Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< June 28 June 30 >

Contents

[edit] June 29

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 04:36 (UTC)

[edit] Mark McKeever

Both Vanity page and ad. Word for word off website, ad WCFrancis 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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:39 (UTC)

[edit] MicroAge

Ad, Vanity (username of creator is same as officer). Word for word from "About" page on linked website WCFrancis 29 June 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Note that this was marked for speedy deletion but the creator of the page removed this without comment. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:37 (UTC)
Note that the linked site is currently down. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad or speedy as copyvio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Starblind. Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. To be thrown into the bowels of Wiki-Hell! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 29 June 2005 11:55 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio/ad, nuff said -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Reads like a copyvio, but MicroAge is a well known company with a long history in Canada. I remember buying Windows/286 from a MicroAge store. Pburka 29 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)
    • I suspect that this is not the same MicroAge. The one you remember is probably this MicroAge in Canada. --WCFrancis 30 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
      • You're right. I've withdrawn my vote. Pburka 2 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad unless the contributor wants to rewrite/show notability. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 13:32 (UTC)
Uhh...the original contributor registered as Markmckeever. This person also created Mark McKeever (also on VfD as vanity page), identifying Mr. McKeever as the Chief Operating Officer of MicroAge. I understand that it is preferred that any rewrite be from someone not a part of the company. --WCFrancis 30 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 placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MicroAge

It would seem that the page has been resurrected, with the same problem. (ad). Menyoung Lee 02:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect. CDC (talk) 8 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

[edit] Capital stock

Make this poor little dicdef grow or kill it. Denni☯ 2005 June 29 02:56 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Capital (economics). I have already transwikied to Wikitionary, (even though I don't know much about their formatting). func(talk) 8 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be 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 04:40 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Fredda

  • Delete - vanity, unverifiability and all that. -- Jonel | Speak
  • Delete Non-notable.--GrandCru 29 June 2005 04:25 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:11 (UTC)
  • Delete. The usual reasons. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 29 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)
  • Delete notability -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)
  • Delete nn singer-songwriter vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't seem like a vanity page. I went and looked him up on other websites and he is a legitimate artist. (unsigned vote by 69.112.3.104, the page's creator. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 04:36 (UTC))
  • Do you have sources? Google chucks up under 200 hits, most not relating to music. Please remove your prior vote if you decide to revote. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 30 June 2005 07:35 (UTC)
    • Are you speaking to me? I wasn't voting again, I was signing my comment that the keep vote was from the page's author (69.112.3.104). --Etacar11 30 June 2005 13:54 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

[edit] Imanz

Total vanity Denni☯ 2005 June 29 03:12 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable. And recommend taking AP English as well as Calc. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 04:11 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. To quote his blog, "Well if you dont already know about the popular web encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org is open source! This means anyone can create an entry about them selfs or anything they want. Well i was bored so i wrote one about "imanz". Notice, this isnt about me, its just about "imanz" my internet personallity and i wrote it in 5 minutes so roar. Anyways.. the server is down for wikipedia so ill put it up tommorow but here is what it is.. sorta boring btw.." Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:40 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-described boring vanity. If it were shorter, it would be useful to archive this somewhere as a canonical example of vanity. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • вычеркивать. That means delete. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 29 June 2005 11:59 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:23 (UTC)
  • Delete boring boring vanity. Take some remedial creative writing, too. --Mothperson 29 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)
  • Userfy if at all possible. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 14:17 (UTC)
    • Comment page created by anon IP address. I agree with BD2412 that this should be userfied if possible, but doubt that it is possible. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 17:19 (UTC)
  • Delete dull vanity of a self-confessed troll. -Splash June 29, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
  • Delete pure vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fictional vanity. I believe this may be speedyable as vandalism, since he all but admits as much on his blog. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity; userfy if he wants to create an account. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 13:41 (UTC)
  • Delete. Avowed vanity. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:39 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)

[edit] Surrey Police Community Support Students and Surrey Police Community Support Cadets

Created in association with the vanity article Rowan Cole also on vfd. Supposedly a youth organisation, operating since 2003, not-encyclopedic or verifiable. Delete--nixie 29 June 2005 04:07 (UTC)

  • Delete both, unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:17 (UTC)
  • Decision on this should follow the Rowan Cole VfD: if his page is deleted then, arguably, these, as subsidiary issues, are also good candidates. If not, then I believe that they should be kept or used for re-directs. --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 07:07 (UTC)
  • weak keep. The current content would have to be fleshed out, and I hate to see the little narcs get more airtime . . . But the student group apparently has a history and is somewhat notable. Also, it's pretty verifiable if you're willing to look anywhere but google. Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:51 (UTC)
  • We already have an article about the larger organization; therefore, delete. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 13:44 (UTC)
  • Delete' as above. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, with prejudice agains recreation seeing as it's just spam to make for blue links in the vanity VfD above. -Splash June 29, 2005 21:42 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 13:47 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:21 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Fadairo

