or suffix phobic has become popular; many use the term while intending to convey the meaning of unfounded hatred and hostility. Etc." HKT 22:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "You and me went to the store" is no more correct grammar for being common; the commonality of this mistake doesn't justify an article. HKT 17:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with -phobia for reasons given by others. It's not a misuse of the word but it's not a distinct usage either. I notice, for what it's worth, that all the other language links that I can understand on that page (not that many) seem to go straight to 'phobia', rather than 'phobia (attitude)' or some equivalent. Naturenet 19:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a misuse. Wiktionary (for example) defines as follows: 1. An irrational or obsessive fear or anxiety, (usually of or about something particular). HKT 20:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then recreate as a re-direct to phobia. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What little is here is already covered elsewhere, as it should be. There is no need to reinvent this as a redirect since people don't normally do searches for such things as "phobia (attitude)", rather "phobia attitude" which will get them Phobia and -phobia [5]. Tomer ^TALK 20:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I I don't want people to click at phobia in Afrophobia and see that this is kind of disease. mikka (t) 21:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The way to avoid this happening is with proper editing. Instead of linking to phobia, if that is your fear, you should change the link to phobia. Tomer ^TALK 21:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What isn't already duplicated in better articles is a collection of neologisms and lossely-related concepts. illWill 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Which are better ones, I wonder? I moved the relevant piece out of phobia. Where else the term is covered? All these "loosely related concepts" have two things in common: misuse of the medical term and they are used to refer to any kind of negative attitude. mikka (t) 21:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm in favor of taking out large sections of excessively long articles and putting them into articles of their own, but this is not what's happened here. You're pulling out one use of a term and giving it its own article like a 2nd entry in a dictionary or something, specifically apparently because you don't like what you see as a confusion between the "real definition" and a false "popular definition". This looks a lot like POV pushing, although I'm sure that wasn't your intention. Your arguments make sense, but they're unconvincing. I'd prefer to see the material at Phobia#Non-clinical_uses_of_the_term be expanded and clarified rather than to see it split off into its own article...and at such time as it is sufficiently large to warrant its own article, I'd like to see a discussion of how to name that article on Talk:Phobia. I think that something with the word "Prejudice" in its name would be a much better title for such an article, however, than something containing the word "Phobia". Tomer ^TALK 21:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • giving it its own article like a 2nd entry in a dictionary: it is a second entry in the dictionary: it is a meaning IMO sufficiently different from the medical one. And please don't POV me here; please refresh the knowledge of WP:NPOV policy. What I did I split out a piece of the existing article; I did not add a bit of my POV into the article. mikka (t) 22:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • "it is a second entry in the dictionary" Could you provide a source for this? I think it might be helpful in furthering this discussion. HKT 23:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instead of bothering me, why don't you open a dictionary yourself?

• A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.
• A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.
• an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations; "phobic disorder is a general term for all phobias" [syn: phobic disorder, phobic neurosis]

If you don't see the major difference between a disorder and simply a "strong dislike", then I don't think references to dictionaries will help you. mikka (t) 06:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No,no,no. I can read a dictionary myself. I cannot, however, find one that defines phobia as (to quote from the article in question): "Prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility." A phobia is something that leads one to experience emotional responses correlated with extreme fright: Increased pulse, high blood pressure, extreme sweating, trembling, etc. That type of "strong aversion" can be defined as phobia. I doubt that most racists experience these symptoms when they encounter objects of their hatred. HKT 18:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. It seems you almost nailed me here. But I added some of these from all listed "pseudophobia" articles, quoting:
    • Afrophobia is an fear of or hostility toward...
    • Caucasophobia ... denoting hostility towards
    • Christianophobia, also called Christophobia, refers to fear or hatred of
    • Islamophobia is a contemporary neologism defined as prejudice against

  etc. These definitions are phrased differently, but you have to agree that basically they speak of something common, a kind of negative attitude to the object of "-phobia". mikka (t) 05:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • • Ok. To tell you the truth, Mikka, I think that all of the articles that you've cited should note that they are neologisms. I see that what you have done by creating this article is try to make a link for people so that they understand what "phobia" is meant in all those various articles. Your efforts are admirable and I see that you have only tried to be helpful. However, I think such an article is liable to confuse people and lead them into thinking that defining phobia (even as an attitude) as "prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility" is technically acceptable. Therefore I suggest the following (and I hope we can achieve some consensus on this): The common (but technically flawed) use of the term "phobia" should be placed prominently in the wiki article phobia, and discussed more thoroughly there. The links (Afrophobia, etal.) should also be placed in that section. You have mentioned that this usage of the term is too inconspicuous in the Phobia article, and I hope this suggestion would resolve that. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, HKT 06:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You don't have to tell me the truth;-) yes, they are neologisms, so what? They are in wikipedia, not deleted.
      • "technically acceptable" thingy: Words have their semantic ranges. (I feel very uneasy when I have to teach someone English, which is not my native language.) Take the word "cretinism" and tell me how many usages of this word are "technically correct", i.e., refer to the deficiency of thyroid hormones? The same with "phobia". Want it or not, all dictionaries quote two meanings: the "techically correct" one, ie a kind of disorder, and "common parlance", i.e., "fear, dislike, or aversion", which does not necessarily produces high blood pressure and sweating.
      • I am also well aware of a natural resistance of many people to propagating new meanings of the words. The life of a language is a combination of both flexibility, to accommodate the changing world, and conservatism, to keep the language from turning into a mess. Therefore I am not planning to wage edit wars over the issue.
      • I am aware as well that some people go over the board with words, and I anderstand your concern about encouraging the "nontechnical" usage of the word. Recently I have found an amazing example at this lovely website:

        The expert phobia team at CTRN's Phobia Clinic is board-certified to help with Russophobia and a variety of related problems. The success rate of our 24 hour program is close to 100%.

      So I guess it is time to send congrats to Vladimir Putin.

      • This is my last post on the topic. I am afraid I am becoming way too repetitive here. mikka (t) 18:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This completely misses the point. If it is a second entry in the dictionary, that simply supports my earlier assertion that it should not be moved to a separate article. Tomer ^TALK 23:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • In this relation I would suggest you think about reasons for the existence od disambiguation pages. Wikipedia does not collect all entries for a word into one article. mikka (t) 06:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you feel that strongly that the content of Non clinical usage of the term should not be included in the article, the proper way to handle this is by taking it up on the talk page. Since it's a bit late for that, perhaps you would consider renaming those parts of the article you've taken out and put in Phobia (attitude) and putting a disambig note at the top of the Phobia article. I wouldn't personally be in favor of such a move, but I wouldn't oppose it as strongly as I oppose what you've done in the absence of discussion. (And no, let me clarify, I oppose what you've done, not the fact that you did it without discussion. If you'd be willing to discuss a change of name for the article and to put a HUGE {{cleanup}} on the resultant article, I'll be more than happy to reconsider my vote, and possibly to even urge others to do so as well.) Tomer ^TALK 09:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge back into phobia. Use of words belong to Wiktionary. Alternatively, if you are concerned about the different uses, you could create phobia (disambiguation) which could refer to things like ethnocentrism, homophobia etc. - Skysmith 09:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • On that note, although it's not particularly germane to this discussion, I would say that phobia (disambiguation) should point to Phobia, -phobia and Prejudice. Making it point to ethnocentrism and homophobia would be very easibly arguable POV inclusions. Am I the only one who sees this whole thing, not just Phobia (attitude), but even worse-so Phobia (disambiguation) as a potentially HUGE can of very slimy worms? Tomer ^TALK 09:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you all to move technical discussions into Talk:Phobia, leaving this page for votes only, with brief statement of the position. Certainly the talks above are very relevant to the article(s) in question and may serve for its/their improvement. mikka (t) 15:25, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

[edit] Miller technique

Salvaged from speedy deletion - last time I checked "relevance and factuality" wasn't a speedy criterion. I believe this to be verifiable and noteworthy, so I'll vote keep, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are provided, I couldn't find this with google. Plenty of other Miller techniques around though. Kappa 09:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless proved to be nonverifiable. - Sikon 14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hunh? How does one prove something to be nonverifiable? Either one can find verifying evidence or one can't. (I'll change my delete vote below if independent verification and evidence of notability can be provided.) -- Infrogmation 14:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless extensive and verifiable sources are provided. As I see it, this is not a technique, but rather something logical that an incalculable amount of people do. It's a concept, not a technique. Non-notable. --Sn0wflake 14:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability or verifiability. No google hits for "Miller techique" Ralley. Googling "Miller technique" "script writing" generates one false hit irrelevent to the supposed subject of the article. -- Infrogmation14:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lack of relevance and factuality may not be CSD but they sure are criteria for deletion.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A technique less than a year old which has apparently only been used in a short film by two unknown screenwriters. Also I could find no hits on Google. Non-notable by any measure. --Lee Hunter 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially the story is made up as you go along. Peter Grey 21:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How is that a reason to delete? Kappa 21:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • see comment Sn0wflake 14:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- Peter Grey 21:52, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)

[edit] Bert Smith

Perennial candidate in Oklahoman politics, who can't motivate the writer to use the sHiFt key. Let him get elected or do something else that's notable in some way. -- Hoary 10:38, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Obvious vanity. - Sikon 14:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; no objection to speedy. Smith may (or may not) have some notability in Oklahoma politics, but this semi-literate looking stublet can be thrown in the bit-bucket either way. -- Infrogmation 14:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this but: It's quite possible that an NPOV article on Bert Smith would be useful, as he is one of those people referred to quite often (largely as a joke). Geogre 16:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pretty worthless at the moment. No prejudice if someone recreates with something better. --Etacar11 23:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 06:43, 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 deleted by Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bob Burns - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

[edit] Cindy Costa

The discussion of a whole set of similiar articles is happenening at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bob Burns. Please cast your ballot there. --Xcali 13:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like your basic high-school teacher vanity page by some student. Delete as nnanity. — JIP | Talk 11:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Student vanity. - Longhair | Talk 11:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — and the same editor ([User:129.44.238.198]) is creating many other similar pages, for example Brian Pedraza, Kevin Rhinehart. Bill 12:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --mtz206 12:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm going to merge this VfD with the others to make things easier.--Xcali 13:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Tribute page = vanity page. There is no historical or regional significance to these individuals, although I'm sure they're fine folk. Geogre 16:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks to someone, the DeSale School article that got VfD'd is back. Since that was ok, then why not a cut and paste from their web page on every single person at the school? Sorry for being bitter, but one of my long arguments against the "people are interested in their school" line is that they're so interested that they'll start up with rival pages, teacher pages, pages on which teacher is kewel, how the computer lab sux, etc. Geogre 16:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I take it Microsoft is ok, or should we delete that too in case someone cuts and pastes every member of their staff? Kappa 19:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And the reductio ad absurdum has finally hit! [Your School Here] = Microsoft in terms of significance, effect on the world, and uniqueness! Sheesh. Geogre 04:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The comparison is between microsoft workers and schoolteachers, not between MS and a particular school. Kappa 06:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • No one is automatically notable for working in a notable institution. Both the DeSales school and Microsoft are notable (Microsoft more so) but that doesn't mean all their employees are. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Agree with Geogre and JIP. Delete. Barno 14:32, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:26 (UTC)

