Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 28

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 6, 2005 19:51 (UTC)

[edit] Palm V

Consumer cruft. Andros 1337 28 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

• weak delete. The content of this page (which was almost certainly cut'n'pasted from a website) should certainly be deleted. But the Palm V probably deserves an article, or at least a section in the article about Palm Pilots. Brighterorange 28 June 2005 14:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio. Marked as such. An entry in Palm Pilots would be nice though. Wikibofh 28 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)
• Delete. I currently don't even see anything on the page except for the Copyvio notice anyway. Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 15:21 (UTC)
  • Delete - you have to go back a few edits. But still stands, even if Palm V deserves a section in Palm Pilot. Sirmob 28 June 2005 16:17 (UTC)
• Delete, agree there should be a blurb in Palm Pilot but not as originally (or not so originally as the case may be) written. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 17:59 (UTC)
• Delete, per Sirmob. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:17 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)

[edit] List of smiley codes

Should be deleted. Redundant - see also Emoticon. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 28 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)

• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)
• Redirect. Google gets 6800 hits for "smiley codes" so lets be helpful to the people that don't know to look under Emoticon. DS1953 28 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emoticon as per DS1953. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 05:06 (UTC)
• Redirect as per DS1953. That sounds really reasonable. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 05:35 (UTC)
• It would make more sense to redirect "smiley codes" to Emoticon than to redirect "List of smiley codes". --Tabor 28 June 2005 06:24 (UTC)
• Redirect list of smiley codes and smiley codes to emoticon. Redirects are cheap and people looking in both places should be directed here. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 07:52 (UTC)
• Redirects are cheap. Forward to emoticon. —RaD Man (talk) 28 June 2005 07:56 (UTC)
• Redirect to emoticon. The full list is in that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 08:56 (UTC)
• Redirect, for the reasons already stated. Doctor Whom 28 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emoticon. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 28 June 2005 14:18 (UTC)
• Delete This is duplicate content, the *3* emoticons listed here are already in the emoticon article. Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 15:15 (UTC)
• Redirect to emoticon along with smiley codes. —MICLER (Мыклр) June 28, 2005 15:31 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emoticon, per DS1953. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 15:47 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emoticon (preceding unsigned comment by 24.247.171.114 28 June 2005 21:41 (UTC))
• Redirect both as per Mgm. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:16 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. ;-) -Splash June 29, 2005 02:34 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
• Redirect. 213.112.41.205 3 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)
• Delete as the three emoticons listed are well-known and aleady exist on the emoticon page --fpo July 3, 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• redirect this one please to emoticon everything is already there Yuckfoo 3 July 2005 21:30 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)

[edit] Civic virtue

Dicdef Denni☯ 2005 June 28 03:55 (UTC)

• Weak keep A notable concept and an article which can be expanded upon. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 04:03 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with CanadianCaesar. An article could discuss the role of personal virtue in different political systems, as well as the creation of institutions dexsigned to foster specific civic virtues in future generations. FreplySpang (talk) 28 June 2005 04:07 (UTC)
• Delete, this article could do a lot of things, but it doesn't, the vfd isn't about the concept it's about the article.--nixie 28 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)
• Weak keep, needs expansion + tag with the appropriate stub. -- Lochaber 28 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept, reasonable start. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kappa - articles on topics like this are exactly what makes Wikipedia Wikipedic! -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion, see Kappa comments --eleuthero 28 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - it's one thing to have sub-stubs of people or concrete events/dates/etc., but for an abstract concept such as this it's a bit hard to justify. I was going to vote delete, but I'll grudgingly admit that with some famous philosopher comments about the subject and a little Benjamin Franklin thrown in, it could make great article. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:11 (UTC)
• (Weak) keep: obviously needs expansion, but a major subject in political philosophy. Smerdis of Tlön June 28, 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • I have endeavored to expand it, albeit with vague remembered material about Athens and Rome. It still wants a lot of work, and more recent material. Smerdis of Tlön June 28, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
• delete I agree with Stop the Filling but this article needs awell considered essay rather than a substub which does nothing but increase the authors contribution count--Porturology 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • Comment. First, the article is now much expanded, certainly no longer a stub. Second, I see nothing wrong with creating a stub on a worthy topic. I've done so many times, with the hopes that persons more knowledgeable than myself on the topic would add their knowledge. If not, then I'll go back and expand it. In light of this, perhaps the suggestion that it "does nothing but increase the authors contribution count" is uncharitable. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
• Keep now that there is an article--Porturology 29 June 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Comment: I take your point, but is it not possible that such a stub could have been lost in the mass of 600K articles and never be expanded. My belief is that in the wikipaedia projesct a substantial article no matter how flawed ( and I think you article is very good) is far better as a basis for revision than a tiny stub.--Porturology 29 June 2005 00:53 (UTC)

• Keep article as expanded. I love it when this happens. Had this article never come to VfD, it could have lived a long life as a say-nothing substub. Denni☯ 2005 June 29 02:27 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article skates mighty comes close to WP:NOR in parts, I think, but not close enough for deletion. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:39 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it even more, added some references and quotations, and even a picture.  :) Smerdis of Tlön June 29, 2005 15:05 (UTC)
    • Comment excellent work, this is an interesting topic, I imagine that it could develop into featured status at some point. - Jersyko talk June 29, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
    • Comment — this is what VfD should be about. Not getting rid of vanity articles endlessly but determining whether there is some value in an apparently value-less article. This is great work. I still think that it reads somewhat as an essay, but it does now have references and things so this is clear-cut-keep. And as for FAC,...yes I think so, eventually. -Splash June 29, 2005 18:52 (UTC)
• Keep a decent start to an article, notable subject. - Jersyko talk June 29, 2005 12:30 (UTC)
• keep it definitely it is sure not a dictionary def Yuckfoo 29 June 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  • Comment: It used to be. I am so glad I voted keep on this, albeit weakly. The article has been made awesome. I just edited it a little and added a section on modern times, and gave it its second picture. CanadianCaesar 30 June 2005 22:58 (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 speedy: joke,by authour's confession in page history. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 19:17 (UTC)

[edit] Taoxiiarongu

Zero Google hits. I almost marked this for speedy deletion, but thought I'd canvas VFD, in case I'm missing something. Maybe it's misspelt. Bovlb June 28, 2005 04:45 (UTC)

• Delete. I get zero Google hits, too, and in addition, Wikipedia says the Jin dynasties ruled over China, not Japan. Probable hoax. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 04:55 (UTC)
  • LOL!! Just looked at the article's history and look what someone wrote!! "This is not a word. Someone made it up in Scrabble and added it to try to get me to use it." CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 05:02 (UTC)
• Delete Scrabble cheaters-cruft. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 05:09 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:02 (UTC)
• Delete and also Never play Scrabble with creator Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 10:24 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 13:47 (UTC)
• Delete Not a real word. Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 15:24 (UTC)
• Delete and ban creator from playing Scrabble^TM. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • LOL!! :P --Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 18:03 (UTC)
• Delete. Looking at Indian, Chinese, and Japanese Emperors the comments by CanadianCaesar are confirmed. The Jin dynasty ruled China during the Mongol period. The closest emperor in Japan (strangely during the same general period) is Tsuchimikado. Why would anyone try and use a proper name in Scrabble anyway? Isn't that against the rules? --eleuthero 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
• I bet that fish is more endangered than anyone ever could've imagined...delete. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:16 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

[edit] Paul McClanahan

Non-notable, very small article, few web references some no longer exist <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)

• Delete No Google hits means non notable. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 05:30 (UTC)
• Delete non notable possible vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:03 (UTC)
• The international stardom claimed, needs more than just a few google hits or mp3.com songs available. Delete as unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 07:57 (UTC)
• Great international stardom - nobody's heard of him. Delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 28 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. —MICLER (Мыклр) June 28, 2005 15:34 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. --Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 18:05 (UTC)
• Delete per Jamyskis. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:19 (UTC)
• Delete Basicly the guy had a song on mp3.com so definitely nonnotable. Alexp73 28 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. Nothing on allmusic.com. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:15 (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 speedied. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

[edit] Trance (disambiguation)

Trance was redirecting to Trance music, with all sorts of unrelated articles going to trance music. I've made Trance the disamig page, and now Trance (disambiguation) is uneeded. sparkit (talk) June 28, 2005 05:22 (UTC)

• delete. SchmuckyTheCat 28 June 2005 06:03 (UTC)
• Delete as per Sparkit. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:05 (UTC)
• No need to bring something like this to VfD. It's speediable, and I've done so. Denni☯ 2005 June 28 07:48 (UTC)
• I disagree. Trance should be a page on the mental state, with a dab page off that. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
  • You have a reason, but, (a) you must have an article written first; (b) it must survive VfD. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 19:22 (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 speedied as page without viable content. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 08:00 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Stirling

A kid who made this vanity page, which does not seem to qualify for speedy deletion. -- Hoary June 28, 2005 05:28 (UTC)

• That article is just begging us to be Deleted for vanity. CanadianCaesar 28 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:05 (UTC)
• This is speediable according to WP:CSD Articles#1. Denni☯ 2005 June 28 07:51 (UTC)
• I very much agree. This isn't your regular run-off-the-mill vanity. I doesn't even claim anything. I'll go ahead and speedy right now. Content was:

Julian Stirling' Julz is a kid from Albury Australia. He made this page. HI!

Well, see ya later!

---Julz

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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Kerstein and Bob.com

An accountant that made some websites, permission granted for use, but I don't think that this guy meets the biography inclusion criteria. Delete --nixie 28 June 2005 05:41 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)
• Delete Both Alexa score 296,399, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
• Comment: Permission granted for use? I don't think this is vanity, more a copyvio. I've flagged it as such. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC) Just noticed the dubious looking permission notice on the talk page - whether it's true or not, it's vanity anyhow. Delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 28 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesBurns. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:24 (UTC)
• Delete advert. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)
• Delete ad/self-promotion. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
• Delete ad/promo. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:41 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)

[edit] Wintopo

The owner of the copyright for this was kind enough to grant us permission to include this piece of self-promotion in Wikipedia, delete--nixie 28 June 2005 06:02 (UTC)

• Delete advertising CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 28 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)
• Delete advert/spam Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 15:33 (UTC)
• Condemneth to Wiki-Hell!!! -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
• Ewwww - delete per BD. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:31 (UTC)
• Delete blatant ad. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:29 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Delete what is almost a self-confessed ad/spam. But observe 15000 Googles. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:43 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually, I (or SoftSoft.net) did not post this article - it is not self-promotion - someone else added the definition by copying some text from my web site. I agree that it looks like an advert. Should it be re-written from scratch if the present wording is offensive to wikipedia users? This is my first usage of Wikipedia - I had never heard of it until a few days ago when someone informed me that I needed to confirm a copyright issue! --Matthew Heaton 1 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)
• Keep. The software worth a description page since it provides good utilities in its class. (Unsigned vote by 218.111.32.247, user's only edit)

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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

[edit] List of exceptional letters in acronyms or initialisms

An unclear mixture of material covered elsewhere on Acronym and Internet slang. Perhaps also referring to the rebus qualities of License plates ... but it's just not clear quite what is meant to be included here. --Tabor 28 June 2005 06:33 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:07 (UTC)
• Comment: Here is a list of exceptional letters in acronyms and/or initialisms; these letters can represent words that don't start with those letters. That would be cheating on the very basis on acronyms. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 08:02 (UTC)
• Delete. I've always considered V an exceptional letter. Grutness...wha? 28 June 2005 12:12 (UTC)
• I think I get his point, but I don't really care, and even if I did it's way too confusing as is. Delete. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
• Delete It's discriminatory agains all the other letters , hehehhe drini ☎ 28 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)
• Delete, it is also useless. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:21 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintanable, unencyc. Further, this will quickly degenerate into a dictionary of txtspk nd wkpda nt a dkshnry. -Splash June 29, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
• Delete as a LOXLNAON is not useful. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)
• Delete. I hate doing this to my pal SuperDude, but this is just not useable. Those famous typing monkeys will finally type a line of Shakespeare before a user enters this title in the search box. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:29 (UTC)
• D, E, L, E, T and E are pretty exceptional letters, don't you think? Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks or something like that since some people are saying that this is a dictionary-like guide; despite that, Wikibooks would be a better place to transwiki this to than Wiktionary would be. --SuperDude 5 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 4 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Joker