Resumecruft, the guys biggest claim to fame is being related to shareholders in a company, does not meet biography criteria. delete--nixie 29 June 2005 04:22 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable.--GrandCru 29 June 2005 04:26 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:44 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)
  • Delete, with only 23 Google hits. This is a new sort of 'Nigerian' thing...-Splash June 29, 2005 21:47 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Reads an awful lot like an ad too. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 13:54 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

[edit] Travel and Leisure

Delete wikispam. --nixie 29 June 2005 04:38 (UTC)

  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:19 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Bubamara 29 June 2005 10:18 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio [3] / ad -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:25 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:07 (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 into Montreal#Demographics, which I will do now. -- BD2412 talk 16:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics of Montreal

Should delete this article since it has one fourth the content that's already on the main Montreal article and serves no purpose, unless someone thinks of enough content to put on it.. Elfguy 06:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(NOTE: This VfD page was created on June 26, but was never added to the actual VfD roster. Added by me on June 29; I listed it on that date's VfD list so as to give this article its proper week of debate. No vote from me yet, though I may vote later.) Bearcat 29 June 2005 04:52 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is one of a large number of demographics pages for various cities and countries around the world. Montreal is not an insignificant city in the country of Canada (and its historical importance is also of note. The Montreal page is large enough (though expansion is always a possibility). This page should, however, be expanded to include other statistics (placed on the attention wanted page perhaps).--eleuthero 29 June 2005 05:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 29 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Montreal if this is "one of a large number of demographics pages for various cities and countries around the world". The content of this article is currently far better in the main Montreal article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 29 June 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Merge into Montreal#Demographics. The only reason this isn't a delete vote is someone needs to check the contradictory stats. Also, though there are many good demographics pages, approx 95% are for countries (which are necessarily more complex and so need to be broken into sub-articles), not cities. Bubamara 29 June 2005 10:43 (UTC)
  • Merge agree with Bubamara -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  • Merge per Bubamara. carmeld1 29 June 2005 23:31 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Bubamara. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand the article, or failing that merge into Montreal. There is significant data that can be included in demographics articles for large cities, but this article has failed to capture that in its current form. A minimal demographics article should include: ethinicity and cultural background, languages spoken, age distribution, education levels, population growth, families (marriage, divorce, etc), sexuality, income, etc. There could also be an Economy/business demographics section. Mindmatrix 1 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete or keep.

[edit] Case Studies in Using IT to Commit Fraud

Appears to be some sort of teaching aid, not suitable for Wikipedia, delete--nixie 29 June 2005 04:49 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that this needs to be sourced, and then used as a sub-page to the source reference. The material is arguably relevant and notable in the context of an e-encyclopaedia. Unless, of course, it is a copyvio. [Sorry -- my latest paranoia] --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
  • delete as is, but sufficent work as suggested above would change my mind. If it's original work, there are other wikis that it could be hosted by, and WP could cite it where appropriate (though its own page would probably be going overboard unless it gained sufficient notability in the field). -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:31 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think the author's organization of the article is unusual by calling the examples "case studies" but if you read what he/she has done, several real IT frauds have been summarized into an article on IT fraud. IT fraud is clearly a valid topic for an encyclopedia. This is a much better start to an article than the typical one sentence stub I am used to seeing. I do think the article needs a shorter name and more introduction. See Bank fraud, Email fraud, and Phone fraud to name a few other examples. Let's not delete good content for an IT fraud article just because the author's literary style is a little different than what we might have expected. DS1953 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)
  • Keep but reorganize. The "case histories" are valid information for an encyclopedia. The editor is not drawing new conclusions from them, so this is not original research. Bambaiah June 30, 2005 08:29 (UTC)
  • Keep, maybe merging some of the stuff into the Fraud page. The stuff is true and useful, although maybe not all of it. Why waste what is not original research, patent nonsense or vanity? Batmanand 30 June 2005 08:31 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Article needs expansion and a rename but is definately worth having. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
  • The content here is duplicated at computer fraud case studies. Morwen - Talk 30 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 04:49 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Ferdinand V

Non-notable vanity page. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions June 29, 2005 05:06 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Six relationships over the years, and he's only 14? Kids grow up so fast these days... --Angr/tɔk tə mi 29 June 2005 05:55 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:26 (UTC)
  • Delete See also Mat Vicious, Lost Children, KMA and possibly others. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:24 (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 delete. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The arguments for and against re-creating this article as a redirect only were less clear-cut. Reviewing the comments and the evidence, I do not personally find enough evidence that this particular phrase is in sufficient use to justify the creation of the redirect. However, that is a personal decision, not a decision in my role as the closing admin. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greater Sault Ste. Marie