[edit] Last Vote

First, this article may cover a real music band, but I've never heard of it - and I life in the same region this band comes from! Second, this is merely an ad for the group than an encyclopedic entry. Keimzelle 11:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as band vanity. I'm in Basel quite often, and I've never heard of them either. They're not on Google nor are they on Allmusic.com. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. - Sikon 14:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. You (Talk) 23:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:44, 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 redirect to Lightweight Directory Access Protocol - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

[edit] RFC 3377

This isn't worth a wikipedia article. The RFC itself is tiny (it's really an index of a small number of other RFCs), and there isn't really anything interesting to write about it. Also, just as wikipedia isn't an RFC repository, it's not an RFC index either. RFC 3377 is mentioned as the latest version of the LDAP standards in Lightweight Directory Access Protocol, and that's enough.. Biot 11:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. All the real content here is the external link, and that is alreadt in the LDAP article. — JIP | Talk 12:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic stub. As noted before, Wikipedia is not an RFC repository. - Sikon 14:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect per the comments above. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as somebody might search for this (in fact, it looks like someone did, 18 months ago, which is when the stub was created). sjorford →•← 17:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. Wikiacc (talk) 17:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. JamesBurns 06:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect; it's purely about LDAP jamesgibbon 15:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Gazpacho 15:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lightweight Directory Access Protocol.--Nabla 17:35, 2005 Jun 24 (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 all. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

[edit] Outdoor Basketball Association et al.

Also: Philadelphia Gold, New York Coyotes, Milwaukee Cheesemen, Washington Bulldogs, Richmond Devils, Orlando Hawks, Virginia Beach Admirals, Kansas City Fire, Oklahoma City Twisterz, New Hampshire Sound, Rapid City Fusion, OBA Bankruptcy of 2005, and Template:Virginia Beach Sports.

Not verifiable via Google, ditto for the individual teams. Three other articles are already on VFD: Omaha Jets, B.C. Navajo Nation, and Atlanta Torment; and Violin Stadium was already deleted. I think the whole thing's an elaborate fantasy, probably involving User:MLSfan0012, who claims to have created several of these articles (although his contribs disagree). sjorford →•← 12:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all: Above, I thought that the OBA might have been worth noting in passing. I've changed my mind. It's unofficial. It has no structure. It has no court. It is a mixture of any sort of game. I.e. it's largely imaginary. Without games played, people playing, and any write up by anyone else, what we're looking at here is hoax, perhaps vanity, but entirely unverifiable in any case. Geogre 16:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, almost all of these entries are unverifiable fantasy teams - non notable in the slightest. JamesBurns 06:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, I bet MLSfan0012 claims he created these articles anyway because I bet it was an attempt to turn red links blue, but it has been here for almost a month. I bet some one who created this wasn't MLSfan0012 becuase a person like who would say he would make an article anytime he creates it, so I bet it isn't all his fault he says he edited O.B.A.; I bet if he created it, it would off been there a long time ago, so it couldn't be all his fault. Some of the articles he created though helped me to increasing random sports reference. DCUnitedRock23.

• Speedy Delete, I apologize, that I created articles for any of O.B.A. sporting teams, I was only doing it because when I was trying to look up on base average I found something benith it saying Outdoor Basketball Association. When I saw the names of teams I noticed all of them had a red link...I then knew how all other sporting leagues had an article for each team, so mainly a just wrote a stubby article about it, though I didn't put any of those detailed facts, probably it's some fantasy online thing. MLSfan0012

Delete There's a profesional outdoor basketball league? RealSaltLakeRule44

Cleanup or Delete I have herd of the Richmond Devils though I always of thought they didn't exsist because I only herd about them from Wikipedia. RichmondDevilsRock9

Keep Could be something productive. LAGalaxyRock72

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 (Sandeep is a 14 year old who was born in Leeds, England and currently resides in Chalvey, England). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandeep

This is clear vanity, delete Frenchman113 13:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Vanity - Longhair | Talk 13:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Sn0wflake 14:24, 21 Jun 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 speedy deleted at author request

[edit] Michael Anshel

I first noticed this page as a copyvio. You can see it was taken mostly from here. After I tagged it, the person who put it on Wikipedia notified me that they wrote it with Michael Anshel. So, this falls under the criteria for a vanity page. Additionally, it can be seen as a bit of spamming, as a link to his website was inserted several times and removed on the cryptography article by the same person as well. There is a question of lack of notability as well: half his CV is just stuff about his former students, only 8 published papers (compare with someone like Menezes). To me he seems like an average professor. Only 247 google hits. CryptoDerk 14:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — Matt Crypto 14:28, 21 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 merge with Mall Goth. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

[edit] Mallgoth

VfD started by BenFrantzDale, but incomplete. I would vote delete as a neologism and derogatory one at that. If there is anything worthwhile here, surely it could be moved to one of the other goth articles. But others may disagree with me, of course. --Etacar11 14:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, merge is fine by me, didn't notice the entry for Mall Goth. --Etacar11 19:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge somewhere. Content would anyway need merging with Mall Goth, and Spooky Kid. The elitist attitudes of some goths is worth documenting. Morwen - Talk 15:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Mall Goth. JamesBurns 06:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge this with mall goth Yuckfoo 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to one of the above suggestions. SchmuckyTheCat 19:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect according to above. Jaberwocky6669 02:42, Jun 26, 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!) 1 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

[edit] Mills fc

A schoolboy football team that only plays one day a year DJ Clayworth 14:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The team itself are very popular within the Tonbridge area and someone may search this site for more information on the club. DEL 15:48
  • presumably this is a keep vote by DEL aka 172.188.33.37 who appears to be the author.
• Delete unless evidence is provided that they are notable anywhere other than Tonbridge. -- Infrogmation 14:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article states that the team's main fanbase is based locally and therefore your suggestion is unfair towards the article. DEL

• Unsigned comment by User:172.202.147.164 -- Wikibofh 18:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, nice website though Naturenet 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Three year old team that plays once a year. Gamaliel 19:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete team vanity. JamesBurns 06:46, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:28 (UTC)

[edit] If I were a...

Unverifiable and of dubious value Gorrister 15:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No sources. No indication of value. Not even a party game. "If I were a vote I'd be delete". Wikibofh 15:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More like random-stuff-people-sometimes-talk-about than an article. --Lee Hunter 16:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• RPG-cruft (also called "Chinese portrait"), not to mention elementary-school assignment. Delete as insignificant.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If I were a vote, I would be a delete because this article has no value. Nestea 18:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning. Meanwhile, I would delete this as unencylopedic. Capitalistroadster 01:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 06:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete, it's a game, but I doubt much verifiable and encyclopedic can be said about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, Jun 22, 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 del mikka (t) 03:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marvelous Bob

Non notable comic Gorrister 15:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable comic. JamesBurns 06:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, see also Michael Buonauro. RadicalSubversiv E 22:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect this to the michael buonauro article Yuckfoo 22:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• merge with Michael Buonauro, assuming it doesnt get deleted too. <>Who?¿? 05:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with author. mikka (t) 03:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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 Ambi (patent nonsense). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neva Ciftcioglu

Vanity page--Adoniscik 15:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Vanity. Even if it isn't, it's not in English. Or am I at the wrong Wikipedia? - Longhair | Talk 15:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - moving to speedy delete as non-english pages qualify for speedy deletion. Gorrister 16:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 21:52 (UTC)

[edit] The Society of United Royalists

As yet non-notable society, founded in 2005. "Society of United Royalists" gives 15 Google hits. Uppland 15:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. And their link didn't even work. --Etacar11 23:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What link? - Jamescbernthal

• It didn't work yesterday but is ok now. My vote is the same, though. --Etacar11 14:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No links have been edited since page's creation. An "unlimited encyclopedia" should surely cover this expanding society. It has the approval of the Empress of Iran, which must make it in some way noteworthy. - Jamescbernthal
  • I direct you to WP:NOT. --Etacar11 14:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable, delete. Props for correctly calling HM Elizabeth II Queen of Great Britain. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 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. (5 keep, 9 delete) - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 09:56 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Scherer