• Userfy and teach him how to properly "bold" text. --Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 18:08 (UTC) (Edit actually by 70.26.25.137)

Permission granted for us to use this piece of self-promotion, delete --nixie 28 June 2005 06:36 (UTC)

• Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:08 (UTC)
• Delete. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
• Userfy Sonic Mew June 28, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
• Delete,userfy,etc Sirmob 28 June 2005 16:20 (UTC)
• Userfy and teach him how to properly "bold" text. --Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 18:08 (UTC)
• Delete or userfy, I think North America is dark and hard enough, thanks. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:45 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:23 (UTC)
• Delete. How many vanity articles have we had copyright permission granted on today? This is the 3rd I've voted on! -Splash June 29, 2005 02:46 (UTC)
• Userfy and teach him how to properly "bold" text. --Mister Joker June 30, 2005 22:08 (UTC) (No such user, edit actually by 70.26.25.137)
• Bold Text Delete Bold Text him. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:20 (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 4 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

[edit] List of non-standard replacement symbols for word contraction

Generally redundant with Internet slang, unwieldy title. --Tabor 28 June 2005 06:38 (UTC)

• Delete dplicate content. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
• Delete duplic@ content. Sirmob 28 June 2005 16:21 (UTC)
• Redirect to Internet slang, as redirects are fun and cheap. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
• Superdude115 must've been quite bored, but then again, that's why I'm here -- redirect per BD. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 18:48 (UTC)
• Delete. No use as a redirect. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 20:23 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:24 (UTC)
• Delete no redirect. Otherwise we'd be wildly inconsistent with the VfD just above on List of exceptional letters in acronyms or initialisms, which was unsurprisingly made by the same author. -Splash June 29, 2005 19:19 (UTC)
• Sigh...gotta vote delete as well. It's redundant info and simply won't work as a redirect. Title's too weird. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:26 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

[edit] Njpaip

This article used with permission has something to do with car insurance in New Jersey, not encyclopedic, delete --nixie 28 June 2005 06:58 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 07:11 (UTC)
• Delete not a real article. No Alexa rank for the referenced website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 11:09 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. --Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 18:10 (UTC)
• Delete - I looked for an article about driver insurance or something to that effect, as I think there's some info that could be merged into such an article, but there's not and it's not worth it to create one for this purpose. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:25 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

[edit] Shawn Rogers

Seems to be non-notable according to Wikipedia biographical standards. —Morven June 28, 2005 07:00 (UTC)

• Delete self-promotion CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Delete nn self-promotion. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Delete with possibility to recreate in future since the man's biography would seem to indicate he is continuing down the path of fame in his subject area.--eleuthero 29 June 2005 04:43 (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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

[edit] Manufactures survival

Badly titled, gobbledygook, and an ad. Delete. Lupo 28 June 2005 07:02 (UTC)

• Delete bad ad. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 14:08 (UTC)
• Delete. They think this will advertise them? I can't read it. —MICLER (Мыклр) June 28, 2005 15:38 (UTC)
• Delete. Badly translated advertisement. Gblaz June 28, 2005 19:36 (UTC)
• Delete, ad, poor quality. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:25 (UTC)
• Delete - I reckon we've got an advertiser who moonlights as a shark and has a bit of business training too. Rob Church 3 July 2005 00:14 (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 merge with Markham, Ontario (five votes to merge, including the nominator, who changed votes; two to keep; one to delete). I have now merged this information, and broken out the history section into a separate article, to control the size of the article. -- BD2412 ^talk July 7, 2005 03:39 (UTC)

[edit] List of sports teams, clubs and venues in Markham, Ontario

I don't think much needs to be said. Not notable enough for its own article. Maybe the information could be merged in the main article on this city (if we have one). As it stands, this is looking awfully like advertisement, or a tourism brochure, for the city. Delete. Redux 28 June 2005 07:05 (UTC)

• Keep, collectively sports teams, clubs, golf courses etc, are highly notable. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:30 (UTC)
• Merge (as NN in itself), and redirect. Proto t c 28 June 2005 09:36 (UTC)
• Merge this info into the Markham, Ontario article and then delete or redirect. Nahallac Silverwinds June 28, 2005 15:11 (UTC)
• Merge as per previous to Markham, Ontario article. Feydey 28 June 2005 18:42 (UTC) Change that to Keep, since the main article would be getting too big. Feydey 28 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)
  • I agree with the merge option, which I had signaled myself earlier, but as for keeping the present article as a redirect, seems unnecessary, since it's unlikely that anyone would type that title in the search box. Redux 28 June 2005 20:29 (UTC)
    • Comment: True, though for GFDL provisions I believe that either the redirect must stay to maintain author history or an administrator has to do a time-consuming task of cutting and pasting history. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Merge, per above. If you need to break out a section to keep the length down, break out the history, which makes for a meatier article, and which would comport with the more general Wikipractice of having separate history articles for geographic locations. -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 01:00 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely no reason this type of information can't go in the town article. Gamaliel 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)
• Merge with Markham, Ontario. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:18 (UTC)
  • DoubleBlue has a point about deleting the original article. For practical reasons, we might as well keep it as a redirect. I also agree with BD2412: if the main article has to be broken for TOC reasons, let it be another section, one that can hold its own as a separate article. So, it's merge contents with Markham, Ontario and redirect the List of (...) to it. Redux 29 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 6, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Yonah

Ok, I may be completely wrong with this one... but this, too, is gobbledygook to me! I can't make heads or tails from that text. Its significance, if it has any at all, escapes me completely. Not enough context, non-notable easter egg or "clue". No hard facts, just gossip. Delete this piece of gamecruft. Lupo 28 June 2005 07:12 (UTC)

• Delete non notable nintendo cruft. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 10:27 (UTC)
• Delete, --//-- Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:27 (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 6, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lee, Jae-won (band)

Posted by anon in userspace of non-existing user. Is full of adtalk Appears to be vanity. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 07:48 (UTC)

• Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 10:28 (UTC)
• The username does seem to have been registered, but has no contribs - the question is, is the anon the same as the registered user. If so, keep. sjorford →•← 28 June 2005 10:31 (UTC)
• Delete Band vanity in user space is still band vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 11:02 (UTC)
• Delete vanity copyvio drini ☎ 28 June 2005 20:55 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

[edit] János Cservenák

Page was blanked by contributor, subject does not seem to meet criteria for biographies, delete--nixie 28 June 2005 08:17 (UTC)

• Concur. Notability not established. Delete--Scimitar 28 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 28 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

Several people argued for a redirect. Subsequent comments, however, showed that 1) the redirect would have a typo in it (and thus be non-preferred) and 2) that the article had only a single author who has already moved the relevant content into the more general article (thus obviating the need to merge and redirect to preserve GFDL). I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a delete but without prejudice against re-creation of a redirect at the proper title. Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

[edit] Think Big Era ( New Zealand)

User:Alan Liefting tagged this as a speedy candidate without providing a valid reason. Since it doesn't qualify as a speedy, I'll bring it here instead. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 08:23 (UTC)

• Probably the reasons are that it's (justifiably) POV, and everything in it's already in the considerably larger Think Big article (redirect). Grutness...wha? 28 June 2005 12:20 (UTC)
• Redirect to Think Big. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:19 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a typo in the article title, no other country had a "Think Big Era" and there is no point cluttering the place up with endless redirects when an adequate search feature is available. Alan Liefting 30 June 2005 06:47 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect Think Big Era (New Zealand) to Think Big. Since there is a disambiguation on Think Big, then if any other country has a "think big" the disambiguation can sort it out when necessary. (N.B. the typo is a space after the "(" and the redirect should not include the space). There are already links to Think Big Era (New Zealand) and so at the very least a redirect is needed to preserve them. I think the two articles need to be merged and so it is only a question of what the title of the article should be. Although Think Big Era (New Zealand) is more future proof and more exact, the existing Think Big (disambiguation) can deal with things at this stage. As the author of Think Big Era (New Zealand) I appreciate the discussion and somehow missed the fact that there was already a Think Big article when I created my one. User:Zanuga 5 July 2005.

• Delete. Everything in this article is already in Think Big, so no merge nessesary. The title had a typo, so no redirect. User Zanuga is free to create other redirects at his discretion, it need not be the concern of this VfD. func(talk) 8 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

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

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 6, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

[edit] Dehiscence

An immaculately crafted dicdef. As I have argued elsewhere (Pump (policy), "Wiktionarizing, etc"), the creation of first-rate dicdefs is something that requires considerable practice and care, and I for one cannot believe that somebody capable of this will fail to notice that WP is not a dictionary. Thus for a brand new yet good dicdef on a technical or general subject (if not for vulgarisms, cruft, etc.), I assume a copyvio. Do not transwiki; instead, delete. -- Hoary June 28, 2005 08:35 (UTC)

• Copyvio. Kappa 28 June 2005 09:29 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

[edit] Political kiss

Delete: no verifiable information - possibly fabricated

• Delete unless verified. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 13:53 (UTC)
• Delete looks made up. — Chameleon 28 June 2005 23:48 (UTC)
• Delete per Chameleon. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• Delete The Women's suffrage movements did not begin until the late 1830s, early 1840s (in Britain, some time before they began elsewhere in the world). This per Votes for Women: Women's and Gender History ed. Purvis, June. The only google hits for "political kiss" have to do with a "political kiss of death" (that is, a major faux pas ending a political career) or a coincidental reference such as a sentence ending in political and beginning with kiss.--eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:02 (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 6, 2005 21:48 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Phoenix

Format suggests it was copied from game manual. Could someone verify this? I vote delete unless someone with more knowledge of the game stubbifies it. Maybe a merge into Tekken is viable? I'm not sure what's the best solution, so I'll bring it here. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 09:53 (UTC)

• I can confirm that the "Tekken 1 information" was copied straight from the PS1 booklet. I think that's enough to get this page deleted as a copyvio. -- Grev -- Talk June 28, 2005 10:46 (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 6, 2005 21:50 (UTC)

[edit] Copte

Dic def and Dictionary.com says it doesn't exist. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 09:58 (UTC)

• Neologism. Delete and redirect to Copt. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 10:21 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 10:31 (UTC)
• Delete per previous. Feydey 28 June 2005 12:48 (UTC)
• Delete — Chameleon 28 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
• Delete per JamesBurns. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:30 (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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk July 6, 2005 14:40 (UTC)

[edit] Sacha Pecaric

Not notable. Upon careful scrutiny, should have been either deleted or redirected a long time ago, see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The contents of this article should be moved and its title redirected to Jewish Polish current events. IZAK 28 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)

• Redirect and move contents as above. IZAK 28 June 2005 10:10 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 10:32 (UTC)
• Keep. Pecaric is one of the best known present-day rabbis in Poland. – Kpalion (talk) 28 June 2005 10:55 (UTC)
• Keep. Tough call but seems notable enough to me. --Briangotts 28 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like the guy (I'm a follower of Michael :) ), but he is definitely notable enough. Halibutt June 28, 2005 21:01 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable scholar. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 00:57 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable rabbi. Capitalistroadster 29 June 2005 01:18 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds notable enough to me. carmeld1 29 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)
• keep please he appears notable to me too Yuckfoo 29 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 as unencyclopedic textdump. FCYTravis 7 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)

[edit] Oregovomab

Text dump of a research paper. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)

• Delete obviously original research. David | Talk 28 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up Did either of you bother to read this article? I didn't think so. This (despite its rather disorganized appearance) is a very well researched article with 23 references, regrettably not included. I have no idea how this qualifies as patent nonsense; just because you don't get it doesn't make it so. Google is your friend. Denni☯ 2005 June 29 03:39 (UTC)
  • It is unclear where you have obtained the number 23 from. There are 0 references in the article. Where does the number 23 come from? Does it come from whatever copyrighted original article was copied&pasted here in violation of our copyright policy? Uncle G June 29, 2005 11:12 (UTC)
    • A number of paragraphs quote reference numbers which must correspond to some actual references. As I said above, they are not included with this article, but I don't imagine someone would throw in fake reference number just for fun. I would also suggest you show good faith in the author of this article, Uncle G. I have found no evidence in Google of copyvio, and unless you yourself can provide proof, it is unfair to state this as fact. (Having been burned with this myself...) Denni☯ 2005 June 30 23:21 (UTC)
      • Not every copyright violation is copied from a web page that the Google Web spider reaches, or even from a web page at all. Read what Simoncursitor said again. And as Quale says, the formatting of the wikitext, including the extra blank lines after many paragraphs and the obvious headers whose formatting has been lost, clearly indicates that this has been copied&pasted. Uncle G July 1, 2005 10:57 (UTC)
• Denni: please don't misinterpret this: I'd be pleased to vote for a keep if it wasn't for the fact that 1) the article reads like promotional copy for the companies involved, and 2) it reads as if it's directly transcribed from a pharmaceutical source journal. I'm not expert enough to scan all these and take the decision, but until someone assures me this isn't a copyvio, I'm going to abstain. --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 06:57 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Really looks like a copyvio to me. No sources given, but clearly this is copy and paste from a single source. Quale 30 June 2005 04:06 (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 Speedy delete by MacGyverMagic as nonsense. --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 21:54 (UTC)