The term is only faintly attested; a Google search brings up a whopping total of 25 pages, and even some of those only happen by pure circumstance to have the terms "Sault Ste. Marie" and "greater" coexisting separately within a single page. Also, it doesn't meet the usual understanding of a metropolitan area; all of the named population centres just barely scrape 90,000 in total combined population, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario does not have a CMA. (It's not large enough; to be designated a CMA, the urban core alone -- before even factoring the outlying communities -- has to be at least 100k.) I'd suggest that any worthwhile content could be merged into the disambig page that already exists at Sault Ste. Marie, but I don't see what use is served by an article about something that doesn't exist. Bearcat 29 June 2005 05:18 (UTC)

  • Keep, I think this article has potential. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 29 June 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and delete. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Delete. There is little content here apart from a list of connecting highways and the two townships. If this article were to be kept, it should have a similar format and content as Greater Toronto Area (though it would probably be a lot smaller). --Deathphoenix 29 June 2005 15:49 (UTC)
    • Changed to delete following Carnildo's comment. After some checking, it seems what he says is true. There is no Greater Sault Ste. Marie. --Deathphoenix 29 June 2005 21:29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Term is not in common use. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • Keep, rename to The Soo, and expand. This could be considered an unofficial metroplex. Also, "The Soo" gets 107,000 google hits and is worth keeping. Will anybody concur with me now? --SuperDude 30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
    • There's no such thing as an "unofficial metroplex"; something is either a metropolitan area or it isn't. With a total combined population of just 90,000, this isn't. And The Soo really doesn't need to be anything more than a redirect to the disambiguation page that already exists at Sault Ste. Marie. Bearcat 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect pto Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:42 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sister lives on MI side and hasn't heard this term; not really anything worth saving here. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:28 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to Sault Ste. Marie I have heard this from family members who live, or lived, in Sault Ste. Marie, MI, but I don't think its common. Salsb 1 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as the article specifies that this is somewhat of a colloquial term I think it should be kept. It's not an official designation like the Greater Toronto Area, but does have cachet in the same manner of Chicagoland. --NormanEinstein July 4, 2005 17:56 (UTC)
    • Cachet? It gets all of 25 Google hits, which means it's not even a significant colloquialism. The usual term for what this article describes is The Soo, not anything with the word "Greater" in it. What this article is is yet another SuperDude115 invention of a non-existent term for something he deems in need of an article. Bearcat 03:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need a listing of highways etc. Sunray July 7, 2005 05:46 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 04:51 (UTC)

[edit] Gallant's Books and More

Wikispam, delete --nixie 29 June 2005 05:43 (UTC)

  • One bookstore. Delete. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 14:32 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. Geogre 29 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/bookstore vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:51 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. If its really that large/notable, article can be rewritten later; doens't appear to be anything here that could be salvaged. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  • Delete" Advertising. - ConeyCyclone 30 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:02 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

[edit] Codecharge

Wikispam, delete --nixie 29 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)

  • delete notability -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:34 (UTC)
  • Delete: Utterly breathless advertising for the one product you'll ever need. Geogre 29 June 2005 18:18 (UTC)
  • deletion is the "complete solution" for this ad. carmeld1 29 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)
  • Delete spam and copyvio. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:31 (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. func(talk) 8 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

[edit] Power Shot

I know what the person is trying to write an article about. It is the Canon Inc.'s line of consumer level cameras called "Powershot". I don't think it is worthy of a redirect. There are no articles linking to this. In addition, this article is not informative. Krystyn Dominik 29 June 2005 05:58 (UTC)

  • Redirect - Redirects are cheap and fun. -- Jonel | Speak 29 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)
  • I suppose a redirect in this case will do no harm. -Splash June 29, 2005 21:49 (UTC)
  • Redirect to list. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:36 (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. FCYTravis

[edit] Sung Joon Park

This looks like a possible prank to me. "Sung Joon Park" is an ordinary Korean name; Googling for "Sung Joon Park" yields about 300 hits, which are all the names of people, not parks. I'm willing to change my mind, but in the absence of evidence I think we should dump it. Wile E. Heresiarch 29 June 2005 06:03 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:28 (UTC)
  • No verification. Delete. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverfied, and no verification of the "famous socialite" in Chicago named "Jake Lee," either. Geogre 29 June 2005 18:19 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. And it says "semi-famous". Who names stuff after the semi-famous? ;) --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some reference/verification is noted. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:40 (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. FCYTravis

[edit] getch

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. This is a function in the C standard library, but there doesn't seem to be much to say about it (it returns the next character typed at the keyboard—that's it). Not sure what the consensus is on individual C functions. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 06:08 (UTC)