Delete Total vanity page created by Karlscherer3 about himself. Nothing very noteworthy about author. Even so, Wikipedia policy states not to create article about self, even if noteworthy. Contents could be copied to his user page. Currently, there he redirects visitors to article.— Frecklefoot | Talk 15:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. If you're notable, let someone else write the article. It's a clear rule. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to keep, I followed Frecklefoot, who apparently made a wrong assumption on who created the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on note below. and additional info on my talk. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Important note. the page was created by User:68.160.162.88, who has no other contributions. Using a simplified version of the text that Karl Scherer added (as User:202.37.72.100 at this edit) to Turing Machine. It is consequently likely that this user is Karl Scherer, in the "vanity page" ilk. ~~~~ 21:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KeepThe article clearly establishes notability - wrote four books and numerous articles, invented a number of puzzles, solved various problems. --Lee Hunter 16:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - gets over 6500 Google hits - seems to be of some notable value. Gorrister 16:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I noticed some of the edits yesterday, appears to be a relatively new user (first edit 18 May 2005, quite a few since then) who may be unfamiliar with policy. Very cooperative and open to becoming better informed of policy. (I'm not the one to inform, perhaps someone with more knowledge can help?) The page was created in 2003 by an ip from austrailia, so I don't believe he made it himself. I added the "see [article]" to his user page, it was empty before. Slike2 20:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The article notes that Scherer lives in New Zealand, which may explain the Australian IP address (though it may be a coincidence). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He seems notable. As far as Mgm's comment, it appears that an article on Scherer existed for over a year an half and was done by someone other than Scherer (judging by the content). If Scherer himself then expands it with acceptable content, that seems not only acceptable but desireable. Who should know more details than the subject himself? DS1953 00:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I assumed Frecklefoot checked who created the page, but it appears he was mistaking. Changed my vote accordingly. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable mathematician. Abstain JamesBurns 06:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or Delete. The entire article has been typed by Karl Scherer except one single paragraph (the bit about the Turing machine). I believe we need to hold a firm line against self-promotion. Also note that the books are self-published, and the article has links to where you can buy them from his site. I can't remember ever seeing such a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for financial gain. Niteowlneils 01:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr. Scherer has edited from at least 5 IPs that I have found so far, so there is no way to know that he isn't the sole contributor to the article. Regardless, the total notability claims are, building a Turing machine (unverifiable), having a handful of articles published in a 'math puzzles' magazine, and self-publishing content in a variety of media; even combined that doesn't seem that notable, especially to waive the 'no self-promotion' policy. Niteowlneils 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yikes, I didn't notice that. I've de-linked the books and the DVD per Wikipedia:External links, but I left the link to his website alone. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The part about building a Turing machine that's now in a German museum doesn't seem verifiable via any site that isn't an 'any user can contribute' site--of the 45 displayed hits for "karl Scherer" turing -wikipédia -wikipedia, the only ones (other than his) that make that claim are Wikipedia mirrors and a few forums. (Also, FWIW, he has also added links to his site from at least seven other articles). Niteowlneils 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not possible for him to have created a Turing machine. If he had then he would have won a very large prize indeed. And no-one would bother competing for it anymore, as it would already have been won. It is a theoretical device. ~~~~ 10:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Noteable figure but author should be warned about vanity pages Billhpike 01:17, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - I cahnged my mind after reading other's comments Billhpike 00:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice total advertising & vanity spam. See user's other contributions [6]. ~~~~ 10:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Important comment the statement that Karl Scherer created a real turing machine, on the Turing Machine article, was originally added by User:202.37.72.100 (contributions: [7]), who also added spam links to "zillions of games" in the same edit ([8], i.e. he is the same as User:Karlscherer3. ~~~~ 10:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is one of 5 IPs (with three different numbers before the first dot) the same user has edited under. Niteowlneils 17:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Alert Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3 ~~~~ 11:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 6500 Google hits means I vote to keep. If there was no article here about someone who finds a cure for a major disease, and they came along and wrote it themselves, it would be stupid to delete it. Granted, that's a very exaggerated case, but this person is at least somewhat notable, and the page deserves npov, not hostile delete. Slike2 20:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If you type in the more sensible attempt at googling "Karl Scherer" -wikipedia you will get only about 847, most of which are his own websites, or message boards and forums to which he has contributed, so hardly count. If you are going to use google to support a case, please use it carefully. ~~~~ 20:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point, Delete pending verification of sufficient notability.
• Delete. If any of that were verifiable, it would be a pretty impressive resume. But as it stands, it's simply vanity and self-promotion.
• Delete or userfy. I'm not saying there shouldn't article about him (though I'm not yet comfortable saying there should either), just that this isn't it. --W(t) 23:06, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Pause vfd pending verification by the university of the building of a mechanical turning machine. Slike2 17:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Continue vfd. If the university unexpectedly verifies it, then the article can always be re-created. We don't normally have the attitude "well, the evidence points against it, but we could always assume it is notable unless proven otherwise", if we did, there would be many many more articles in Wikipedia. Also, if it was