[edit] Whorebag

nonsense Melaen 28 June 2005 10:19 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 28 June 2005 10:33 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Duncharris as nonsense. --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

[edit] Career versus and One bed Room flat, Career and One bed Room flat

Absolutely nonsense article, but it's so long that I'd be lambasted for slapping a CSD tag on it. Delete. Harro5 June 28, 2005 10:23 (UTC)

• Delete, also copyvio [1] --Melaen 28 June 2005 10:25 (UTC)
• Strong delete, absolute nonsense, apparent copyvio (net filter prevents me from viewing the above link at work). — JIP | Talk 28 June 2005 10:30 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless, unencyclopedic sob story which doesn't really ring true, at least not to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 10:55 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

[edit] Hackonomics

neologism Melaen 28 June 2005 10:59 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, dicdef, original research. David | Talk 28 June 2005 11:04 (UTC)
• Wiktionary not neologism, dictdef. CriticNY 28 June 2005 16:29 (UTC)
  • User's first ever edit. David | Talk 28 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
    • Gotta start somewhere. Not sure on the definition given here, but I'm certain I've seen the term in some course schedules and papers. CriticNY 28 June 2005 22:53 (UTC)
• Delete - almighty Google gives it only 11 hits, of which three are duplicates and one appears to deal with the enconomics of malicous hacking, not the dicdef that is mentioned here. Giving something an etymology does not make it historic, and establishing notability would require some evidence of consistant use and even then it would be a wiktionary. Sorry, nope. Sirmob 28 June 2005 17:53 (UTC)
• Delete this neologism, agree with Sirmob, recommend article space as good place to start editing rather than VfD. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 04:28 (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 No sysop action required --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 22:01 (UTC)

[edit] Diapente

This article should be filleted and its contents distributed as follows:

• The discussion about the relationship between diapason, diapente, sesquialterum and so forth: merged into Pythagorean tuning.
• The bulk of the article: merged into perfect fifth.
• The stuff about sums of triangular numbers: IMHO this is meaningless numerology and should be deleted. I'm not sure whether the author intends to suggest that it is significant or merely that the ancients thought it was significant—and I would be interested in seeing evidence for either claim.
• The original title: should either redirect to Pythagorean tuning or perfect fifth, not sure which.

The same arguments also apply to diatessaron, ditonus, semiditonus, tonus, semitonium.—Blotwell 28 June 2005 11:01 (UTC)

• Sounds like you know a lot more about this subject than the average Wikipedians. Since none of all this tuning requires deletion, you can go ahead and do it. Good luck! Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 13:15 (UTC)
  • Agreed. be bold. Sirmob 28 June 2005 17:55 (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. The vote count was 29 delete, 8 move and 5 keep. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Checkers

This article was speedy deleted, but quickly undeleted. This VFD is a procedural one. Now, this does not appear to be an organized tournament like Wikipedia:Chess championship is, it is more like a public board set up in a park so that people can play casual games. I don't think this belongs here, instead I think this should be moved to the sandbox (and the redirect deleted) in the same way that casual chess games are played at Wikipedia:Sandbox/Chess. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 11:33 (UTC)

• Delete and set this up at Wikicities per Angela is probably the best. Also, chess is a much better game than checkers... Sjakkalle (Check!) 1 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
• Isn't that an opinion? Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers per Sjakkalle, though I don't think there's any harm in keeping the redirect, since --Kiand 28 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)it's in the Wikipedia: space. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 12:58 (UTC) (see below)
• Move to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers per Sjakkalle - great idea. Otherwise, delete. - Tεxτurε 28 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)
• Keep or Move, but do not delete. As long as all the games at Wikipedia:Department of fun can exist, so can this. --brian0918™ 28 June 2005 13:14 (UTC)
• Move as previously suggested. I won't be playing it but I know it will attract others. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

*Keep I agree that if other Dep't of fun pages are allowed to stay then this one should be too. Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 15:56 (UTC) P.S. As long as the user who deleted the page is allowed to have his own page at Dep't of fun then I should be too. I was in the process of fleshing out a detailed plan for tournament games.

• delete unlike chess, the set of articles on this game are not developed. Let's us first make sure that we have good articles of draughts, international draughts, American checkers and when that is done people can start playing games. Andries 28 June 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• Move under sandbox. — Pt _(T) 28 June 2005 18:50 (UTC)
• Move under Sandbox. --Kiand 28 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Checkers. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)
• Move as suggested above. Sango123 June 30, 2005 01:45 (UTC)
• Delete. Do not move to the sandbox. Angela. July 1, 2005 00:05 (UTC)
• Move under Sandbox. ‡ Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 00:08 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Angela.

  unsigned vote by Philwelch

• Delete - it's time to draw a line in the sand(box). This is Wikipedia, not Wikifreegamehosting. -- Cyrius|✎ 1 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
• Delete stronger than the intensity of a thousand Suns (as if that makes any difference to the vote tally :). And recommend that we come up with some sort of policy explicitly against irrelevant game-playing like this, this is an encyclopedia we're trying to write here. (Small amendment: it looks to me like most of the games at Department of Fun are encyclopedia-related, I think those are fine. The chess and checkers ones aren't, though). Bryan 1 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. I don't play it myself but if a few Wikipedians want to relax that way it's fine. If it starts to attract significant attention from people outside the community I would reconsider. But I don't really see that happening. - Haukurth 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

• deleteGeni 1 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
• Delete. I've reconsidered, in light of Eloquence's post that Angela provided above. Perhaps the people that play Checkers should go and check out the Wikicities link, especially Wikicheckers. --Deathphoenix 1 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

• Comment if you can play checkers at Wikicheckers, then how? :Wikipedia wants you! Together we are building and encyclopedia and a community." Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 01:08 (UTC)

• Delete. Waste of Wikimedia's resources, waste of other people's time and attention (RC patrollers, searchers). Redeeming feature is that it makes some contributors happy. They can use Wikicities. -- Jeronim 1 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, you can play games with MediaWiki, but that doesn't mean you should do it on Wikipedia. Set up an installation elsewhere. - Fredrik | talk 1 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

• Delete. Not part of building an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 1 July 2005 05:10 (UTC)

• Delete. There's other places for this. --Laura Scudder | Talk 1 July 2005 06:40 (UTC)
• Delete - per post mentioned by Angela. It's nicely formed, so I've copied it to: wikicities:c:games:Checkers (from Wikipedia); if the wikicities:c:games people find it useful, they will keep it. JesseW 1 July 2005 07:20 (UTC)
• Delete RC is polluted with enough rubbish already. There is a games wiki; go use that. smoddy 1 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)
• Delete while we still can. --Phil | Talk July 1, 2005 09:33 (UTC)

• Keep for the same reason we have a department of fun. Hiding 1 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
• Delete. Take this somewhere else. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
• Comment Yeah, just this time when you delete how about deleting the talk page and its two other subpages this time. When it was "speedy deleted" it didn't even meet not one single criteria the guy didn't even bother to delete the talk page or the subpages. That is substandard. That is why I wanted it to be resurrrected and ran through VfD. I didn't expect it to actually be kept. I have a feeling that this is a Chess is superior to Checkers thing. Yeah, Delete I agree... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
• Keep. Where's the harm? Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

The harm has been spelled out for you above. Did you read it? -- Jeronim 1 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Hey, guy, any need for you to be nasty? Maybe not everyone agrees with each other--which is GREAT! It's the conflict that keeps the butter churn pumping! Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 18:21 (UTC)

• Delete. This has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Carbonite | Talk 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
• Move to wikicities andDelete Lectonar 1 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. --FOo 1 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep the sandbox clean as well, please, this is where this nonsense usually starts.--Eloquence* July 1, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
• Delete or move somewhere else. If you don't find working on the encyclopedia to be fun all by itself, you're in the wrong place. :-) Stan 1 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

• I thought it would provide nice balance to the rest of the games in this manner:

1. When people are working on the encyclopedia (myself included) 99% forget what it means to not be efficient when they're talking to someone even if just for a sentence. Effieciency is great and awesome but sometimes a cool breeze is great too.
2. If you go to chess and try to throw a joke or two around in there then you're sure to be met with stone cold stares because every gets all intensely intellectual because chess is "thinkin' man's game".

Like I stated previously I didn't truly expect this to survive VfD. I just thought it deserved more than a speedy delete because it doesn't even meet speedy deletion criteria.

• I wonder how many people come to VfD pages only to skim the list of votes and automatically give the same vote? I'm not saying that is what is happening here but elsewhere... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

This is what I need...a place to air my opinions and other wikipedians, instead of trying to tell me how wrong I am, just joins in and gives an honest opinion... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 18:29 (UTC)

• Delete per Angela. There are a million other game-servers in the world. Set up a Wikipedia affinity group on one of them if you want to play games with other Wikipedians. DanKeshet July 1, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game server. —Lowellian (talk) July 2, 2005 06:24 (UTC)
• Delete no brainer. I am having a hard time believing that this is even a matter for debate. Danny 2 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
• Absolutely superstrong Delete being an avid gamer myself I know there are millions of other sites out there. Else try wikicities. This simply doesn't belong on wikimedia projects. Waerth 2 July 2005 12:08 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedia-related 140.142.175.173 3 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)
• Delete. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prej. jamesgibbon 5 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)
• Keep or move, keeps some wikis happy, despite the killjoys. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:15 (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 Keep rewrite --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 22:33 (UTC)

[edit] The lady in black

This does not seem to have any real encyclopedic value. Delete Dabbler 28 June 2005 12:46 (UTC)

• Delete - Right now, this is unverifiable; a citation to a print source that indicates that it's more than just one person's or a very local story would be needed. Other uses of "lady in black", courtesy of google, include 1) a different myth around Fort Warren, near Boston, 2) a Uriah Heep album, 3) a species of Aster, 4) a 1987 Hong Kong movie, and 5) some sort of fiction having to do with NASCAR auto racing that I don't get. So delete, unless someone rewrites into a disambiguation, or picks a reasonable redirect. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've rewritten this to a disambig as I outlined above - and also moved to to Lady in Black. I just want to put in a plug here for Clusty, a search engine which does a great job when I'm looking at multiple meanings of a phrase. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

• The NASCAR reference is simply that "The Lady in Black" is used as the nickname for Darlington (South Carolina) Raceway, often considered the circuit's most difficult track to master. That one's not very notable outside its niche, but has been used in advertising and media coverage for decades. Disambiguate per CDC; unless there's verification, we don't need to keep any of the current content. Barno 28 June 2005 14:51 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 6, 2005 22:35 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Beach

hardly a sigle sentence of this article can be saved Melaen 28 June 2005 11:56 (UTC)

• Keep, vfd is not {{cleanup}}. Kappa 28 June 2005 12:23 (UTC)
• Delete, Google says there are lots of things named Silver Beach and this is not nearly the first that comes up. From the present article, this may well be someone's personal name for a nearby piece of sand. I would be happy to change my vote if sources were cited. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 12:31 (UTC)
  • It's the first hit for "silver beach cuddalore". Kappa 28 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
• Keep The beach is notable and is quite famous among the tourists visiting KeralaSouth India. --IncMan June 28, 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 19:33 (UTC)
• Keep per IncMan and Kappa. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 19:51 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable Indian beach. Capitalistroadster 29 June 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Question Isn't Kerala on the west coast? --Mothperson 29 June 2005 01:06 (UTC)
    • You are right. Silver beach lies in Tamil Nadu. Apologise for writing Kerala previously. --IncMan June 29, 2005 09:39 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. --Mothperson 29 June 2005 01:08 (UTC)
• keep this please kappa is right deletion is not cleanup. Yuckfoo 29 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 00:16 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Grathwohl

Another serving of patent vanity. Delete. (was improperly speedy tagged) - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 12:06 (UTC)

• Delete with all due prejeduce. Patent vanity. Donovan Ravenhull 28 June 2005 12:10 (UTC)
• Delete pretty clearly. A 16 year old could be notable, but this one is not. Sirmob 28 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 23:57 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 22:37 (UTC)

[edit] Kavorkian scarf and Kevorkian scarf (deleted redirect)

"Seemingly, the kavorkian scarf is some sort of suicide device. Whether it is real or fictional is difficult to determine (as yet this author has found nothing on the web except brief mentions and quotes from the cartoon)". Delete as unverifibiable and likely vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 12:13 (UTC)

• Strong delete, forum vanity. — JIP | Talk 28 June 2005 12:20 (UTC)
• Delete - people, you don't need to enter everything you read on some chat room into wikipedia. Please. CDC (talk) 28 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)
• (sings) "Oh sad is the world, but I have Kavorkian Scarf..." *ahem* It's from here which is fairly amusing, but not encyclopedic. Delete or possibly redirect to Neurotically Yours. the wub "?/!" 28 June 2005 19:36 (UTC)
• Delete, despite the urgency of the entry due to its heavy use of capital letters. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 19:55 (UTC)
• Delete craziness. -Splash June 29, 2005 19:22 (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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 22:39 (UTC)

[edit] Grape smuggler

Another slang term. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 12:34 (UTC)

• Delete. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons that should quickly become obvious. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 15:44 (UTC)
• Delete, though I'm tempted to say wiktionary not knowing enough about what is and isn't appropriate as a wiktionary entry... Sirmob 28 June 2005 18:04 (UTC)
• I think it needs to stay, this has provided a valuable explanation to someone unaware that another was being humiliated in the workplace. unsigned vote from 130.63.243.205 (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. This is the encyclopaedia. The dictionary is over there. Uncle G June 29, 2005 11:17 (UTC)
• Delete, Not the right forum, the author should create a list of slang terms if he is serious, which I doubt. Portcullis 29 June 2005 00:22 (BST)
  • No. No, he shouldn't. At least not here. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 00:59 (UTC)
• Delete slang. Let those grapes be squished and turned into red wine. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:25 (UTC)
• Delete. Funny, but not encyclopedic. ‡ Jarlaxle June 29, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicologism. — P Ingerson (talk) 29 June 2005 08:57 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 6, 2005 22:41 (UTC)

[edit] Tageumano

quotation from unknown source Melaen 28 June 2005 12:41 (UTC)

• I wish there was a source or context so it could to to wikiquote. delete Sirmob 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable unsourced no context. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:26 (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 6, 2005 22:43 (UTC)

[edit] Liz neal

non notability, the author as blanked his own text Melaen 28 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)

• I don't suppose we could take authors blanking their own text as a request for deletion, could we? *sigh* Delete, as quickly as possible. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)
• Delete I suppose, if not even the author thinks its notable. New criterion for speedy deletion, perhaps? Sirmob 28 June 2005 18:06 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Author blanking page is a CSD, sinc we can presume they don't want the page there anymore.-Splash June 29, 2005 19:22 (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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 22:45 (UTC)

[edit] Gympll

This article in (presumably) Slovakian is about the website of a former high school class in Prague. I think that this is non-notable. Sietse 28 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

• Comments copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
  • Polish? xrce says Slovakian. Looks like a website vanity, in any case. --Cryptic (talk) 09:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website vanity, see [English version]. Physchim62 10:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In fact, the article is in Czech. (I must know, I am Czech.) It was deleted from Czech Wikipedia three times. Vanity, spam - delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)
  • Well if they don't want it either I suppose we shouldn't transwiki it back to them. delete Sirmob 28 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:27 (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 6, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy About TV

non-notable website; alexa rank 236,413. Brighterorange 28 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)

• comment: annoyingly, the same anonymous user has added loads of links to this article from the articles about TV shows [2] [3], maybe some of the external links make sense, but not the article itself Brighterorange 28 June 2005 14:06 (UTC)
• Delete. I also suggest deletion of the various TV show links as spamming. 23skidoo 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • Underway. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 01:09 (UTC)
    • Someone help? Check the whatlinkshere link below that Squeakbox posted, that should be all of them. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 01:41 (UTC)
      • There, all done. Thank god they used an internal link, using the search engine for these things is a major pain. --W(t) 29 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)
• Delete, although hey, when site grew larger, categories were added for easier browsing!! drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

Comment. Indeed an impressive list of internal links, SqueakBox June 28, 2005 23:33 (UTC)

• Delete on general principle. No spamming! — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 01:01 (UTC)
• Delete on general principle. No spamming! --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 29 June 2005 01:56 (UTC)
• Oh, and delete. --W(t) 29 June 2005 01:58 (UTC)
• Delete. I noticed their self-promotion earlier but I forgot to do something about it. Rhobite June 29, 2005 01:58 (UTC)
• Delete, SqueakBox June 29, 2005 02:18 (UTC)
• Delete. I wish there was a way to prevent articles like this. --Woohookitty 29 June 2005 02:20 (UTC)
• Delete. chocolateboy 29 June 2005 02:27 (UTC)

I've added crazyabouttv.com to the spam blacklist. Let's see them try this nonsense again :) →Raul654 June 29, 2005 02:11 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonnotable, bargain-basement TV Tome wannabe. Postdlf 29 June 2005 04:41 (UTC)
• Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:29 (UTC)
• Delete Lifefeed June 29, 2005 12:57 (UTC)
• Delete GurraJG 29 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)
• Delete It seems to be advertising, though it could be expanded to a point where it would not be advertising. --Admiral Roo June 29, 2005 19:49 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

[edit] Brihad-Aranyaka

Text of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. I have moved the contents to wikisource:Transwiki:Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Not an encyclopedia article - delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 11:16 (UTC)

• Delete. Feydey 28 June 2005 12:46 (UTC)
• Rewrite to cover the historical context of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. If that doesn't happen, then delete. Aecis 28 June 2005 16:04 (UTC)
• Delete unless re-written --Carnildo 28 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:30 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 08:37 (UTC)
• Rewrite as per Aecis. Come to think of it, is "Start All Over" a possible vote? The Literate Engineer 30 June 2005 23:00 (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 7, 2005 00:27 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic

Either rewrite or delete and let redlinks stand because extremely little content and bad formatting —MICLER (Мыклр) June 28, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

• Could this be speedied for lack of content? Especially as there is more information on the subject at communist state, which is also the only page that links to this article, apart from this VfD. A proper article on the subject could be written later. Keep. --KFP 4 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)
• Delete unless a rewriter appears. Valid topic for an article, but needs someone who can actually write it. Sirmob 28 June 2005 18:12 (UTC) And said rewriter appeared indeed! Keep, and thanks AndyL for all your work! Sirmob 4 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
• Delete, because, as the author said, "No Such Thing Exists!" although I do agree with Sirmob. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Delete and simultaneously put up an article request. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced claims. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:31 (UTC)
• Delete, per Sirmob. Keep the rewritten version. -Splash July 3, 2005 01:38 (UTC)
• Keep, now a legitimate historical stub. AndyL 3 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)
• Keep; good stub now, valid topic. Nice work. Antandrus (talk) 3 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
• Keep, looks like the definition of a good stub. Leithp July 4, 2005 08:28 (UTC)
• Keep following AndyL's re-write. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
• Keep. Great rewrite! —MICLER (Talk) July 6, 2005 12:54 (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 7, 2005 00:31 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Richardson

• deleteVanity page, no importance Fantrl 28 June 2005 14:55 (UTC)
• Delete no purer example of vanity was ever found. David | Talk 28 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)
• "Doubtless many fools will edit this page in a childish attempt to quell the rising fame of Daniel richardson, but they should be greatly afeared for nothing can stop his rise to prominence" Editing may not, but this might: Delete! Sonic Mew June 28, 2005 15:58 (UTC)
• Speedy please. Aecis 28 June 2005 16:02 (UTC)
• Delete - but this is a fine illustration of why some vanity pages should be speedy deletable. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
• Speedy In my opinion, patent vanity articles claiming "greatest person ever" or similar can and should be speedied as jokes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
• speedy - I agree with Starblind. These vanity things are a menace, and easily identified. There's another one below at Adrian Elicegui. - Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Delete blatant vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)
• Delete The "real" Dan Richardson Risch algorithm was born about 20 years earlier and is a lecturer in Bath University dept of Computer Science (homepage) (I'd come up with a biography, but don't know sufficient details, plus the web contains far too many richardsons). (Unsigned vote by 80.3.32.9)

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 redirect to Corporate Mofo. Really 2 votes to merge, 1 to redirect, and 2 votes to delete. The merge part has thoughtfully been covered by func, so nothing left to do but redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Mondschein

Non-notable...vanity page MikeJ9919 28 June 2005 15:42 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure that either assessment is true. Need time to research this one. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 16:10 (UTC)
• Merge to new article about Corporate Mofo -- I would consider the notability of the website up there with Albinoblacksheep.com, and although Mr. Mondschein himself edited the year he was born to be 2 years younger than he is, it looks as if the article has been heavily edited (and perhaps even started) by persons other than himself. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 20:34 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd go for a merge. -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 01:06 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:08 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:33 (UTC)
• Redirect, as per BD2412 and StopTheFiling's merge. I have created Corporate Mofo as a stub, and merged Ken Mondschein's information there. func(talk) 8 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 no consensus, but a merge/redirect may be advised, and since the merge has already been done, I'm going to boldly redirect. The votes were: 5 to delete (nominator later did the merge, which I'm counting as a vote to merge); 5 to keep; 7 to either merge or redirect (counting the nominator as noted before, and putting merge and redirect votes together because the merge is already done, so the only issue left is whether to redirect). -- BD2412 ^talk 16:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landon Barker

Is this kid really notable enough to have an article of his own? Aecis 28 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)

• I agree, Delete --Arbiteroftruth 28 June 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• Keep, TV personalities are notable. Kappa 28 June 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call Landon a TV personality. He happens to be on the set of a show, and sometimes he is dragged in front of the camera. I think that calling him a TV personality is stretching it a bit. Aecis 28 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)

• Weakish keep his parents unfortunately seem to have their own Osbornes-type reality show, which means this kid sees plenty of national TV airtime. And to think some folks wonder why I don't watch telly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 17:23 (UTC)
• My personal vote is Merge with Travis Barker and Shanna Moakler, and only create an article about him if he is notable in his own right (for instance if he becomes the next son-of-a-musician-becoming-a-musician). Aecis 28 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meet the Barkers. Not notable outside of that show. -R. fiend 28 June 2005 19:11 (UTC)
• 'Delete or weak merge on his father entry. drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Keep. If he and his immediate family have their own television show called "Meet the Barkers" then he is notable enough for inclusion as a standalone article. Hall Monitor 28 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Is this really expandable? I suspect this should be merged to Meet the Barkers and/or Travis Barker. DoubleBlue (Talk) 28 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• delete. I think Meet the Barkers needs to be deleted too. (minimial content) SYSS Mouse 29 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)
  • Merging this article (and Atiana de la Hoya and sections of Travis Barker and Shanna Moakler) with Meet the Barkers, in a section about the main characters of the show, would likely de-stub that article. Aecis 29 June 2005 08:05 (UTC)
• Delete not inherently notable. I have also appeared on television.. does that mean I can have an article too? JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:35 (UTC)
• Merge/redir to Travis Barker. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 08:23 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)
• Comment: I really don't like the re-formatting of votes done by User:Aecis. It distorts the conversational/debate style of VfD. The admin. who closes this discussion is perfectly capable of adding up the votes in any format. What they can't do in this format is see the progress of the debate and point/counter-points. I believe, also, it is against the guidelines to format VfDs like this. It is not a strictly voting page but an attempt to reach at least a partial consensus. DoubleBlue (Talk) 29 June 2005 22:04 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I just now fixed it, it's against the deletion policy to format votes into a table like that. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)
    • Does that apply to this case as well? - (An extreme example, admitted) - And another question: before I formatted the votes, I searched Wikipedia for any policy or convention on this. I couldn't find any, so I decided to format the votes. Have I searched in the wrong places on Wikipedia? Aecis 1 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
      • I've seen it cited and linked on VfD before, but I don't have it handy. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
        • I just found it here: Please do not refactor the discussion into lists or tables of votes, however much you may think that this helps the process. Again, the votes are not the ends in themselves (Wikipedia is not a democracy). Both the context and the order of the comments are essential to understanding the intents of contributors, both at the discussion closure and during the discussion. Refactoring actually makes the job of making the decision at the closure of discussion much harder, not easier. I humbly apologize. Aecis 1 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
• keep per kappa Yuckfoo 29 June 2005 22:23 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meet the Barkers. utcursch | talk June 30, 2005 08:38 (UTC)