(a) true

(b) noteworthy

then why was it Karl Scherer himself who added the info. Wikipedia:No original research

~~~~ 23:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problems here. It's gonna be moved to his user page anyway, so it can be pasted back when it gets verified. Slike2 01:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure, since you are not Karl Scherer, his having no evidence to back up his own claims, you must have meant if rather than when, and made a typing error. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote, there is no need to correct me. I'm assuming that it can be verified. And even without that, my use of when is completely appropriate, see def 2. It would have been much easier and more honest for you to say "well I think you're wrong, this will not [note the bold] be verified". Slike2 28 June 2005 11:33 (UTC)

That is not my point. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:25 (UTC)

N.b. there is a formal policy, and many precedents, against an article being recreated in any namespace (including User space) in the event of a successful formal VfD. It would however be likely that it is interpreted in this case loosely enough to allow Karl Scherer to add information he considers relevant to Wikipedian's interactions with him onto his user page, even if it is information contained in the article that was VfD'd. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

• Delete original research--nixie 23:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nixie--Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)
• Delete vanity--Porturology 28 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)
• When I read "He discovered ^{[dubious – discuss]} a way to dissect an equilateral triangle into three similar polygons such that exactly two pieces have the same size; MAT I News, Vol 7(2)." on the page, I expected that the talk page would have some information about that alleged discovery, possibly mentioning earlier results that invalidate it, or something. Instead, there's just a blanket condemnation from -Ril-. What are the arguments against the claim that he discovered such a dissection? If there are no arguments against it, let's remove the dubious tag. Factitious June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
• Keep. If all the disputed statements were removed, the article would still establish notability. As mentioned above, I haven't seen arguments against any of the allegedly disputed statements, except for the Turing machine one. Factitious June 28, 2005 21:56 (UTC)
  • Can an article establish its own notability in this manner? (link?) If it can, then I agree with your statements for the sake of including what is very likely true, my vote would be as it was originally, keep. Slike2 28 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)
    • No it can't. Wikipedia:No original research. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the Turing Machine claim is valid, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that any other claim is valid. And for the subject of the article to be the provider of its content is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I seriously doubt that anyone who is not Karl Scherer or a close associate/friend of his, would ever produce any of the information in this article, unless they had read this one first. (N.b. I have voted above) 28 June 2005 22:28 (UTC)
• Delete. He doesn't appear to be notable as a mathematician, or recreational mathematician. 4 articles in the Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 1 in the American Math Monthly: that's fairly typical for a postdoc / assistant professor trying to get a tenure-track position. 4 books is somewhat impressive, if they were successful. Were they? dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is irrelevant in this case. Wikipedia:No original research Psora 29 June 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Comment. This has been on VfD since 21st, i.e. over the 5 day standard period. The current state of votes by my reckoning is 1 Abstain, 5 Keep, 12 Delete. Making a clear 2/3 majority for delete. Is there any reason this is still on VfD? ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
  • Discussions typically sit in limbo for a period of time since there's such a large backlog of closed discussions. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
    • So this is formally closed now, but in limbo?~~~~ 29 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)
      • No, it's open until someone gets around to closing it. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 23:47 (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. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

[edit] Untapped Talent

A university club with 100 members. No indication of notability. --Lee Hunter 15:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable university club. self-promotion. Gorrister 16:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete club promo. JamesBurns 06:50, 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. jni 28 June 2005 12:55 (UTC)

[edit] Knights of St. Benedict

Not notable. Google has not heard of any organisation by this name since the 13th century. Probaly self-promotion by Damusicman - one does not wish to bias the voting but all his other edits to date have been reverted. -- RHaworth 16:12, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not pass the Google test. Bogus organization. Gorrister 16:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Save The Page!!! - Valid Organization that is present on the campuses of all major Catholic High Schools and Universities. I was indeed a member of this at Notre Dame, so I know it exists. danactro 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) this vote is actually from Damusicman, see [9] for proof.

• Keep The Page - It's not my fault that the stupid webmaster doesn't pay for the stupid web search thing. But yes, I was a member at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, TX, and I was a member there. I was shocked when yall didn't have it.Damusicman 17:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, so what is the URL of this alleged website? -- RHaworth 04:40, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

• Delete. The sockpuppet wants to keep it, so you just know it should go. — P Ingerson (talk) 20:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn self-promotion. And sock-puppets. --Etacar11 23:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. llywrch 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I also believe this is also a hoax. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 06:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:Let's not assume they're sockpuppets. Sometimes stuff is real, we just need to drag out the proof. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, waste of bandwidth and diskspace jamesgibbon 15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia isn;t place to establish notability. Pavel Vozenilek 01:43, 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. The article's context is already summed up in Bomberman, so there is nothing to merge. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

[edit] Bomberman '94

Marked as speedy...does not seem to fit. Bringing here. No vote at present. Wikibofh 16:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Google count Results 1 - 10 of about 88,900 for Bomberman 94 Wikibofh 16:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Although this is an actual game (see Bomberman), I'm voting delete for the lack of notability. Nestea 18:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I put the speedy tag on it as "incomprehensible" I think . . . this article contains no useful information, and, in fact, once scrubbed for POV, no content. And that's not even getting started on notability. Delete--Scimitar 19:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, comprehensible, and reasonably NPOV. A candidate for cleanup, not deletion, especially when only 3 minutes old. Kappa 20:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Or merge/redir all variants to Bomberman, which seems to have plenty of room for expansion, but probably can't be expanded without covering the variants (and any time you have a bunch of short articles with sentences like "In many aspects, the game plays identical to Bomberman 64.", merging seems to provide better context). Niteowlneils 01:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. -Sean Curtin 06:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable game. JamesBurns 06:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 08:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see nothing to merge. Nestea 00:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Almafeta 23:57, 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 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

A clear case of redirect. This nomination was made by a new (anonymous) contributor in good faith, but not understanding the process.

DJ Clayworth 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigint (MGS:3)

Article already exists at Sigint (Metal Gear).

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 No consensus, so Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:14 (UTC)

[edit] WaterEffect (2005 movie), Doce14 (2005 movie), Grazielle Corapi, Franco Poltronieri

Neither of the films are notable, nor are the people involved with them. —Xezbeth 16:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. They're brazilian made for TV movies, it's really hard for someone not in Latin America to know them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francodushku (talk • contribs) 11:56, Jun 21, 2005

• Comment. The movies have official sites, there's no need to delete them just because they're from brazil, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.46.65 (talk • contribs) 12:02, Jun 21, 2005

• Keep. They shouldn't be deleted. they're being shown in brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningo (talk • contribs) 12:08, Jun 21, 2005

• Keep - This is an international Encyclopedia. Celestianpower 17:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The deletion of this article would be a perfect example of systemic bias, contrary to the goals of WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. If an article was made on a movie of similar status, but released in the U.S. in English, it would definitely be kept. What do we have against Brazil? Wikiacc (talk) 17:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I couldn't give a damn what country the films are from. The director gets ONE google hit. The films get no google hits, and the only mention of them is on their "official" websites, that happen to be on a free webhosting site. —Xezbeth 17:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • But it's still a movie. I found already two mentions of the movies on google:

Changes at the Moonlight -º~Version~º- Avalon Castle

Pra quem quiser, tá aew o site do filme: http:\\www.doce14.cjb.net\ u_u'

www.changesathemoonlight.weblogger.com.br/ - 59k

Henshin na Mizu - Ningo Mermaid's Version

hj teve gravaçaum \o/ eh eu to no filme do Franco XDD... se chama Doce 14...

o site eh www.doce14.cjb.net eh o franco fez ateh site ^^" daki a poco eu ...

www.henshinnamizu.weblogger.com.br/ - 67k

Here's another mention: http://www.elianabrupdates.blogger.com.br

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningo (talk • contribs) 12:39, Jun 21, 2005

I checked the official sites and they're being redirected from a free server, yes, but they are hosted on UOL Sites which is payed.

• Comment. WaterEffect is noted as a made-for-TV movie. What about the other one? Were they on broadcast TV, public access, cable, what? This seems to indicate that these were aired on the Brazilian equivalent of public access TV, but for the second time in two days, my inability to read Portuguese foils me. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Doce14 was aired via satellite on May 18, at 8 pm. I think the channel was number 23, because I watched it, but I'm not sure if it was 23 or 22. Anyway, it's satellite. On that site it says Record will be showing them, I don't know if Record bought the licenses to Doce 14 and Water Effect. But hey, those movies do exist. Don't know why to delete them from the encyclopedia.

• Delete. No IMDb entries, and I believe the IMDb does cover Brazilian movies. It seems to me if these exist they are unreleased films, equivalent to a vanity press novel. -R. fiend 21:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Water Effect is unreleased. Doce 14 was released only on satellite.

• Then delete Water Effect for being unreleased, and as such not notable, and the rest for being unverifiable, possible vanity, as google doesn't really turn up anything (0 hits for Grazielle, some for Franco but nothing significant from what I could tell). I don't think these cut mustard whatever language they're in, so cries of systemic bias don't apply. There are some subjects Google doesn't cover well, but recent films is not one of them. -R. fiend 14:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established but sockpuppet limit has been reached. JamesBurns 08:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Not notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yankee imperialist agressors shouldn't suppress the natives entertainment. SchmuckyTheCat 19:51, 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 all (Only Kappa's keep vote is taken into consideration) - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Kenneth Matthews, Andrew Johnson (columnist), Anita Snow, Charles Odum

Just journalists. No notability established. -R. fiend 16:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Non-notable reporters for a relatively small newspaper. Gamaliel 16:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, no notability established. --Etacar11 23:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all, of interest to large numbers of readers. Kappa 23:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, non notable journos. JamesBurns 06:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - none of them has been involved with anything significant or notorious - Skysmith 09:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep-I agree with Kappa, I think it's really just a stub. RealSaltLakeRule44

• User's 4th edit. All five edits to date are to vfd or his/her own user page.

• Keep-When I was trying to find out information on columnists for The Press of Atlantic City, this was helpful...and you want to delete it?! Wow! DCUnitedRock23

• User's 7th edit. Half of his/her 8 edits are to vfd.

• Delete all as per reasons for previous delete votes. NymphadoraTonks | Talk 21:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All, I created these articles because other major newspapers have articles here on their journalists. MLSfan0012

• Vote actually by 205.188.116.13

• Keep What Kappa, DCUnitedRock23 etc. said RichmondDevilsRock9

• Vote actually by 205.188.116.13

• Keep For the donkey who wrote (who gives a d**n) i do, this shouldn't be deleted. User:GeneralTY39

• User's first edit.

• Delete articles, then delete sockpuppets. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:43 (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 MacGyverMagic (patent vanity, lack of content). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Neelands

vanity 66.216.68.28 16:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy for lack of context. Physchim62 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Daniel Freeman. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Freeman

The page is about a man who was mentioned in a minor news report for not really doing anything at all. I think it should just be deleted. Chris Martin 17:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, visiting 1,000 bars is not "really doing anything", but is it something that would be included in the next Guiness Book of World Records? If so, let's wait until he achieves his goal. Delete. -- llywrch 23:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• the fact that the American media has promoted a guy who has done nothing noteworthy, does not mean that he is noteqable delete--Porturology 05:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - would not be a mean feat, anyone can visit 3 different bars a night for a year (4 bars if he does not use weekends) to top that score - Skysmith 09:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Daniel Freeman Dsmdgold 17:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Daniel Freeman. Pavel Vozenilek 01:44, 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.

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 JeremyA (nonsense/spam). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 04:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KYMAK

Nonsense (there might be something called KYMAK which is worth an article, but this isn't it). --W(t) 17:05, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• Speedy. Patent nonsense. Wikiacc (talk) 17:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. I concur.Naturenet 18:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn nonsense. --Etacar11 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I agree, this is patent nonsense/spam, therefore it has gone. Speedy deleted --JeremyA 23:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by JeremyA (content was: '{{rfd}}#REDIRECT [[KYMAK]]'). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heaven on Earth

While it may seem nonsensical at first glance especially to one who may be biased or prejudiced toward the very idea, one can not make a sound judgement with merely a glance. It would be a folly and a shame to judge a matter without having heard or read it.

If KYMAK is wotth an article then what KYMAK is all about certainly is. KYMAK is all about Heaven on Earth. The term "Heaven" is so commonly used it might be well to understand where it originated.

• Speedy - not sure where that stuff above came from. This page is a redirect to KYMAK above. Both are worthy of speedy deletion for being nonsense. Naturenet 18:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Belinda Carlisle Hiding 20:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no Redirect --Tabor 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy same as above. --Etacar11 23:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to any number of poems, or to Bounty (candybar) for which it was a commercial slogan (although not in English), or the computer puzzle game of the same name (which doesn't seem to have an article yet). Radiant_>|< 15:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment But I never had a crush on any of those redirects. Hiding 20:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 (content had already been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images). Hedley 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter images

"Wikipedia is not a collection of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles". --W(t) 17:13, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