• Redirect to Meet the Barkers. I have already merged, (the only thing to merge was his birth date). func(talk) 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 7, 2005 01:05 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Stern

Vanity entry. Notablity not established by the article. Failed the Google test on "Jennifer Stern"+"Disney World" Krystyn Dominik 28 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 20:37 (UTC)
• Delete DO I hear vaneeteeeh? drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)
• Delete no notability given. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 01:06 (UTC)

[edit] K-Chan Gita

Vanity, no indication why she is famous outside a non-famous online forum. andy 28 June 2005 16:04 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, no notability claims in article. Also delete Kaitlin Alcorn, which redirects there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 17:05 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind.--Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)
• Delete not so famous vane vanity that should vanish drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:36 (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 7, 2005 01:09 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Pyle

This page should be deleted; Person is either non-notable or hoax. --A D Monroe III 28 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)

• Billionaires are generally notable; but neither Forbes nor Google have heard of this Owen Pyle. Why? Because it is a hoax dreamed up out of thin air by an anon with a history of contributing vandalism and misinformation. Delete with prejudice. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:21 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/hoax. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:14 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, probably hoax. With a warning on the known-vandal's talk page. -Splash June 29, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Third Eye since the article has already been merged (which was the result of this debate anyhow). Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor John

Non-notable article on disk jockey created by anon who also contributed the Owen Pyle hoax. Usable content should be moved to Third Eye. Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:28 (UTC)

• Merge to Third Eye, or delete if no one wants to bother merging. --A D Monroe III 28 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
• Delete non notable dj. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
• I feel this article should be kept because Trevor John is not only a DJ, but has done a lot of other work with regards to the media. Also, if someone told me how to merge, I would.

• Redirect. I have merged the content of this article into Third Eye. func(talk) 8 July 2005 02:38 (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 to Third Eye --cesarb 8 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

[edit] Susie Quinell

Non-notable article on disk jockey created by anon who also contributed the Owen Pyle hoax. Usable content should be moved to Third Eye. Scimitar 28 June 2005 17:29 (UTC)

delete --ZombieBite June 28, 2005 18:21 (UTC)

• Merge to Third Eye. It's also mispelled; s/b Susie Quinnell --A D Monroe III 28 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)
• Merge to Third Eye. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)
• As the author of this page, I feel it should be kept here, as in the near future, Susie will be a big star. Also, it is not misspelled, and this is how Susie spells her name. The Big L website is wrong.

• Redirect. I have already merged the content into Third Eye. func(talk) 8 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 via Wikipedia:Images for deletion --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 01:12 (UTC)

[edit] Image:12zm1.jpg

Orphan. Vanity image. Out of focus. --Flex June 28, 2005 17:46 (UTC)

• An obvious deletion candidate, but I am afraid Wikipedia:Images for deletion is the proper place to list images which do not belong to Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 18:45 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 7, 2005 01:13 (UTC)

[edit] Emre Yukselci

no hits in google (even with an alternate spelling of the name), not notable, suspected vanity. StopTheFiling June 28, 2005 17:52 (UTC)

• Delete Vane vanity drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:15 (UTC)
• Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:39 (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 7, 2005 01:15 (UTC)

[edit] Bloggerhead

dicdef at best Gblaz June 28, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

• Delete It goes agains Wikipedia's official policies on WP:WIN in particular: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. drini ☎ 28 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:40 (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 (already copied to BJAODN) --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

[edit] Cow cuddling

Not notable and pretty much nonsensical. KFP 28 June 2005 18:02 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 18:53 (UTC)
• BJAODN - raised a smile with me. Nonsense, clearly. Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 19:20 (UTC)
• Delete. Badly translated, nonsensical textDunemaire 28 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)
• Speedy BJAODN. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:13 (UTC)
• BJAODN. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)
• Speedy delete to BJAODN as funny patent nonsense. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)

*BJAODN as non notable- but I don't think it can be speedy deleted because patent nonsense either has no meaning or can't be understood. We can understand what's being described in that article even if we want no part in it. CanadianCaesar 29 June 2005 01:57 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. - Sikon 29 June 2005 04:20 (UTC)
• Moooooooove this to BJAODN. Hilarious. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:41 (UTC)
• Keep It's more legit now. Oneoftheweirdosthatstarteditall
• On second thought, move to BJAODN. mrWoot
• Keep Check out those links, looks real to me! Who knew?

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 7, 2005 03:15 (UTC)

[edit] Innate bisexuality

Temt dump of a research paper. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 18:41 (UTC)

• Keep - See my current edits. I think what I have there now is fairly reasonable, but I'm no expert, and I have to say that I take no joy in readin S.F.'s work. -Harmil 28 June 2005 22:18 (UTC)
• Keep - current version is fine. The theory's often brought up even in brief discussions about Sigmund Freud, so an article on it certainly has its place here. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Harmil and a concept by Sigmund Freud is notable enough to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 29 June 2005 01:23 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Encyclopedic topic. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic topic. However, it needs to be expanded. Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:34 (UTC)
• Keep. -Seth Mahoney June 29, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
• Keep seems fine to me. David | Talk 29 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure what the issue is. Axon 30 June 2005 15:29 (UTC)
• Keep Looks okay to me. --Zpb52 July 4, 2005 14:51 (UTC)
• Keep Its a valid and commenly sited Freud theory --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 03:10 (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 7, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

[edit] MeziboÅ™í, MeziboÅ™i

MeziboÅ™í is not spelled with the right diacritics. I revised all the pages that linked here so that they linked to Meziboří instead. This is merely a redirection page, and the redirection is no longer needed.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄ _C June 28, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

• Delete, but this doesn't actually belong here. It should be at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Jeltz talk 28 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)
• Comment - combined nearly identical vfd's for efficiency. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Delete -Harmil 28 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:43 (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.

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 7 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of Islamist terrorism against the United States

• Delete -- I don't see the purpose of a separate entry for this article. It could be merged with something else. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)
• Delete -- I've removed some of the more absurd items from this list (Betcha didn't know that the Barbary pirates were the first Islamist terrorists!) but it's all covered in depth elsewhere. I don't even see what could be merged. --Lee Hunter 28 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)
• Delete - inherently POV-fork type thing. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Comment: ...foreign terrorism... might be more appropriate. A spiritual motivation for terrorism is kind of a contradiction in terms, and most of these incidents have much more complex motivations behind them. The chronology aspect might still be useful. Peter Grey 28 June 2005 20:23 (UTC)
• Keep unless a good spot is found to merge this material. Would be good to merge somewhere as keeping this POV-free will be a struggle. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 28 20:41 (UTC)
• I'd support a general listing of terror acts by Muslims, but having a page of attacks against one specific country says POV fork to me; it looks like, for example, it could easily be turned into a page that blasts anti-war Americans. So I'll say delete. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)
• Delete. The use of terrorism is still something contested within Islam; therefore representing terrorist activities as being done by Islam is misleading. Regardless, non-stop POV fork. --Scimitar 28 June 2005 20:59 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 02:47 (UTC)
• Delete, POV/OR. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 08:23 (UTC)
• Keep — islamist is not the same as Islam. Material is inherently notable, forming a significant sub-category of international terrorism, List of War on Terror incidents, and List of anti-American terrorist incidents. I don't view this subject as being inherently POV. If the content is POV, then it should be cleaned up, not deleted. — RJH 29 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork, or, possibly find something about terrorism against the US and put it there. I didn't find anything, but I could have tried harder. I did, though find Israeli Terrorism against the United States, so we may have a precedent in fact. -Splash June 29, 2005 19:35 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. Quale 30 June 2005 04:01 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a fan of politically correct censorship. StuartH 7 July 2005 11:28 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 02:07 (UTC)

[edit] Malchiel

Just the meaning of a name. Belongs in wiktionary, if anywhere. -R. fiend 28 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Meweight 28 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:23 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 7, 2005 02:02 (UTC)

[edit] Canidaephilia

del IMO a joke. No google references but wikipedia mirrors. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 19:11 (UTC)

• Delete Dicdef at best, does seem to be a real word however, but really only in that its roots put together do mean what the author claims. It exists mainly as a trivia word. Gblaz June 28, 2005 19:45 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable dicdef. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 20:19 (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 Delte --Allen3 ^talk July 7, 2005 01:59 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Elicegui

Delete - non-notable, vanity page. Naturenet | Talk 28 June 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Delete - same reasons --Fantrl 28 June 2005 19:57 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aecis 28 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)
• Speedy nonsense. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 6, 2005 23:02 (UTC)

[edit] Vulcan Mentat Society

Promotion of a Yahoo group. No evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)

• Delete: A combination of Star Trek and Dune? NN, fan fic. Wikibofh 28 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)
• Delete: There's already a link to this at Vulcan (Star Trek) which may or may not also be deleted. Doesn't need its own article. 23skidoo 28 June 2005 22:28 (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 --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 23:00 (UTC)

[edit] Wovle rules

Not an encyclopedia article, but rather a text dump of a literature review. Contents do not match the title. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 28 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic, POV essay. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:47 (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 Speedy delete by Filiocht --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 20:42 (UTC)

[edit] Moon_Landing:_Ephestion

This page is a transcript of the real page, only with greek names, and the name of the author entered in place of Neil Armstrong. Looks like a vanity page to me. Delete. 80.100.148.220 28 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nonsense, obviously. sjorford →•← 28 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)
• Speedy what the hell? --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:19 (UTC)
• Speedied by me just now. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 08:27 (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 6, 2005 20:38 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Children

Now-defunct high school band Also Mat Vicious. DJ Clayworth 28 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)

• Delete. "Lost Children" + "Mat Vicious" -> no Google hits. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 20:55 (UTC)
• Delete. And add KMA to the list as well. Leithp June 28, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
• These kids are very lost, delete NN. Feydey 28 June 2005 21:48 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. As if bands still around weren't enough... --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:21 (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 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 6, 2005 20:34 (UTC)

[edit] Phatbarrin

This particular "craze" is less popular than the article suggests, it gets zero google hits. Possible speedy nonsense? Leithp June 28, 2005 20:54 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Yeah, should be speedied for nonsense. --Durin 28 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)
• Delete Oddly enough, that sounds like a fun little prank. Doesn't need an encyclopedia article though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 22:38 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense, not funny enough for BJAODN either. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
• Delete non notable prank. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:50 (UTC)
• No WayI've seen Phatbarrin' getting bigger and bigger, there's no google hits but it really is widespread. I've been Phatbarred like crazy recently

Unsigned comment by User:217.154.84.2, the article's author. Leithp June 29, 2005 11:54 (UTC)

• Keep Phatbarrin' is a constant menace in the UK, only exceeded by Happy Slapping. Try searching on a UK-specific engine and you will find entries.

Unsigned comment by User:217.154.84.2, the article's author. Leithp June 29, 2005 11:54 (UTC)

• I was 'phattbarred' recently, its real (and really annoying.) Kururin

Kururin's only edit so far Leithp June 29, 2005 11:54 (UTC)

• Comment Sock puppetry never works out as a successful strategy on VFD, so quit it. Leithp June 29, 2005 12:00 (UTC)
• Comment This IP is shared among a large office.

Unsigned comment by User:217.154.84.2--Tznkai 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

What on earth were you doing in your office at 9:40 in the evening (UK time) writing nonsense Wikipedia articles? Leithp June 29, 2005 16:04 (UTC)

• Delete Coining negolism/hoax.--Tznkai 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism. But go an see if it works. And exterminate the sockpuppets-Splash June 29, 2005 19:38 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 8 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

[edit] The Masque of Anarchy

Transwiki the entire poem to wikisource. (This is just a portion). See [4] Wikibofh 28 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)

• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)

• Delete. Transwikiing to wikisource is quite difficult, because you have to locate information on the author, their birth and death, etc. Let someone else do this at their own leisure. Partial copy and paste jobs of obscure poetry isn't encyclopedic. func(talk) 8 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 7, 2005 01:57 (UTC)

[edit] Boredome

Seems to be a self promotion, non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ June 28, 2005 21:10 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable nonsense. Falcon June 28, 2005 21:48 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC)
• Keep Ian (who wrote the article) DID NOT start The Boredome. "Madcow" started the Boredome, and he was not the one who posted this article. Therefore, it is not self promotion. As well as that, many many people on Div-arena take The Boredome seriously, including the forum administrator - who has given it a seperate forum. Hell, it even has a .com. It is simply a form of art; saying its nonsence is like saying that Picasso was nonsence because the ears and the noses and the legs, etc, were all in the wrong place. If modern "art" can get an article - on a FAIR Wikipedia - so can this. User: N/A 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)
  • Anonymous vote by 86.131.42.26. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• Keep the article speaks about a specific form of art which is growing quite a following. If any old random comic has an article (which is usually does) then I think Boredome is most certainly a noteable mention. - Ferretgames 30 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote the article. I also have very little to do with Boredome. I didn't create it, I don't own the website, and I wasn't one of the few people who pioneered it. I only occasionally create Boredome art. I wrote the article because it's a fascinating genre of art that has had literally hundreds of contributions from dozens of people around the world, and which continues to grow. In addition, I was careful to abide by the rules governing articles on Wikipedia, including objectivity. - Ghotistix 30 June 2005 06:03 (UTC)
  • User has 10 edits, all Boredome-related. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to be completely unknown outside the Div-arena forum and that's simply not notable enough. I think the art is amusing, but it needs to have some significance in a larger context to be encyclopedic. I also think the article is original research, since the references provide examples of the art, but they don't define it in the terms used in the article. Actually they don't define it at all, so I don't see how much of anything can be written about this subject without falling into the original research trap. Quale 30 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:29 (UTC)
• weak Cleanup or BJAODN This article seems to be about some sort of variation to a forum game, but is probably too mutch related to one website. User: N/A
  • : Its actually going on three websites at the moment, possibly more.
  • : : I'm actually quite sure that it's more than three. What I ment was that the article was probably too mutch written about one website, but I'm not sure if that's a valid poind, hence it's a weak vote.

• It'd be greatly appreciated if someone could explain to me what I've done wrong with writing this, perhaps so I can write better articles in the future. I've been using Wikipedia for a year and I have great respect for the guidelines governing articles. Boredome is a relatively obscure genre of art, but I'm sure a large quantity of Wikipedia articles have begun in the same way. And the subject is far from stagnant, considering the growing number of contributions and the approaching launch of a dedicated website for showcasing the art. It's especially frustrating to read so many votes for deletion citing original research and bias when I actually have very little to do with it, and also claims of its limit to one website while it has already spread to several. Ghotistix 3 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)

• A good example of one of these more obscure topics that has grown since, is Post Rock.

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 6, 2005 20:31 (UTC)

[edit] Laurent Djaffo

• Delete The article states that as of 2004 he plays for Aberdeen F.C. He is no longer playing for them and I have no idea if he is even still playing football. I did a quick google search and I can't get any information on where he is playing the moment. I say we delete, he isn't even a notable footballer anyway. Forbsey 28 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to Laurent D'Jaffo (redirect the other spelling to that one). "Laurent Djaffo" and "Laurent D'Jaffo" get (combined) nearly two thousand Google hits, and most of what's on the first few pages of each of those searches is relevant to this player. I haven't personally heard of him because I don't really follow soccer/football, but Google says he has heard of him, and this link will tell you that he got released. He was featured on BBC Sport as well. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:31 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as Laurent D'Jaffo as per Idont haveaname. Soccer players who represent their nation in a significant tournament are notable enough for an article for mine. Capitalistroadster 29 June 2005 01:48 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Idont Havaname. Sufficiently notable. — RJH 29 June 2005 16:35 (UTC)
• Keep --Dr31 30 June 2005 19:24 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The strict vote count was inconclusive with a clear majority voting to delete (made stronger after the discounting of several anonymous and very new users) but not the overwhelming concensus usually required. After careful review of the comments, evidence presented and the referenced websites however, I have to conclude that both the title and contents of the article are currently unverified. Speculation and rumor are explicitly not allowed in our encyclopedia articles (unless it is an article about an especially egregious and noteworthy article) and "placeholder" articles are typically justified in only the rarest of circumstances. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I am going to exercise my discretion to delete this article. This deletion should not be considered as precedent if the article is re-created after it has been released (when we can be sure of having verifiable information and assuming that the game is, in fact, released under this name). Rossami (talk) 9 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Theft Auto 4

Firstly this game doesn't exist yet, secondly it hasn't been announced yet, thirdly there are no hard facts in the article just internet fanboy speculation. When it's announced by Rockstar, then it can have an article Alexp73 28 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)

No, the game doesn't exist yet, and no there's no hard facts, but the game has been referred to numerous times by those at the head of Rockstar. I don't think that it should be deleted, but at the very least, GTA4 should not refer to Vice City. One thing that is certain is that Vice City and San Andreas are part of the "GTAIII Trilogy", so perhaps this emphasis should be put in their respective articles. --Zeromaru 28 June 2005 21:27 (UTC) EDIT: For those unaware, GTA4 previously referred to Vice City.

• Delete We know it will be released, but the information listed may not be true.
• Delete or possibly redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, which is probably what anyone typing this in is really looking for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 23:13 (UTC)
• Redirect per Starblind for now, until the actual game is out, in which case it will then deserve its own article. Just wondering... why is all of this citycruft in here, anyway? --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote. Redirect to Grand Theft Auto series, per the voters below. That makes more sense, given the further explanation. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 19:40 (UTC)
• 'Redirect — Chameleon 28 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
• Keep (conditional) I have no problem with the existence of this page, on the condition that it has actually been confirmed that Rockstar will be making a GTA4. I do agree, however, that the speculation should be removed. Let the page be a stub if need be, but only keep the basic facts that we know on the page, e.g. "GTA4 will be the next game in Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto franchise, it will be released on the PlayStation 3." --Jacj 29 June 2005 01:11 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At least wait for the game to be announced before creating a stub for it. If speculation is all you've got, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 02:19 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Kaibabsquirrel 29 June 2005 02:51 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grand Theft Auto series. -Sean Curtin June 29, 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• Delete speculation, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:53 (UTC)
• Redirect the next GTA title has NOT yet been confirmed, see Here. However, it is unlikely that this series will not be continued, since they're real bestsellers on all platforms.

Therefore, at this moment, the best to do would be redirect. Patrick1982 29 June 2005 12:27 (UTC)

• Delete Not Noteworthy DiceDiceBaby 29 June 2005 23:20 (UTC)
• The best thing to do is summarize the information into a few sentances, put that onto the Grand Theft Auto (series) page, and have all requests for GTA4 (and similar pages) redirect to there. Having GTA4 redirect to Vice City is a bad idea, as GTA4 is definately not Vice City. --Zeromaru 29 June 2005 18:39 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per above. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Grand Theft Auto series Thunderbrand July 2, 2005 04:44 (UTC)
• Keep and call it a speculation page. This should be the place, where users enter any info avalable - whether confirmed or rumoured about.
• Keep - agree with all keep comments above — Cuahl 2 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
• Delete - this is pure speculation. Until it's announced, it shouldn't happen. = Lordwow July 2, 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• Redirect' to the series. 140.142.175.173 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
• Keep nothing wrong with a placeholder - No one is going to accidently stumble here. People who visit this page know its speculation. People who wouldn't know the difference wouldn't find their way here to begin with. Also keep hard facts on article page and speculation on discussion page. simple.--Muchosucko 1 July 2005 06:04 (UTC)
  • Edit: Tag it with the {future} tag, then confer the wiki page for the 2018 Olympics. Perhaps we should vote for deletion of that page since it is speculation; it is 8 years in the future; it does not exist; and there is no guarantee that it will exist. Then, confer all the pages that use the {future} tag. Perhaps we should vote for deletion of all those pages too? Guys, there are some things you can safely insert as place holder. It helps build the community of information on wikipedia. If there was no page, then people who may have useful information will be turned away. That's the last thing a small growing project like Wikipedia needs. There's a reason the {future} tag was invented. If Wiki didn't want speculation, the {future} tag would be a deletion device. It is not.--Muchosucko 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with Muchosucko. The only reason people will see this article is to find out information about this game. — Cuahl 4 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)
      • Edit - I stand corrected. Someone is voting for deletions of all {future} tags. Confer 2020 Vote for deletion of 2020 Olympics and theoffical policy here. I encourage everyone who voted delete, and all former elementary school hall monitors, to go find all {future} tags here and tag them bitches with VFD to death.--Muchosucko 4 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)

keep it and well continue to update it as time passes--Kit fisto 5 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

• Keep Carolaman 5 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
• Keep What is this? The game it's in production, the internal name is Grand Theft Auto 4 and again, will be one of most sales game of all time in the next generation. I really can't understand certain vfd nominations, this is the more nonsensus what I saw. --Mateusc 6 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

• Keep Its a hard fact that this game WILL be realised for Playstation 3 either next year for the year after! I Agree that at the moment the information on this page may not be true. So we should really call this page a speculation page for now. But I don’t think that it should be deleted. Plus

It will be GTA4 as GTA:Vice was part of the GTA3 Saga The GTA saga goes like this:

• Grand Theft Auto
  • Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969
• Grand Theft Auto 2
• Grand Theft Auto 3
  • Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
  • Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
• Grand Theft Auto 4

Thanks Agent003

• Keep I'm pretty sure it's been announced.Heraclius 6 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  • If you've got a link that can verify that statement, I might change my vote. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 21:25 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 21:25 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. I count a total of 31 votes - 3 to delete; 13 straight keep; 1 "keep but move", 1 "move or keep", 5 straight merge, 1 "merge or keep", 1 "merge or delete", 6 to transwiki. Therefore, 16 votes (a 1-vote majority) include "keep" as an option. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire 26 June 2005, Leicestershire v Durham 26 June 2005, Gloucestershire v Worcestershire 26 June 2005, Essex v Sussex 26 June 2005

Delete. A group of articles on individual, non-notable sports events. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 21:26 (UTC)