This page was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images at 14:21, June 25, 2005. Those who have already voted should take note and consider altering their vote: any further discussion should take account of the new situation. --Phil | Talk June 28, 2005 08:30 (UTC)

• It seems to be acceptable to have galleries of existing images in one's userspace. Userfy to User:Bjwebb who started the page. He can link it to the project if he likes. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Weyes and WP:NOT. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Well, when you put it like that, Delete Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images--drak2 20:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If this page is indeed falls under the deletion policy, then so be it. Is it possible to move the images to Wikicommons? Or can this page remain as part of the Harry Potter Project? Honestly, I don't wish to see the page deleted." Tomhongs 13:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Commons doesn't accept non-free images. You could always copy the page to your user page though, I doubt anyone will object as long as you don't start building a harry potter images collection just for the gallery page. --W(t) 13:50, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• I'm still new to Wikipedia and all. Thanks for telling. Tomhongs 14:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• An image page was one of the goals of the Harry Potter wikiproject. Could it be a subpage of that? - e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images --bjwebb 15:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How about sprinkling the images liberally over existing Category:Harry Potter articles? Most texts are prettier with an image. Radiant_>|< 15:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • All these images were already on pages of Wikipedia before the "gallery" was created. --bjwebb 18:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, I'm not even sure this image gallery isn't a copyvio. Running over the Fair Use provisions, I'm not sure image galleries fall under it. --W(t) 16:09, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
  • Users, please make sure what you are doing. If this page is found not to be a copyright violation, please make the neccessary remedial actions. I really hope all these images have somewhere proper to go to and not get deleted. Tomhongs 17:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All of the images are used under fair use. Maybe we could have a Harry-Potter-Image Category? I think it would be fair to have it as part of the wikiproject, as it's useful to people that are editing articles --drak2 18:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This complaint does not make sense: if the images themselves are legitimate for use within Wikipedia, there is no way that arranging them in a gallery can then somehow make them illegitimate. --Phil | Talk June 28, 2005 08:30 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter/Images and have done with it. The only good use for this is to collect images for the WikiProject people to work with, and that would be sufficient reason to preserve it there. --Phil | Talk 16:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Weyes. Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 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 Keep (11 keeps, 4 deletes). Scimitar 28 June 2005 14:45 (UTC)

[edit] Transracial

There is no accepted concept of "transraciality" beyond the concept of passing. Bumm13 17:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete see above Bumm13 17:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - neologism. Gorrister 17:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The actual definition is: "Involving two or more races, as in a transracial adoption." The article is attempting to create a definition instead of reporting a definition.--Alabamaboy 17:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changed vote. See below.--Alabamaboy 18:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete for reasons already listed. I'd support an article on transracial adoption, but this is a mere dicdef, and as Alabamaboy said, is not really a correct one either. --Idont Havaname 20:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - see above -- AlexR 23:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Unless, you want to change the article's name, this one is good. Shorthair 02:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree with the whole "accepted concept" issue. To me wikipedia is sort of like urban dictionary. You can have new information before it's common knowledge. I think deleting every new bit of information goes against what wikipedia represents. My keep vote is mostly because the article gives a source for its reference. If it did not have the source I would vote to merge it into Michael Jackson. I wonder how long until someone erases the source from the article now that I mentioned this. Muijzo 03:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fascinating one. Although one of the first three delete votes (that came within one minute of each other) claimed that he found transracial in a dictionary, none exists. Now I have heard the news refer to Michael Jackson as transracial, so I checked several web dictionaries. None have definitions of transracial. I see that the article was once a link to passing, but no proof exists that these words mean the same thing. Without a dictionary reference at all, I think the relation to passing is wrong. I did a google search for transracial and Michael Jackson, See this link for the search. At present there are hundreds of pages all citing him as transracial. Now the person who changed it from a redirect is, according to their user page, a transexual, so I obviously assume they must feel that transracial is like transexual. There was a point raised about renaming this article, but it is moot since transracial is in common usage referring to The King of Pop. Clearly Shorthair did not make this word up out of her (or is it his?) head. Chunitaku 04:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a course at UC Berkely that backs up the usefulness of this article. See http://english.berkeley.edu/courses/fall03r1ar1b.html

It says:

Course: R1A

Section: 12

Topic: the nth race: introduction to transraciality

Instructor: Joon Lee

Time: TTh 11-12:30

Location: 258 Dwinelle

Course Control #: 28436

Course Description:

"The first birth is often a failure."

Anaïs Nin

Thanks to "advances" in medical and psychiatric technology, we are now able to view gender as a transformative aspect of life: we are not stuck in the sexed body with which we were born. However, our racial identity is still something that seems biologically inescapable, in spite of the now very rich and convincing theoretical history of its constructed, non-essential nature. While the history of transsexualism is marked by the potentially political affect of social transgression, the history of transraciality speaks to us from advertisements for skin-blanching creams, history-denying acts of racial passing, and community-betrayal. Why else the negative reaction-from disgust to ridicule-to Michael Jackson’s plastic surgery escapades? This is, however, contrary to the everyday experience which finds that individual and group racial identification is a process which is necessarily transracial: in declaring ourselves racially, we all cross boundaries set by societies contemporary and past. In this course, we will attempt to produce an idea of idea of race based on the best of transsexualism. The "race" produced thus, like the "third" gender produced by transsexuality, will lead to a complication of existent preconceptions about racial stereotypes and formation.

So I believe there is relevance in the concept, but the article does need to be expanded. DyslexicEditor 06:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep with complete redraft Transracialism exists and is a notable topic, but not as it is used here at all. Axon 11:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but it needs a rewrite. jamesgibbon 15:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep VfD isn't to delete articles that are simply bad but on a useful topic - cleanup would be a more approperate tag. This topic appears to be real and likely the next step from gender modification surgery from the interesting quote DyslexicEditor gave. --ShaunMacPherson 18:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded along these line. I previously voted to delete but this discussion has changed my mind. However, I still believe the original article was not worth keeping. But the revised version looks promising. --Alabamaboy 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I believe it's an interesting article. I saw someone put the word transformation in the article, so I created Transracial transformation and Transracial Transformation, then made them redirect to the main article. And I don't think Michael Jackson will be the last to have this surgery. Oh and a comment, if you think we should change the article name to have the word transformation in it, let's discuss it here, too. JimRaynor 18:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comments. I don't think that "Transracial" is a good article title, because it's awkward for an adjective by itself to be an article title ("Interracial" redirects to Interracial couple for the same reason). Clearly the topic is notable, but the question is now what to call it. "Transracial transformation" gets only 4 Google hits, so if we renamed the article to that, it would just be a neologism; the Google query for "transracialism" did not do much better. One idea I have is to create a new article on Race choice and merge content from this article and passing over there. The transracial article, for the most part, looks like a POV rant about Michael Jackson that's already covered in the Michael Jackson article; certainly he is worth mentioning as a notable case, but it shouldn't just be about him if possible (and his case should merely be mentioned, since his own article discusses it in detail). I'd suggest bringing this topic up at Talk:Race and/or Talk:Michael Jackson to gain additional perspectives on it. --Idont Havaname 05:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment "race choice" wouldn't be useful. "Transracial modification" ? "racial modification"? We need something that people can find easily. I agree it should not just be about Michael Jackson... I just thought of another reference, albeit from fiction--In the latest James Bond movie, the villain was Korean but through radical surgery (genetic stuff too) he changed himself to appear Brittish with the side effect that he needs an expensive machine to get sleep. DyslexicEditor 06:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but needs a rewrite. Marginal notability but interesting. JamesBurns 08:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I thought 'transracialism' meant someone who didn't want to be human period. (Or perhaps that's transpecism.) Almafeta 00:00, 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.

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 Snowspinner (Congratulations on being accepted to college, Tim). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Kelly

Non-notable. User:Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:51, 21 Jun 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 Speedy deleted (newbie test) by Dpbsmith. Kappa 20:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Braddock Secondary School

Delete. This article has no useful content. Naturenet 18:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense and/or very short article with little or no context. Inclusionists, please look at this article before automatically voting "keep" on the grounds that the title contains the word "school". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've tagged it for speedy. Contents is "A bunch of badasses from the KPG! Wordddddd." Kappa 19:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I've speedied it, as a newbie test. Thanks, Kappa. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:10, 21 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.

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 (3x). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aramis McGlown

Likely vanity page. No Google hits and no establishment of notability. --Goobergunch|? 19:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Page was speedily deleted, disregard. --Goobergunch|? 19:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

[edit] American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property

Inapproprate use of Wikipedia Ariele 19:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reference: Inappropriate Uses of Wikipedia

• Ariele, please identify what part of that policy you believe applies in this instance. Thanks. Ground Zero 11:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's go up one level shall we? Problems that may require deletion. And more specifically, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Cheers. Ariele 13:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining your reason for nominating this for deletion. As a few editors and I have stated below, we do not believe that this promotes the organization. If you believe it is POV, then by all means, edit it to remove the POV, or at least tag it as being POV. Nominating for deletion is not the appropriate way of dealing with POV issues. If this article is to be deleted because mere mention of the organization and what it stands for makes this a "soapbox", then we would have to look at deleting United States Republican Party, and United States Democratic Party, amongst many others. I don't want to promote this organization that attacks my family (I am legally married under the laws of Canada to my same-sex spouse), but Wikipedia should identify public organizations and what they stand for, even if we disagree with their agendas. Ground Zero 13:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in Problems that may require deletion that applies here. If you believe the article is POV, do what that page suggests and list it at Pages needing attention and/or apply the {{npov}} or {{POV check}} tags to the article. Or, better yet, edit it yourself to remove/fix what you perceive as POV. I've no idea what that might be, as I believe the article is NPOV, but go for it. I move to delist this nomination, as it's clear that the article will be kept and that the nomination was made under a faulty understanding of NPOV and/or deletion policy. Normally, I wouldn't do this, but this has happened before, I believe it needs to be addressed, and that Ariele needs to review the relevant policies. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 15:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • I see. Then the issue you have is with me not so much as to why I chose the "VfD". Why was this article introduced here in the first place? If it has such a lasting presence and it's own web site, then why repeat it here? Hey, Mr./Ms. Android79, are you trying to "VfD" me? Ariele 16:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Nothing is being repeated – the article should serve as an NPOV description of the organization, its goals, and its activities. That's not something you can get from its website, as anything put out by the group itself would be biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains information about people. places, and organizations, among other things. That someone chose to add an article about this particular organization should not be a problem, unless it's POV, in which case the problem's solution is clear: edit the article, not delete it. And, no, I'm not trying to "VfD" you, but you clearly have some fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose and/or its policies. (BTW, it's "Mr.") AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly exists and seems notable. VFD is not the place to list NPOV disputes. POV articles should be improved not deleted, though this seems fairly NPOV even though I do disagree with its fascist aims. Dunc|☺ 20:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This doesn't promote the organization -- it reports on its positions and activities in a fairly neutral tone. No reason to delete. Ground Zero 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Founded long before the Internet, so it is not a typical right-wing shell organization. —Seselwa 20:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't advocacy for the group, but a fairly dispassionate description of the group. wahooker
• Keep. NPOV treatment of a notable and long-standing organization. I didn't recognize the name at first, but it sounded familiar; reading about their opposition to Dogma connected the dots for me. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable organisation of fairly longstanding. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is my vote. Unless you know for certain that this article was created for informational purposes only. Ariele 23:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is NPOV and verfiable, then what does it matter what was going on the mind of the person who created it? If it is not NPOV, please tell us so that we can edit it accordingly. And why won't you tell us what about this article is "soapbox" or POV? Please, tell us. Ground Zero 19:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV advertising. JamesBurns 08:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain what about this article is POV? If we knew what is POV, then we could edit it to remove the POV instead of deleting it. VfD is not an appropriate mechanism for addressing POV issues. Ground Zero 19:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, informative NPOV article about a controversial organization. We have articles on the Ku Klux Klan and the Orange Order, so why not this group? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (google test[10] only returns 720 hits, 123 if you search groups [11]). The KKK and Orange Order are a prominent, well-known groups, this one not so. Axon 09:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added info on their activities that show their "notability" (not that non-notablity is an accepted grounds for deletion). Part of the problem with Google is their unwieldy name, that may not be accurately reflected in media reports. Googling "Tradition, Family and Property" gets you 65,300 hits, which I think should fit within everybody's definition of notable. Ground Zero 19:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The above notes on activities are not related to a groups notability. Your google test is false: those words will no doubt be used together for many other reasons unrelated to the organisation here. Axon 08:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • My google test is not false. Of the first 100 links, 98 are related to the ASDTFP or its foreign affiliates. I didn't go further than that. If you want to try to discredit the test, you can take the count further: [12] Perhaps you should have tried it yourself before making that accusation. Ground Zero 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but I don't think you understand how this works. Unless we all go through all 65k hits you claim are references to this organisation then you don't have proof of notability. Axon 09:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Axon, I encourage you to re-think your comments. I do not think that they are reasonable. I think that most people would agree that reviewing 66,000 weblinks is not a productive use of an active Wikipedia editor's time. I will spend that time making new contributions, copyediting, fixing links, and so on, instead of wasting it on a hugely time-comsuming exercise like that. If non-notability were an accepted grounds for deletion (which it is not), and if the Google test were accepted as an fair and accurate test of notability (which it is not), then it might be worth spending time to determine if there were 500 or 1000 (or however many hits were accepted as the threshold) hits linking to this organization. But telling someone that they have to investigate all 66,000 is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, in my opinion. -- at this point, I must stop in order to avoid an allusion to mental illness, which, as a personal attack, would violate Wikipedia etiquette. In order to meet the 1,000 threshold, only 1.5% of the hits would have to be for this organization. I took a sample in which 98% of the hits were for this organization. I think that should be sufficient evidence. What we have here is a verifiable, NPOV article about a real organization with numerous members. We do not have accepted grounds for deletion, your unreasonable demands for excessive verification notwithstanding. Ground Zero 28 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)