• Keep. One, they're part of a series of articles on the season (2005 English cricket season). Two - in my opinion they're notable, they've got four-figure crowds watching them live - plus a number of people watching on TV. Btw, I'm the writer of the articles in question. Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 21:38 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but in the US, minor league baseball teams sometimes draw over 10,000 people (I was at a regular-season minor-league game a few years ago that drew over 14,000, for a game with no significant promotions), and their leagues' seasons don't even get articles, much less individual contests. NFL games often draw over 70,000 people, with millions of fans watching on TV (particularly with Monday Night Football), yet they don't get articles either, aside from the Super Bowl. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
    • Because they haven't been written or because they have been deleted? Subtle difference there... Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 07:49 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As Sam says, these are part of a series of articles on the 2005 English cricket season - and the series (taken as a whole) is about a notable subject. Wikipedia is leading the net in its encyclopaedic knowledge here: it is months ahead of Wisden, and can present information in a much more user-friendly way, jguk 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)
  • Comment, Wisden for those of you who don't know it, is a cricket reference book published annually, with content similar to this. Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 21:48 (UTC)
    • I was not aware that these were part of a series, but I remain uncomfortable with the idea of having articles on individual athletic contests - there over 1,200 NBA games and over 2,400 MLB games every year (many of which have significant attendance or a large TV audience), and I am wondering how this does not justify individual articles for each of those games. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
      • And exactly why is that a problem? Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)
        • Because Wikipedia articles are not news reports, which these articles ("This was a game of two batsmen.", "Warwickshire crumbled in a woeful heap for 153") blatantly are. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
      • Having just today returned to WP, I am disappointed to see this attempt to destroy days and days worth of hard work just because BD2412 feels uncomfortable. There's no doubt that Sam and I are good constructive WP users trying to create a section of WP that will be useful to many in many years to come. I trust other WPians will not wish to see all that work destroyed on a whim, jguk 28 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)
        • You appear to be lost and wandering the hallways of the wrong project. The Cricket section of the newspaper, where news reports on Cricket matches belong, is over there. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
        • To be honest, and although I have contributed several articles to the 2005 English cricket season series myself, I think BD2412 is right to feel uncomfortable. These articles are not especially notable on their own. They are notable as part of the series we have been constructing, which is why they should remain where they were before User:Bryan_Derksen's tampering. --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)
          • I wasn't "tampering", Wikipedia:Subpages is quite clear that the use of subpages in the article namespace is frowned on and I raised the issue in Talk:2005 English cricket season#Subpages first with plenty of time for objections to be raised. The only one was that these pages might wind up on VfD, as it turns out they have, and my response is that if the articles are deleteworthy it hardly matters what title they're under; using subpages to "hide" articles from facing VfD is not a valid usage IMO. Bryan 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
          • There were clear objections from us when you raised the issue three weeks ago there, and also when you tried again on Village pump (policy). It looks to me that most people would be happy for these 'articles' to be merged, which is exactly what we were doing with the transcluded subpages. --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)
            • As I have already pointed out elsewhere (including on my talk page where you left a note about this specific point), I consider the transclusion issue to be completely separate from the subpages issue. The subpage policy is IMO quite clear, the transclusion one is not, so it was the transclusion issue that I raised on the village pump. I wasn't "trying again", I was addressing something else entirely. And I even said this explicitly at the time in Talk:2005 English cricket season#Subpages. What else do you need to clarify this? Bryan 29 June 2005 23:47 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that this nomination upsets those who have worked on these articles, but I assure you that I never nominate articles for deletion on a whim, nor am I attempting to destroy anyone's hard work. I have no objection to the preservation of the information if the articles are merged, I simply do not feel that individual matches are sufficiently notable to merit articles. The nomination alone will have no effect on these articles unless a significant majority of the voters in this vfd so decide. If there is a consensus to merge, I will gladly help with that process. -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 00:53 (UTC)
          • How would you feel if these articles were moved back to the subpages they originally were at? --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)
            • I have no objection to that, and I see nothing wrong with having subpages of major articles - Wikipedia should be that flexible. -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
              • FWIW, I'd like them to be at subpages as well, I don't think they are substantial enough to stand alone in the main articlespace. Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
• Keep, but move back to subpages, These were originally subpages of 2005 English cricket season from where they were transcluded into articles (indeed, they don't make much sense out of the context of those articles). User:Bryan_Derksen has taken it upon himself to unilaterally move them into the main articlespace with no discussion or consensus. I have asked him to clarify why he did this but have as yet received no response. Our intention at the Cricket WikiProject has been to have these subpages transcluded into the various articles under 2005 English cricket season (Durham County Cricket Club in 2005, Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Bangladeshis in England in 2005, etc.) as part of the ongoing process of writing complete articles. These articles should be moved back to being subpages rather than deleted. --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:09 (UTC)
  • That was because of the conclusion apparently reached here, Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#Any_discussion_still_ongoing.3F and that no one objected to it at the time Sam Vimes 28 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)
    • I must say I would have objected, if he'd stated that in the same place as the discussion of it was going on in the first place (Village pump (policy)). I have desperately tried not to assume bad faith with this user but his sustained attacks on our efforts to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage are becoming very wearing. --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)
    • Actually, I drew the conclusion based on lack of objection or further discussion at Talk:2005_English_cricket_season#Subpages. The template issue was IMO a separate thing, I haven't touched any of that yet. And I'm getting rather tired of being accused of "attacking" Wikipedia's cricket coverage, myself. Bryan 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)
• Merge into one article, if not the main 2005 English cricket season article itself. Having information about each match in a season is fine, but having each separate match in its own article is a bit over the top. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 22:22 (UTC)
  • The point is that each match account is transcluded into several articles (for instance, a report of a match between Durham County Cricket Club and Derbyshire County Cricket Club might be transcluded into Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005, Durham County Cricket Club in 2005 and Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 2005. Our intention is ultimately to produce reviews of the season targetted to each competition and competing club. (But I agree that each match having its own article is over-the-top, which is why we had got them in subpages of 2005 English cricket season until the season is concluded and each season-review article can be finished off.) --Ngb 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
    • Note - it is possible to link to a specific section within a larger article, which would have essentially the same effect. -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
      • It wouldn't have quite the same effect. At the moment what we have is the account of the game between Team X and Team Y in the Z Cup transcluded into an article on Team X's season, an article on Team Y's season, and an article on this year's Z Cup. (You can see this in action from the various articles linked off to from 2005 English cricket season.) A merged article '2005 English cricket season' containing all these match reports (note that there are more than mentioned here) would be very confusing and certainly breach Wikipedia's guidelines on article length. --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:29 (UTC)
        • How about if they were merged by week, as opposed to by season? -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
          • That still doesn't help, all we can do then is link, not transclude. I realise that transclusion isn't a very neat way of forming articles, but it is less time-consuming for us as editors than writing individual bits from each point of view (both sides, the league in which it belongs, plus the season page) after every game - rather than doing the entire rewrite when the season is over. Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 13:50 (UTC)
• Keep, as per arguments above, or return to the original format. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. In the grand scheme of things these are far more notable than DS9 episodes or Pokemon characters. Guettarda 28 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)
• Keep or return to original format per other keep votes. Kappa 28 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
• Merge or Weak delete, sets nasty precedent toward every sporting event having an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 22:53 (UTC)
  • Once again I would clarify that those of us who are actually working on these series did not start these as individual articles for individual matches, but as subpages transcluded into articles about sporting *seasons*. --Ngb 28 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)
• Merge per Starblind. Only significant sporting events should have articles, not individual regular-season matches. I mean, I have no intention of creating an article on tonight's Baltimore Orioles-New York Yankees game. And it doesn't seem to me that cricket has nearly as large a fan base as baseball... --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:54 (UTC)
  • Please see my other comments above about the *season* reviews that these match accounts are transcluded into. This isn't really the place to debate the relative popularities' of sports, but I would note there are a few countries in a little place called South Asia where I hear cricket's quite popular. Go to a Test match at Eden Gardens in Kolkata with 100,000 very noisy fans of Indian and *then* tell me cricket's not a popular sport. --Ngb 29 June 2005 00:13 (UTC)
    • "little place called South Asia"? No personal attacks. Also, South Asia != the UK, and these articles are on UK matches. And I'm not debating the relative popularities of sports; no other sport that I know of, regardless of popularity, would get information about individual regular-season matches included on this site. I've looked at Manchester United, several Major League Baseball teams, the National Football League, Monday Night Football, and other sports articles. But not being able to necessarily gauge the popularity of cricket on a worldwide scale (few of my American friends even know what it is), I still voted merge based on precedents set by articles such as NFL playoffs, 2004-05 and 2004 World Series. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)
      • That really wasn't a personal attack, just a choice of phrasing. You make some good points (and some bad ones: the knowledge of your 'American friends' certainly isn't one of my criteria for what should go into Wikipedia!) but I won't attempt to answer them here because as I say above this isn't really the place. (I will happily respond on my Talk if you want!) I really think the reason other sports don't have this coverage is because Wikipedians haven't tried. I (and other participants in the WikiProject) believe this is a fantastic asset to Wikipedia's cricket coverage: it's something that's not available anywhere else, and when the season is over and we get the various articles finished it will be the only place people can come to look if they want detailed accounts of a club's performance through a season. --Ngb 29 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)
  • You are welcome (indeed, encouraged) to write a Wikinews article on the Baltimore Orioles-New York Yankees game. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
• Keep. They don't seem any less notable to me than many of the articles Wikipedia has on individual episodes of television series. Don't return to original subpage format, Wikipedia:Subpages is very clear that they shouldn't be used in the article namespace like this. Bryan 29 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)
• Keep per Ngb. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 June 29 00:54 (UTC)
• Keep although I think they should go back to subpages temporarily as the authors intended. I understand that Wikipedia:Subpages says that "The only accepted use for subpages in the encyclopedia namespace is for making drafts of major article revisions", but I think that the spirit of this particular effort is that these are part of a major article revision, and are not a permanent "hierarchical organisation of articles". If going back to subpages is not possible, keep them as separate articles for now but please merge them when the time is right. DS1953 29 June 2005 02:55 (UTC)
• merge to 2005 English cricket season. Just link within that article if you want to link to the games. Brighterorange 29 June 2005 03:44 (UTC)
• Merge to 2005 English cricket season. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:54 (UTC)
• Keep FWIW. =Nichalp «Talk»= June 29, 2005 07:51 (UTC)
• Keep. Especially in original form, if someone with the know how will ascertain whether such practise does not put a strain on servers. I think it's a wonderful use of the technology available, and yes, why not expand it out to all sports if they so desire. Why shouldn't wikipedia attempt to collate such information? If we can have articles on people who have fought Wolverine, on minor pokemon characters, on episodes of television programmes and on bloggers, why should we seek to exclude sporting events, which are arguably more notable than all of the above, given the prevalence of sports pages in newspapers. Perhaps the use of the subpages in this way should be put into a policy/guidline proposal, but I see no reason for not doing it other than that nobody thought of it before. Hiding 29 June 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  • given the prevalence of sports pages in newspapers — Exactly the point. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikinews is the newspaper (and takes all of the match reports you can give). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
    • Sports reference books such as Wisden give articles similar to these, too, and they're published six months after the event - suggesting that they're not ephemeral. Plus, these articles are only there to act as "feeder" articles for the bigger picture articles (which is why people have argued they should be subpages). No newspaper would publish a detailed review of the entire season for each team, which is what we intend to do. Temporarily, we at WikiProject Cricket feel this is the best solution until the "final" update is written some time in October. Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 22:13 (UTC)
    • given the prevalence of sports pages in newspapers — Exactly the point. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikinews is the newspaper (and takes all of the match reports you can give). Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia. — okay, let's have a look — News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples. To my eye the exclusion refers to breaking news, rather than newsworthy events, a distinction which I think applies here, and makes the issue one of notability and context. These articles should be looked at in the proper context of their transclusion, and then the issue of notability should be applied. I would argue that an article on the County cricket season is notable, and since these articles are intended to be a part of that article, rather than standalone articles, I think they are notable and should be kept. I think perhaps this VfD should be set aside and the issue of the use of transclusion in this way should be put forward as a policy suggestion. This VfD seems to be something of a red herring, and not the debate we should be having. Hiding 30 June 2005 07:32 (UTC)
• Merge, this is not wikinews. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
• Keep; Hiding makes what I think is a very good point, that just because this doesn't conform to the previous norms doesn't stop it from being a good innovation. Personally I'd have no objection whatever to similar things being done in other sports; it's just that cricket did it first. That's being bold for you! Loganberry (Talk) 29 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia will become more and more detailed over time and attacking this sort of thing is a blow struck against the potential of the project. CalJW 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)
• Keep. For the reasons given by Hiding Monkey Tennis 29 June 2005 16:28 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently first-hand reports ("Harvey found boundaries seemingly at will") of individual sporting fixtures, complete with post-match interviews ("Worcestershire director of cricket Tom Moody said of Solanki: [...]") are primary source material, and a violation of our Wikipedia:no original research policy. If you want to write up individual cricket matches, write them up in Wikinews (There's a whole Cricket section there waiting to be filled with match reports.) and use interwiki links to link to the primary source material from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a repository for primary source material. Uncle G June 29, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • The quotations you refer to were taken from Cricinfo, the BBC, or The Times. I wrote them myself - and whilst some spectators choose to chat to some of the cricketers, I tend to prefer to let them get on with the game. The quotations are not primary source, jguk 29 June 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  • The issue of original research is a red herring. As Wikipedia:No original research says, 'the phrase "original research" in this context refers to [...] data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication' (emphasis mine). These match accounts refer to data that is widely available from other reputable sources. --Ngb 29 June 2005 23:39 (UTC)
• Transwiki These *are* primary source, and exactly why we have Wikinews. They should be listed in the Sports section there, and I believe they may have a cricket section? (or need people to build/maintain one) - Amgine 29 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the primary source in question are the scorecards and news reports that we based the encyclopedia articles on. The interview in question comes from BBC, for example (we should probably have been better at referencing that one...) Sam Vimes 29 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)
    • A very very small number have some primary source material. It would be nice to think that WikiProject Cricket was large enough to have at least one member attend every first-class, list A and Twenty20 match. But alas, we're not that big yet. Most of the material I wrote is a mixture from Cricinfo, the BBC and The Times, with occasionally other sources coming in too - such as the county websites. You'd have to ask other contributors what their sources are, but as the major contributor is in Norway, my guess is that he isn't a primary source either (unless he has an awful lot of airmiles:) ). What we are doing here is writing something better than Wisden, produced much more quickly, and ultimately covering all Test nations, not just being English-based. An ambitious project, but one which will, in time, I trust, earn Wikipedia a lot, and I mean a lot, of kudos, jguk 29 June 2005 21:45 (UTC)
• Delete. An individual sports event, with relatively rare exceptions, is by definition non-notable, as there are so many each year. Sounds like the whole lot should be moved to some non-wiki cricket Web site. carmeld1 29 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep. I reserve judgment on whether transcluded subpages would be OK, pending further investigation. David | Talk 30 June 2005 10:25 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete. The individual articles are very short and quite meaningless out of context, for example Essex v Sussex 26 June 2005 does not as part of the article tell me what sport is being played or anything that might give me some clue as to what is going on. I have to go to the See Also for that. This must be a merge surely. Francis Davey 30 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)
  • The individual articles are very short and quite meaningless out of context: Please note that this is because they weren't ever written to make sense out of the context of the articles they're transcluded in to (in the case of the example you give, that is Essex County Cricket Club in 2005, Sussex County Cricket Club in 2005 and Twenty20 in England in 2005). Could you perhaps clarify below if you would be happy for your 'merge' vote to be accomplished by moving these pages back to being subpages of 2005 English cricket season? --Ngb 30 June 2005 11:50 (UTC)
  • I think probably yes, but I haven't a view yet on the role of subpages -- they were a new concept to me introduce by this article. Francis Davey 1 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
• Keep; articles on sporting events of this significance and above are worth keeping. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)
• Strong transwiki. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. These individual match reports are certainly not encyclopaedic, which is not to say they aren't of value. They just belong on the news site and not in the encyclopaedia. — Trilobite (Talk) 1 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)
  • To Trilobite and others voting 'transwiki': please note that these were never intended by the authors to stand as 'individual match reports': they are part of the process of developing a series of 'season reviews' (as I refer to above). These reviews *are* encyclopaedic, and they *do* belong in Wikipedia, not on Wikinews. --Ngb 1 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Whatever their reason for creation, the fact remains that these are OR news reports, and there's only one home in Wikimedia for stuff like that. There's nothing stopping you from writing a season review on Wikipedia from articles on Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) July 3, 2005 00:45 (UTC)
  • It is a descriptive account of what happened in the game - similar to a descriptive account of what happened in any other historical event, or to a plot summary. The only other way to write an encyclopedia article on this subject would be to state the scorecard, which IMO is primary source and should go on wikisource or something. Sam Vimes 3 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. You're allowed to do original reporting on Wikinews though. Dan100 (Talk) July 4, 2005 09:12 (UTC)

But they aren't original - certainly not first-hand, like the link on wikinews implies. The wording is original, obviously, or they'd be blatant copyvio, but the articles are based on news reports appearing on other webpages. Sam Vimes 4 July 2005 09:28 (UTC)

[edit] Merge issue

I have moved the ongoing back-and-forth between Ngb and Bryan to this vfd's talk page, in order to maintain the readability of this VfD. -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)

Allow me to restate the question on Ngb's behalf: Would those who have voted 'merge' in this VfD please clarify whether they would be satisfied if this was accomplished via transclusion of subpages? -- BD2412 ^talk June 30, 2005 00:37 (UTC)

• We've always said that the transclusion is a temporary measure until the season is over, when there will be an opportunity to fully copyedit and amend the articles in the light of how the season ended up. At that point (probably at the end of October), the articles will be "subst"'d into the main articles. Transclusion is a necessary tool whilst the articles are being constructed, otherwise it would just take prohibitively long to create them. Kind regards, jguk 30 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, an example of this kind of work being done 'the other way' is at User:Ngb/English cricket team in the 2000s. As you can see, it's taking forever. --Ngb 30 June 2005 10:37 (UTC)
  • I just said above that I think this VfD is a bit of a red herring distracting us from the real issue, and that this VfD should be set aside for the moment and the matter of the usage of transclusion in the way it was being used to present these articles put forward as a policy suggestion, if it is currently frowned upon, since that seems to be the issue worthy of greater discussion. Hiding 30 June 2005 07:45 (UTC)

I have also just noted that, according to the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Unusual transclusion issue not covered by policy, there is no policy against this transclusion. Therefore, this matter should be decided before this VfD is continued with. Hiding 30 June 2005 07:58 (UTC)

I would definitely support continuing discussion on the transclusion issue to some sort of conclusion. It doesn't look like this VfD is going to result in a "delete", though, so I don't think it's going to interfere one way or the other with that discussion. Bryan 30 June 2005 16:00 (UTC)

Oh, I should also mention that there's a thread on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose as well. Bryan 30 June 2005 16:06 (UTC)

• There is a policy against this, actually. You're not supposed to use templates to masquerade as article content. That these templates reside in mainspace rather than template space is irrelevant. Also, transclusion is increasing server load, increasing page redundancy, and making it harder for newbies to edit. Bad thing. Radiant_>|< July 1, 2005 10:18 (UTC)
  • Could you link to where this policy is? I did a bit of hunting around through template-related policy pages before going to the village pump and couldn't find anything specifically about this, I will be embarassed if it slipped under my nose all this time. :) Bryan 3 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
    • Right at the top of Wikipedia:Template namespace, after the list. Sam Vimes 5 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Match reports aren't encyclopaedic. Accounts of matches are news, not encyclopaedic content. Short summaries could easily be merged also. That said, Formula One has an article for every race. Hedley 4 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. Situations like this are the reason Wikinews was invented. See Uncle G's note here. --Ardonik.talk()^* July 7, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that articles like this one should be transwikied to Wikinews? If not, what's different about these? --Ngb 7 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
    • No, since an article like that combines a large number of events from the past. But for current events and all future cricket match reports, I think Wikinews is the best place (it would be nice if all the cricket reports on Wikinews were combined into a format like that.)
      What's more, I don't think that subpage's content is encyclopedic, but since it isn't in the main namespace, it isn't harming anyone. --Ardonik.talk()^* July 7, 2005 17:56 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 6, 2005 20:18 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Religion of Jesus

(also a redirect LOST RELIGION OF JESUS).

This is an ad for a completely non-notable yahoo group with only 1 member. Fawcett5 28 June 2005 21:29 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable. Wikipedia is not a recruiting center for new religions. -- BD2412 ^talk June 28, 2005 21:32 (UTC)
• Not a bad advertising job, actually, for a non-notable sect. Delete. Fire Star 28 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising space.
• Delete, although I must say, that is a fine advert job. --Adun
• Delete as advertising/spam. --Idont Havaname 28 June 2005 23:50 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:55 (UTC)
• Delete. Only one member? Wow.--Kross June 29, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
• Delete Ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat 29 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously a bunch of fucking Reds. (unsigned contribution by User:67.10.73.69)
• Delete. nn. neo-religion. jni 30 June 2005 06:44 (UTC)
• Comment (I am gonna kinda play Devil's Advocate here so bear with me) Although this group is not huge, this page does not appear to be advertising. It is a statement of beliefs, facts even, about the group. Some comments made so far have been ridiculous ("Obviously a bunch of fucking Reds" by the anon editor - if it is sarcasm I'm sorry I can't tell), bordering on offensive. The notability policy of Wikipedia is confusing at best, so maybe it is best to keep it for a while, and see wht happens. Batmanand 30 June 2005 08:49 (UTC)

• "not huge"? Gimme a break, its one dude. Fawcett5 30 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe I'll reconsider it when they get another member. Shoaler 30 June 2005 16:56 (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 No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 20:16 (UTC)

[edit] Atiana de la Hoya

Just like her half-brother Landon Barker, this 6-year old girl is barely notable in her own right. Every now and then she featured in a show that wasn't about her, and that's about her only claim to fame for now. I say delete or merge with Shanna Moakler and Oscar de la Hoya, and only give her an article if she is notable in her own right. Aecis 28 June 2005 22:00 (UTC) Four keeps, three redirects, one merge, one delete, one merge or delete: if it is possible, I would like to withdraw the nomination. Aecis 1 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)

• Keep. If she and her immediate family have their own television show called "Meet the Barkers" then she is notable enough for inclusion as a standalone article. Hall Monitor 28 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Well, that show wasn't really about her. It was about her mother and her mother's boyfriend. Atiana just happened to stroll along (to put it bluntly). She has hardly any notability of her own, has hardly any notability beyond the show, and her role in the show is rather limited. Therefore I don't see what she needs an article of her own for. Aecis 28 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meet the Barkers. -R. fiend 28 June 2005 22:39 (UTC)
• Keep per Hall Monitor. Kappa 28 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable person.--GrandCru 28 June 2005 23:38 (UTC)
• Redirect to Meet the Barkers. Redirects are cheap, and she certainly isn't notable on her own. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 00:05 (UTC)
• Keep per Hall Monitor. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:57 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 08:26 (UTC)
• Keep per Hall Monitor. Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:35 (UTC)
• Strong merge to Meet the Barkers. RealityTVcruft. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:35 (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 6, 2005 20:12 (UTC)

[edit] Begin by gathering supplies

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. --Durin 28 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:58 (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 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)

[edit] Bent rod

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC --Durin 28 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 05:59 (UTC)
• Delete. — Anarchivist | Talk 29 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 20:01 (UTC)

[edit] Sacramento is the New New York

Clear case of promotion to this blog [5] probably, not even mentioned in the article. Just thought to run it through VfD. Feydey 28 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

• Delete blogcruft. Ashibaka (tock) 28 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
• Delete — Chameleon 28 June 2005 23:51 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly written by a crazy person. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 02:13 (UTC)
• Delete Self promotion.--GrandCru 29 June 2005 03:58 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:00 (UTC)
• Delete nonsensical, in jokey, self promotion. Alexp73 29 June 2005 12:52 (UTC)
• Delete not very neutral, plus Sacramento sucks ;) --fpo July 3, 2005 21:22 (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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 12:21 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Mitchell Brothers, Francis Brothers and, Jesse Brothers

The remaining Brothers brothers that VfDers have missed. Very sorry Ron, but these are pure genealogy. We might let you keep Brothers Cemetery though. -- RHaworth 2005 June 28 17:01 (UTC)

• Delete all, nn genealogy. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 17:07 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. The JPS 28 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)
• Delete all, genealogy. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:00 (UTC)
• Pure genealogy that is already in Wikitree. Delete. Uncle G June 29, 2005 10:56 (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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 6, 2005 20:00 (UTC)

[edit] Tuol

delete non-notable gamer cruft, low alexa, wikipedia is not a web directory -- pcr^talk 28 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)

• Delete as above. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:13 (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 6, 2005 19:58 (UTC)

[edit] Whower

neologism You (Talk) June 28, 2005 23:59 (UTC)

• Delete neologism created by User:WHOW3R CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 00:04 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Gblaz June 29, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
• Delete because this has not even scratched the surface of the internet world. -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 01:08 (UTC)
• Delete Booshka!--GrandCru 29 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:01 (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 6, 2005 19:56 (UTC)

[edit] Fiona Avery

This article looks rather pointless. ;Bear June 28, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable?, possible vanity? Cannot say from such miniscule amount of text. Pavel Vozenilek 29 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)
• Keep, probably not vanity based on "what links here". Kappa 29 June 2005 02:09 (UTC)
• Keep. She gets over 9,400 Google hits and appears to be a notable comic writer. Although this is not a good article, it is better than many stubs and should be allowed to grow. DS1953 29 June 2005 03:03 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Somewhat notable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:02 (UTC)
• Keep important author. NSR 29 June 2005 10:08 (UTC)
• Keep. Rewritten, with more detail on previous work on Babylon 5 and Crusade. -- Michael Warren | Talk June 29, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten - good work DarkHorizon and Gtrmp! -- BD2412 ^talk June 29, 2005 14:27 (UTC)
• keep please why is it everyone tries to delete instead of make the aritcle better first Yuckfoo 29 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)
• keep She a up and come author. rework and more info. Brown Shoes22--Brown Shoes22 1 July 2005 18:42 (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.