          • Without wanting to get into a lengthy debate about wikipedia policy, notability is relevant for deciding what is and isn't simple promotion/advertising and for determining what is and isn't encylopaedic, and the google test, whilst not definitive, is a good rule of thumb for determining notability. With this in mind, I stand by my vote and my remarks here. No ammount of hand-waving, childish references to my mental state or flawed intepretations of google results will change my mind. Others are free to interpret my remarks and vote as the feel. Axon 28 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)
          • I will withdraw my inappropriate and unnecessary remark. I still would like to know why you really think it is a good use of a Wikipedia editor's time to investigate 66,000 links on a google test. More importantly, if you're going to live by the sword, you also have to die by the sword. If you accept the Google test as a "good rule of thumb", then I think you have to change your vote. I have shown a Google test that, if only 1.5% of the reuslts are links to this organization, "proves notability". I have also undertaken a large sample that shows that 98% of those sampled did. I don't think that you can rejecting this analysis on the basis that I did not invest several days in checking every link. Ground Zero 28 June 2005 17:32 (UTC)
  • Don't you think that people would more often refer to this group by an abbreviation or acronym instead of always typing "American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property"? —Seselwa 19:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, in a respectable news report I would expect the full name of an organisation to be used at least once. If they are known by a more well known alias the page should be merged there, otherwise my vote remains Delete. 08:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and vandalize profusely
• Keep Disgusting, offensive, and completely misguided, but Google hits of 720 is plenty for an organization probably containing a large number of people who likely don't even know how to turn a computer on. Personally, I'd rather delete the organization, but it exists. ℬastique▼^talk 19:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I dont think you can make a comparison between the KKK and this group.. The KKK has been historically established in the South for decades, this group originally from Brazil has only been around for a few years. Not notable. Leanne 02:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been around since 1973, which I believe counts as "decades." That's in the first sentence of the article. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a promo. 678 Google hits including some from their own website.. for a group that's been around since 1973, that's not very notable. Megan1967 04:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Megan, if you think that the article reads like a promo, please state how, or edit the article yourself. Several people here have made that broad claim, but no-one has provided any specific reference to any part of the article that is POV. If someone were to do so, we could arress the issue properly. It really sounds like some people want to delete the article because this is a heinous organization, rater than because there are problems with the article. And please check this search: [13], which produces 66,800 hits. Ground Zero 08:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't promote organization. Organization is clearly old and large. I find the VfD absurd 70.105.188.134
• Keep, not a promo. We have no hope of building NPOV if things like this are deleted. Kappa 22:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep not a proper VfD candidate, it is a notable organization with POV removed.--Hooperbloob 28 June 2005 12:29 (UTC)
• Keep I kept expecting it to be really POV, but it's not. If it were, it would just deserve the NPOV tag, not a VfD. I am guessing that I don't share politics with this organization. To those who invoked the KKK, remembered Godwin's Law and just go ahead and invoke the Nazi Party. --Habap 30 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
• Keep Personal feelings toward the orgainzation are irrelevant--Luspari 30 June 2005 17:09 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:32 (UTC)

[edit] Ralph charles donaldson-hudson

Genealogical entry. His grandson may be of interest; he is not. Kelly Martin 19:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - article does not establish notability. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable geneaology. CDC (talk) 20:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete relatives of notable people aren't inherently notable. And wikipedia is not for genealogy. --Etacar11 23:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable genealogy. JamesBurns 06:55, 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 Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:36 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Elfman

Marked as speedy, changed by me to vfd. No vote at this point. Uppland 19:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if expanded, established writer. --Etacar11 23:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep noted sci fi writer. JamesBurns 06:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep noted author. DS1953 14:47, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 22:39 (UTC)

[edit] Takeshi Nemoto

It is a vanity page. Modular 20:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nomination by anonymous user 83.70.234.92 (talk • contribs). I second the nomination, as it is a pretty bad vanity. smoddy 20:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, had forgotten to log in. Fixed username stuff. Modular 20:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn first-person vanity. And he wants us to look at a file on his computer, apparently. --Etacar11 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:56, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:34 (UTC)

[edit] Next Billion and Bottom of the Pyramid

An attempt to use Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle for neologistic phrases in connection with the launch of a discussion forum. See also additional publicity efforts; delete as advertising. --Michael Snow 20:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. So this is what PHBs & marketroids who don't understand Wikipedia submit. -- llywrch 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologisms. JamesBurns 06:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I apologize for the misunderstanding with these defintions that I posted. These terms refer to important concepts currently in use by the development industry. I posted it on Wikipedia, because, as an opensource platform, others would have the opportunity to edit these defintions. Through Wikipedia, I had hoped to have an opportunity to see how others understand this concept to broaden my own understanding. Now that I have clarified that, I would not consider it fair to delete these terms only because they are newly coined. Wikipedia hosts many new phrases, such as PHB (the comment above introduced me to that acronym), which can be interpreted as Per-Hop Behaviour, Pointy Haired Boss, Polyhydroxybutyrate, Player's Handbook, and Pyscho Hose Beast. In fact, considering that Wikipedia's strength lies in its ability to be revised by anyone at any time and to remain abreast of the latest developments in ideas, should it not encourage that its members post neologisms? What else is the information revolution about than the creation of new concepts? JFMahon3 15:15, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

  Wikipedia articles are not intended to be used for the creation of new concepts. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document existing concepts; see Wikipedia:No original research. --Michael Snow 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It. I've heard of "Base of the Pyramid" (BOP) before from reading C.K. Prahalad's book. It's a fairly new development strategy that is gaining more widespread attention. Similiarly, "Nextbillion" may begin to come into use as the concept of BOP spreads, since the two terms are intertwined. Lpinto

  Vote actually made by User:63.64.193.10, who wrote much of the content on the BOP page. User:Lpinto has no contributions. --Michael Snow 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP IT. Michael Snow is a known problem user at wikipedia who feels obligated to police everyone but himself. The purpose of an endeavor such as wikipedia is open-source, free contribution from one and all. Were this to be removed, it would be yet another instance of the wiki gestapo attempting to force their own misguided and arbitrary set of "standards"--to which no one contributing here has had to agree--on others. My own hard work here has fallen victim to the same sort of criticism by the ignorant and self-absorbed here who believe that they run this place. The fact of the matter is that there's only one rule here: There are no rules at wikipedia. That being said, nobody has any right to delete others' work, as long as it is factually accurate. Editing and expanding upon of articles is, needless to say, welcome here and what is intended to occur here. Removal of information with which some may disagree should never be tolerated.172.174.76.106 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It. I did indeed contribute to the writing of the BOP article because, as I said, I have read about BOP before and wanted to contribute my knowledge. I see no problem with having a legitimate, factual posting on an online dictionary that is open to all. I highly agree with the above post in that things should remain on Wikipedia so long as they are factual and contribute to society. These are documented concepts where links to outside research can be found within the definitions.

  Double vote by User:63.64.193.10. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

• Keep It. I belief it's a valuable endeavour to define this important concept at Wikipedia, even though there is still some discussion on the definition. Therefore, I hope the discussion-section of the article will also be used more. An encyclopaedia wouldn't be complete without this concept, which is somewhat new but at the same time established and increasingly an important area for scientific research.

  Unsigned comment posted by User:80.100.211.25. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

• Keep It. I started this article at the same time I posted the Bottom of the Pyramid definition because I was using both of the terms a lot in economic development (I am an economist who does a lot of web work), and people kept asking me to explain what Next Billion means. Mr. Snow- can you please do a better job explaining to me how what I started is ‘neologistic?’ It is documenting existing ideology and an documenting existing online community to help poor countries develop.

I can understand if you were an editor for Britannica how this might not make the cut, but isn’t one of Wikipedias advantages to be current on new developments? Did the community try to delete the definition for podcasting when it came out? User:egundersen

• User has 8 edits (account is actually User:Ericgundersen, not User:egundersen). --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)... Ha- thank you for the correction… that was my gmail account. User:Ericgundersen, 29 June 2005 08:59 (est)

This vote was "closed" as a "keep" and the VfD notice removed from the articles by User:63.64.193.10, the same IP that double-voted above. Given that this action was taken by a participant in the debate, I reverted this as improper and premature. I also do not think that result is warranted based on Wikipedia practice in crediting votes on VfD. I ask the admin who actually closes this debate to look carefully at what has transpired here, and draw their own conclusions on how to treat the comments above. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)

Hey Michael, I finally had time today to clean up some of the corporate flattery of linking to a press release and other lame content that made it into this entry that I stated and feel that this it is straight to the point now and stays focused on severing the general public who is interested in an economic development philosophy.

I am committed to keeping track of this post and would like this voting to end 1) What do you think? Do you see merit in the post now? 2) Can we stop this silly voting just because some intern did not understand the greater good of Wikipedia and stuck some press release link in? -- User:Ericgundersen, 29 June 2005 08:45 (est)

I don't see much difference, it still looks like an attempt to promote an insignificant discussion forum. Why don't you redirect your efforts to providing some actual content in the stubby article about World Resources Institute, an organization that it's actually possible to say something about without having to inflate its importance? I've added a link to NextBillion.net in that article; it might be appropriate to mention there, but doesn't warrant having its own article. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Michael, Why is Bottom of the Pyramid on the deletion vote with Next Billion? They are not related. I guess I didn’t see that before. Now I am starting to think that you didn’t even bother to read these posts. What are you trying to do grouping them in together? They are different. "Is there an admin or wikipedia god out there to call this vote to order?" -- User:Ericgundersen, 29 June 2005 08:56 (est)

They're related for the purposes of this discussion because they're both newly coined phrases being used to market a discussion forum. (The fact that you started both articles at the same time is a pretty good indication of the relationship.) If one gets deleted, all the same arguments apply for deleting the other one, and if one stays, they might as well both stay. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)

But the whole point is that they're NOT "newly coined"! The phrase "bottom of the pyramid" is very well established and used quite frequently. Try a google search on it or just check out the links in its definition! "Next billion" is growing as a popularly-used phrase and can also be found used in several different areas with a simple Internet search. Michael, you are the only person who insists on the deletion of these terms and there are several others who have spoken out to keep them. Under the guidelines of Wikipedia, this debate should be over and the entries remain.

Based on Michaels recent move to include Bottom of the Pyramid in with this vote for deletion it is now clear that this just a personal attack on my postings because of some twisted personal vendetta- Michael wrote 'The fact that you started both articles at the same time is a pretty good indication of the relationship.' How can we call this vote to order? Does Michale do this to other people in this community? What can we do here? This is just silly... I want to end this. Michael is so stupid that he thinks these two phrases are used to market a discussion forum rather than shed light on economic development. How does an open community deal with people that try to be disruptive? Anyone?-- User:Ericgundersen, 4 July 2005 09:17 (est)

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 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:40 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea-Arsenal

Wikipedia is not a collection of random sports results. Is this a possible speedy? Qwghlm 20:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't explicitly make my vote clear in the above - it's Delete; as well as being relatively content-free, it also sets a dangerous precedent that every other combination of football match (and for that matter, any other sporting match) would be equally eligible for entry. Qwghlm 21:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Chelsea-Arsenal is not a random selection. Kappa 20:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. First of all, I dread the idea that we will now have articles for every possible matching of sports teams. But on a slightly different note, for teams that were formed in 1886 and 1905, what is the point of designating "a list with all the Chelsea-Arsenal derbies from 1995 to 2005" --Tabor 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I assume that was all the stats the article's creator had to hand - there's no reason why it can't be expanded back to 1905. On the other hand, there's nothing particularly special about this matchup - there are a dozen professional clubs in London, and these two are not traditional enemies as such (Arsenal-Spurs and Chelsea-Fulham would be the notable derby matches). Abstain for now, but it at least needs some heavy cleanup. sjorford →•← 21:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sjorford. Though this could be fairly interesting, there are dozens of potential matchups like this in English football alone (Man C vs Man U? Liverpool vs Everton? Charlton vs West Ham?), not including traditional non-derby rivalries like Arsenal vs Liverpool, let alone in other countries and other sports - we could be swamped. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • What on earth does "swamped" mean in this context? Is Wikipedia down to its last ream of paper? CalJW 14:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Qwghlm. JamesBurns 06:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 08:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Awful layout. People should aldo be aware of dozens of articles like this. -R. fiend 14:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Two of the biggest teams in the world. It would be valuable to have sets of results between the top teams. CalJW 14:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteDull - noteworthy 'cup' games could be housed in year records. Alf 14:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - a football rivalry of particular significance. Granted, there are others, but certainly not 'dozens' as commented above, of similar importance. The article could do with pepping up a bit, but in principle it's a good idea jamesgibbon 15:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, there aren't 'dozens' of similar matchups. There are hundreds. sjorford →•← 21:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • That's simply incorrect. jamesgibbon 01:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Other local derbies/rivalries in England (off the top of my head): Man U-Man City, Man U-Liverpool, Man U-Leeds, Liverpool-Everton, Arsenal-Spurs, Chelsea-Fulham-QPR, Charlton-Palace, Southampton-Portsmouth, West Ham-Millwall, Luton-Watford, Ipswich-Norwich, Villa-Birmingham-WBA-Wolves, Nottingham-Derby-Leicester, Newcastle-Sunderland-Middlesbrough, Burnley-Blackburn, Sheff W-Sheff Utd, Stoke-Port Vale, Plymouth-Exeter, Bristol Rovers-Bristol City - counting all possible combinations in the areas with more than two teams, that's 30 to start with. And that's just England - what about Celtic-Rangers, Hearts-Hibs, Dundee-Dundee Utd from Scotland, and Cardiff-Swansea from Wales (plus others in the lower divisions)? Toss in the ones from the rest of Europe and indeed the world, and while we're at it, international rivalries like England-Scotland and Brazil-Argentina, and we're looking at over a hundred, at the very least. Qwghlm 08:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • Add in Inter-AC Milan, Real-Athletico Madrid, Engald-Germany, england-France, England-Italy, Germany-Netherlands, Russia-Ukraine, Greece-Turkey, Spain-Portugal, N Korea-S Korea, S Korea-Japan, Brazil-Argentina, Mexico-USA, Argentina-Chile, Argentina-Uruguay, Australia-New Zealand, Italy-France, Germany-Denmark, Denmark-Sweden, Sweden-Norway... and that's just soccer. Then you've got similar rivaries with rugby union, rugby league, cricket, American football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey, (field) hockey... and the same in the equivalent women's sports, too. Hundreds may be an underestimate, all things considered. Grutness...wha? 09:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • What they said. sjorford →•← 18:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not a derby with a particularly long and interesting history.  Grue  15:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad precedent Dr31 4 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 transwiki. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Law

Source material and original research that is in the public domain, from 1861. I'm not sure if this version's transcription is copyright (gutenberg doesn't have it). I vote Transwiki to wikisource Wikibofh 20:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. First if going to transwiki, we should get a complete, clean copy. [14]. However, that source says on the website:

They are to be used strictly for non-commercial educational purposes. ... All complaints, suggestions, reports of errors should be sent to Rod Hay. [15]

I don't know if one can claim copyright for transcription of a public domain work; I suspect not, but IANAL. Those terms may be intended for other works on the same site that are posted as fair use rather than public domain. In any case, it gives us someone to contact. --Tabor 20:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, Wikipedia is certainly a "non-commercial educational purpose"... I don't see how this is all that different from using the 1911 Britannica as a source for articles, although this text is a bit dated (and needs maaaad wikification). -- BD2412 ^talk 22:44, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia may be non-commercial educational purposes, but mirrors and forks may be commercial, and we need GDFL terms for works that are still under copyright protection. --Tabor 02:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. It was written in 1861, so it's very likely that the text is PD. Although a check against a paper copy is always an important step. -- llywrch 23:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - User:80.58.35.42 deleted the VfD message; I have restored it. --Dcfleck 00:42, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Transwiki and use as a source for articles like history of law - Skysmith 09:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, keep, cleanup. The original text is surely PD, everywhere: Henry James Sumner Maine died in 1888. By all means preserve the source text on Wikisource. But there are probably the seeds of half a dozen articles in there, given some time and labour. Large swathes of text probably ought to be moved to more definite titles or merged into existing articles. Still, I see little point in keeping this in the article space, and like BD2412 said, it's not much difference from importing stuff from 1911 Britannica. Smerdis of Tlön 18:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Vanderwielen

Vanity - not a notable actor (yet?). CDC (talk) 20:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. All the info on IMDB was added by him too I'll bet, not that there's anything wrong with THAT. Good luck to him, but being in a bunch of movies no one has seen doesn't merit him inclusion here. Yet. --Etacar11 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: He did have a role in the daily reenactments of the Michael Jackson trials, but I've got no clue whether the role of Joe Marcus is important enough... - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a vanity page.

(preceding unsigned comment by  Koavf 06:26, Jun 23, 2005) - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:43 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado Springs Cricket Club

A local amateur sport club - not notable. CDC (talk) 20:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non notable club. JamesBurns 06:59, 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. Hedley 5 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Addressing Anti-Jewish Bias

This project is intrinsicaly not NPOV, since it does not address Pro-Jewish Bias. It is entirely one sided, even in its title, and much of its talk page, and therefore is beyond redemption. ~~~~ 21:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ~~~~ 21:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• We already have a project to deal with systemic bias at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I think this should be redirected there. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Does VfD really have the power to disrupt an ongoing WikiProject? If so, then Merge or Redirect as per Francs2000. And if not, then it doesn't matter how we vote anyway! — P Ingerson (talk) 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose not, but looking at the edit history this is not an ongoing WikiProject. It was created last october, and both the main page and the talk page have seen about twenty edits since then. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV applies to article-space. If somebody wants a WikiProject, let them get on with it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is acceptable for there to be a WikiProject (not necessarily the above named) dedicated to creating bias? ~~~~ 22:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it's possible for WikiProjects to define their own aims and objectives within the broader aims and objectives of Wikipedia. Reducing bias against Jewish people is compatible with the aims of objectives of Wikipedia. THis would apply to any similar project aimed at identifying and reducing systemic bias against any reasonably well defined group of people. Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Scots, Maoris, Canadians, Nazis, Black Americans, Welsh Lesbian Feminist Poets. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is only compatable with Wikipedia policy if it simultaneously aims to reduce bias towards Jewish people. If it seeks only to reduce the bias against them, then its actions are one sided, and thus not NPOV, and if successful, without a counter-project, would result in a situation where only pro-Jewish bias remains. It cannot, under any understanding of the meaning of the term, be neutral, if it requires a counter-project in order to result in a NPOV outcome. ~~~~ 18:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a very odd counter-argument. No, a project in Wikipedia is not bound by NPOV, whether the actual policy or the odd version of it that you promulgate here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

How is a project not bound by NPOV? Article space is subject to NPOV, and the sole purpose of projects is to modify/add/remove content in article space. IF it is allowed to be non-NPOV, then this is saying that activities which produce non-NPOV edits to article space are acceptable, which they are not. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

Projects don't make edits, editors do. They are bound by NPOV in article space. Nobody's suggesting that WikiProjects would be engines for the production of POV edits except you. As far as I've been able to ascertain, this is a straw man. A person encountering a bias in an article and removing it would in your view, it appears to me, be leaving behind a biased article unless he or someone else removed an equal and opposite bias in the other direction. This is obviously wrong, bias does not occur nearly in equal and opposite pairs. Removing bias in one direction does not add it in another. The target is balance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Projects are a collection of editors for a purpose, i.e. to make edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

Any edit which removes bias is, by definition, a good thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

• Delete. There is already a wiki-project to address bias; this will just act as an unnecessary controversy-magnet. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:29, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't imagine this ever being more than another box of matches for the flamewar de jour. If people believe that there is Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia, they would be better served using non-Wiki software (say blog s/w), which could be vandalized into uselessness within hours. -- llywrch 23:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 23:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking back at the initial edits (the current version was nearly blanked by someone), the project seems to be devoted to POV. We already have far too much POV injection on Wikipedia, and whatever the intents of the project maintainers, I fear that this will only lead to more. Firebug 02:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• NPOV applies to articles specifically; is there any indication one way or the other as to whether or not it can be applied to Wikipedia: namespace pages in general, and to Wikiprojects in particular? If the consensus is to delete this, the best solution might instead be to userfy it. -Sean Curtin 06:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:BD2412. JamesBurns 07:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the talk page is full of flame material against any subject the editors perceive to be anti-Jewish. "Why does the article on Adolf Hitler make him out to be such a hero?" is complete nonsense. It's trying to be NPOV not make him a hero, but not bashing him either. If they want more Jewish stuff on Wikipedia, they can work on the WikiProject Judaism. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

|

Hitler is being described in terms that would normally be considered praise. If there is an article describing him in a way that could bring people to want to emulate him, then that is a serious problem. Since there is nothing praiseworthy about a man whose philosophy and actions brought about the death of so many innocent people, there is obviously something wrong when that impression can be had from a "neutral" article. --Ezra Wax 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Many editors are referring to WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. This is a erroneous comparison, as WP:CSB aims to counter systemic bias; bias on a meta-level so to say (see the project page for more info). The WikiProject we're voting on here seeks to adress a wholly different kind of bias, something that has got nothing to do with countering systemic bias. In short: Countering Systemic Bias is not the NPOV police, so please don't vote 'merge' and/or 'redirect'; it makes no sense. — mark ✎ 08:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Mark said, also the Wikiproject in question seems to have a brief period of activity in 2004 and nothing since, Is there any policy wrt deletion of inactive wikiprojects?--nixie 08:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, project seems to fall foul of WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete defunct project, nothing to do with the wikiproject countering systemic bias. (Vote above struck out) -- Francs2000 | Talk 09:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Changed my mind too. The comments above, especially Mark and Mgm, have persuaded me there's nothing worth merging and nowhere to merge it to anyway. Delete. — P Ingerson (talk) 12:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inactive for almost a year. — mark ✎ 12:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think inactivity is a reason for deletion, as projects can be revived at any time. Besides, Wikipedia:WikiProject doesn't say anything about inactive projects running the risk of deletion. Please don't use inactivity as a reason to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm the one that started the project, and it was only to get the stuff out of the Judaism wikiproject, because I didn't think I could delete it straight out without it getting reverted. So I personally don't care what happens to it. --Ezra Wax 04:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I find the recent conduct of ~~~~ vis-à-vis the article in question disturbing. The VfD notice (posted by ~~~~) states explicitly that, while editing an article on VfD is OK, blanking is not. Within the space of two hours, ~~~~ posted the VfD notice, posted his rationale for it on the project page, and blanked all of the project text except for the reservations of User:Jfdwolff and User:Jayjg. In fact, he used the year-old reservations as justification (in the edit summaries) for blanking (see the history of this article and the successive diffs for specifics). Additionally, ~~~~ responded to several very old posts in a provocative manner, an ostensibly pointless gesture. As a side point, POV is endemic to project pages (especially nationality ones), and I don't see why this one should be singled out for POV. I think that Tony Sidaway's contentions display an apt understanding of Wikipedia policy, yet ~~~~ believes that a project dedicated towards making articles more neutral by targeting specific types of biases inappropriately inserted in those articles amounts to severe violation of Wikipedia policy. Much more appropriate reasons for deletion, I would think, are the following:

A.) This project is not the product of consensus.

B.) This project appears static; it's a one-time posting of someone's suggestions vis-à-vis editing conduct (which basically said, before it was recently blanked, that Jewish editors should follow Wikipedia's civility guidelines and not feel provoked by apparent hostility).

Both these reasons are weak, anyway. It seems to me that this VfD (and related editing) is the product of someone who feels uncomfortable with the existence of a page on Wikipedia that suggests anti-Jewish sentiments among some Wikipedia editors. This editor would, apparently, only be satisfied with the deletion of this page or the creation of a project page suggesting equivalent Pro-Jewish Bias. ~~~~ says that the existence of this project page should be dependant on the existence of its counterpart. While I wouldn't otherwise care about the preservation of this page (when I first saw it, I thought it was a bit strange), I wouldn't contribute to an effort to officially confirm the idea that anti-Jewish bias is either absent from all of Wikipedia (I've witnessed many explicit and obscene anti-Semitic vandal attacks over the past several weeks, BTW) or perfectly balanced by pro-Jewish bias (I've seen no explicit or obscene pro-Jewish vandal attacks, except on the user pages of Jewish editors in an effort to "expose" the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the like). While bias and POV certainly go both ways, there is no need to obsess about pin-point equivalence between anti and pro-Jewish sentiments. This very VfD crusade by ~~~~, to borrow a phrase from Radiant_>|<, "seems to fall foul of WP:POINT." HKT 05:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't mind if you refer to me as -Ril- rather than ~~~~, but that is your choice entirely.

Secondly, I deleted the content of the front page, as two editors, including at least one who was Jewish, on that said front page, suggested it be deleted. That was almost 1 year ago, and no objections to them had been obviously raised in that time, so I went ahead and did it - 1 year is enough time to see if there are any objections. N.b. I explicitely stated that it was me who deleted the content on the page itself, so it is not as if this was anything secretive.

Thirdly, the counter-project I suggested is necessary to retain a semblence of NPOV, to say that we can only address "Anti-Jewish bias", but must ignore "Pro-Jewish bias", is extremely non-NPOV. The necessity for this counter-project for NPOV is what demonstrates that the project itself is inherently in violation of WP:NPOV, since, without it, there will only be a biased situation (as Pro-Jewish bias would remain but without any balancing Anti-Jewish bias).

Fourthly, you have the events in the wrong order. I left an NPOV dispute comment on the talk page first. Then, realising the extent of the violation of NPOV, and how much it was inherent, decided that it belonged on VfD rather than just as a dispute, so added it here.

Fifthly a VfD is not a disruption of Wikipedia, but standard procedure, so it cannot fall foul of WP:POINT.

~~~~

Ril, those editors you mention never suggested that the page be blanked, and they certainly didn't suggest blanking during VfD. They mentioned that the material was inappropriately placed. I don't really think that blanking during a VfD is helpful for anyone. Furthermore, the lack of response to those editors' comments was probably due to lack of interest, not agreement, and that hardly amounts to consensus. Consensus is what is being reached here, and you already read my reservations about the circumstances.

If you think that an Addressing pro-Jewish Bias project would be helpful then you have the prerogative to start one and see how the Wikipedia community takes it. While you also have the prerogative of placing this on VfD, following guidelines can still be a violation of WP:POINT. I think this is a case in point, as I detailed above, and the NPOV tag doesn't change things much.

I think that the "project" in question has potential and could develop if attention was paid it (which it probably would be, by now); it could be turned from a sermon into an actual project focusing on balancing polarizing articles (which I am still ambivalent about voting for, as I'm undecided about whether this project is redundant: One the one hand, it's already technically encompassed by the Countering Systemic Bias project; on the other hand, perhaps it's enough of an issue to justify special attention). True that it would be a POV project in the sense that it would target specific types of articles for NPOVing. However, this type of POV motivates much of Wikipedia's growth and is a valuable asset. That is what projects are for: Being narrow-scoped on an individual basis for the sake of a broad-scoped, balanced encyclopedia as a whole. It is surprising that anyone could miss the intro to WP:NPOV, which states that the NPOV policy only applies to "articles"! P.S. I didn't mean to accuse you of being secretive; I meant to point out your activities regarding the project. HKT 18:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - too POV. Halibutt 06:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Anti-(x) bias and pro-(x) bias are not equivalent issues. The kind of issues that are taken as inspiration by various parties for war and harm are, in my opinion, a very grave matter. I differentiate between "pro-Jewish", for example, and "anti-Palestinian". I would happily vote in support of a project page devoted to the problem of anti-Palestinian bias, for example. What is "pro-Jewish", as separate from "anti-" anything? I can only imagine it involves an enjoyment of potato latkes. A. J. Luxton 06:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti (x) and pro (x) are equivalent, because pro (x) is anti (y) where y is the situation that is the aim of anti (x). So one situation is anti(x) and the other anti(y). Pro-Jewish bias is bias supports whatever situation it is that Jews, particularly extremists (whatever this may mean) prefer, e.g. "Jews have a fundamental right to 100% of the Gaza Strip and West Bank" (not necessarily true, but for the purposes of an example). I agree that this is not necessarily the same as anti-palestinian, but that is an irrelevant argument, since it is still a bias. ~~~~ 10:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be some sort of bizarre supremacist tract ("Jews hold and continue to hold the basis of virtually all morals of humanity. It is very difficult to argue against morals. Morals are good and even people who hate morals can see this. So the only way to combat moral is to combat the source, the Jews.") - Xed 07:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How remarkable, Xed coming out the woodwork at odd moments. JFW | T@lk 09:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe personal attacks are prohibited in Wikipedia. ~~~~ 10:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Xed's brainchild of addressing systemic bias may exist, then so does this. JFW | T@lk 09:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is not the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering anti-systemic bias or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering pro-systemic bias. Either of these two would be biased as they address only one side. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias is about addressing whatever bias exists due to the nature of the editors, and would include addressing anti-Jewish bias, if (and only if) that was a systemic feature. Wheras WP:NPOV is about addressing any bias introduced by editors biased more than just as a result of their systemic situation. These two features cover any anti- or pro- Jewish bias that would exist, and therefore not only is the project addressed in this VfD unnecessary, but inherently biased. ~~~~ 10:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're conflating systemic and systematic bias here. As far as I can tell, this project is all about systematic bias, and suggests that people are going round deliberately introducing an anti-Jewish bias into Wikipedia. WikiProject Countering systemic bias just says that because we have more Star Trek fans contributing to Wikipedia than we do experts on African politics, it might be a nice idea to coordinate activities to try and write articles about under-represented topics. Apart from the similar names, the two projects have almost nothing in common. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

• Delete. Whilst addressing bias against any group on the Wikipedia is necessary, anti-Jewish bias on the vast majority of articles is quickly addressed by the hard work of a variety of contributors, both Jewish and otherwise. On the contrary, this project can only serve to inflame things as it will undoubtedly serve as a POV magnet which is more likely to attract anti-Jewish contributors and conspiracy nuts rather than combat them. The material about Jews being 'naturally moral' has no place on Wikipedia, constituting as it does both religious activism and (in the reasoning employed) original research.illWill 13:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How anti-Jewish bias is different from all others? --Ttyre 14:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. I think some of the scope of what this WikiProject intends is commendable, but to single out anti-Jewish bias this way seems wrong, and (given that I have not seen a tendency for articles on the Jews to be more often biased one way than the other) seems like it may effectively be an incitement to a pro-Jewish bias, or (more precisely) a pro-Jewish-establishment bias. I would suggest though, that rather than abandon this project entirely, it might be more appropriate to broaden it to a project on eliminating ethnic and religious bias generally, rather than (as this is in part) a call for "Jewish pride". I'm all for "Jewish pride", but not at the expense of the pride of any other people. Even the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith understands that, in the United States, its work must encompass combatting prejudice against African Americans as much as prejudice against Jews. Now if only they would also be equally concerned with prejudice against Arabs... -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although somewhat reluctantly. David | Talk 21:22, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ruy Lopez 1 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Jmabel - this runs a real dangewr of turning Wikipedia into a pro-Jewish-Bias site, given that no other examples like this exist which are based entirely on ethnicity. 62.253.64.15 2 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
• Comment. While I have been dubious of the project from the start (as my comments there from a year ago have shown), I must say I find a number of the delete rationales here to be troubling. I think HKT's comments are right on the mark; suggestions that the project can only stay if there is a project addressing "Pro-Jewish" bias, or that it should be deleted because it is defunct, or that addressing systemic bias also addresses specific bias, are based on fundamental misunderstandings of NPOV, Wikipedia policy, and the meaning of "systemic bias". Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)

• Delete Isn’t this a biased sentence as well? When Jews are poor (as per Polish and Russian Jews) they were hated. Jews being rich and/or powerful is an excuse for anti-Semitism.--SylwiaS 5 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 ^talk July 1, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

[edit] Pronatalism

This has been transwikied already, and I thought I'd finish it off. Will never expand beyond this, dicdef, etc. humblefool® 21:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is official government policy in a number of countries, backed by financial incentives. I've expanded the article slightly to highlight the clear potential for expansion.--Pharos 22:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, could be expanded to list the counties, dictators etc, which expouse it, tax incentives, birth control restrictions etc used to implement it, feminist attitudes towards it, etc. Kappa 23:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think it might expand given some time. Maybe give it an {{attention}} tag?-Splash 01:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 07:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - legitimate stub about real, though widely divergent, policies (not all of them dictatorial). Lots of potential for expansion - Skysmith 10:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Masterson

He dated Hilary Duff for all of three months. If that's his claim to fame... humblefool® 21:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Unfortunately, that does count as notability in today's celebrity-saturated world. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if the only thing he is notable for is his relationship with Hilary Duff. A little research shows him to be a rather minor television actor, having made a few one-off appearances, several significantly on the shows of his brothers Danny Masterson and Christopher Masterson. I'm awaiting any arguments that show him to be notable on that basis.--Pharos 23:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-Article doese not look like it can be expanded into anthing meaningfull. Billhpike 23:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 23:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not inherently notable. JamesBurns 07:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe he can be merged somewhere? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I suppose he can be mentioned briefly in the articles on his notable actor brothers Danny Masterson and Christopher Masterson along with other immediate family members. He is already mentioned in the article on Hilary Duff, with whom he had a much shorter association.--Pharos 12:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur with Pharos. Plausible redirect is to either brother, I'd say. Radiant_>|< 15:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Pharos. --Scimitar 14:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn--Porturology 28 June 2005 18:55 (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. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:31 (UTC)

[edit] 22040

It's not actually disambiguating anything, neither is it an article. Is this really noteworthy? Francs2000 | Talk 21:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is also the zip code for Falls Church, Virginia... but I don't believe we do zip code articles. Current use is just silly for an article. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd say delete or redirect to University of Turku, but it'd be best to get an actual Finn in here to let us know how notable this number/idea is in Finnish culture. No vote yet. Paging JIP... AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:16, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's notable enough to merit its own article. I don't live in Turku, so I don't know the specifics, but I think it wasn't such a major event. I've not seen the event in the news, and the number 22040 has no special meaning in everyday Finnish culture. Searching for 22040 on the University of Turku website finds nothing at all. I say delete or redirect to University of Turku. — JIP | Talk 04:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I seem to remember discussing this before; perhaps it was some variant or was not at VfD. I vote merge to University of Turku if it can be verified. --Tabor 21:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just checked: the page has no deleted edit history so it doesn't look to be a vfd repeat. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:BD2412. JamesBurns 07:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP and Radiant. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:56, Jun 22, 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 Snowspinner (). Master Thief Garrett^Talk 05:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Byungchil Kim

Delete: Non-notable vanity page. --Durin 21:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or userfy if user creates an account - I just dropped Template:Vanity on the anon user's talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:50 (UTC)

[edit] Blair Lazar

non significant person, commercial spamming (together with the product entry 16 Million Reserve). Delete. Cacycle 21:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable vanity CDC (talk) 21:43, 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 --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:53 (UTC)