  • getch is absolutely NOT in the C standard library. It is impossible to implement portably because C does not interface with keyboards, it interfaces with I/O streams. Strong delete because we don't need articles about Microsoft-specific functions. — JIP | Talk 29 June 2005 07:24 (UTC)
    • It's hardly microsoft-specific - curses has it. Morwen - Talk 29 June 2005 10:56 (UTC)
    • K&R refer to a getch on p79 of their 2nd edition, but it appears to be a "here's one we made earlier". Anyway it's not in the standard library, and I'd delete it. jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)
  • delete this is a technical dictionay entry. no notabilty or impact on the field -Harmil 29 June 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with JIP. The existence of other "get character" functions that someone has named the same doesn't make this an encyclopedic topic. Too minor and technical, never of interest to program users, rarely significant to programmers. Barno 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons given above
  • Delete, WP not a dictionary of anything. -Splash June 29, 2005 21:50 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reason. Groeck 29 June 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • Delete but redirect to something like Common C functions. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:44 (UTC)
  • Delete as developercruft; nn. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:42 (UTC)
  • Keep! getch is interesting because it is part of the dilemma between blocking (portable) and non-blocking (platform dependant) IO. One could also elaborate on its relation to getc, kbhit etc. And then the whole history with how it was copied from compiler to compiler.. Palestine-info 1 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sounds like that information would be better off added to Input/output. This article, however, doesn't currently address any of that, so it's not a merge situation. — Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 17:29 (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

[edit] Ben Tarnoff

Self-promotion for a musician although the content is completely unverifiable. Page has been blanked several times, delete--nixie 29 June 2005 06:10 (UTC)

  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:36 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. The guy's 19, for crying out loud. About 13 Google results, none appear to be relevant. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:57 (UTC)
  • Delete even the band is only 32 google hits; vanity. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:44 (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 05:49 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Nuxoll

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable programmer. — Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 06:13 (UTC)

  • Delete: Some dude with a blog. Geogre 29 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)
  • Delete for vanity. Bratschetalk 5 pillars June 29, 2005 19:24 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Groeck 29 June 2005 22:16 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 22:59 (UTC)
  • Delete; Agree with Etacar11. ‡ Jarlaxle June 29, 2005 23:00 (UTC)
  • del as Groeck said. r3m0t talk June 29, 2005 23:01 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 14:45 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse Dibs

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Neologism/original research by analogy with dibs concerning the old childhood concept of "cooties". — Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)

  • Dibs on deleting this original research. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:40 (UTC)
  • Darn, you got dibs. Author claims girls don't have cooties: unverifiable. Barno 29 June 2005 14:10 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 14:20 (UTC)
  • Delete: Private game. "Why would anyone want to touch a girl's butt? Don't you know that's where cooties come from?" -- Bart Simpson. Geogre 29 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
  • Delete - if I've understood correctly, WP reverse dibs this article. I may have misunderstood - I'm just focussed on NOT wanting this article. At least I learnt what cooties are. -Splash June 29, 2005 21:57 (UTC)
  • Delete but list at Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:01 (UTC)
  • Delete Silly nonsense. Please note Mothperson may accuse this vote of being a sockpuppet vote. - ConeyCyclone 30 June 2005 19:27 (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 17:25 (UTC)

[edit] The Lams

Vanity; no relevant Google hits Bovlb June 29, 2005 06:18 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)
  • Delete very sad band vanity. Alexp73 29 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)
  • Delete See also Luke Ferdinand V their fourteen-year-old drummer, Mat Vicious and many related articles. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 16:50 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, even hit song produces nothing at Google. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:03 (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 redirect to Molecular nanotechnology.

This decision is without prejudice against the re-creation of an independent article at this title if it is cleaned up and expanded to address the concerns below. Rossami (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular machine

Original research/bizzare search guide, delete--nixie 29 June 2005 06:20 (UTC)

  • Delete, Opinion piece, not an article. - Mgm|(talk) June 29, 2005 08:40 (UTC)
  • Redirect to nanotechnology. --RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  • keep, it's a legit topic, see: http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Molecular_Machines I don't believe the author of this piece intended to refer to nanotechnology, but molecular machines in the natural sense - however it really does need to be written in an encyclopaedic style and fleshed out. jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, expand. Notable concept, different from nanotech - nanotech is really, really small; molecular machines are really, really, really small. The article as posted is not all that far off, actually - when we develop the ability to make machines at the molecular level, they may be functionally indistinguishable from microorganisms. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 15:57 (UTC)
    •  :-/ Well, I put in a new intro line, but it needs much, much work if it is to fly. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
  • Delete or at most merge. Topic is already extensively covered on various articles such as Molecular nanotechnology and Nanorobotics — RJH 29 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)
  • Redirect to nanotechnology or molecular nanotechnology. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. I'm intrigued though — how'd the author find those diagonal dots a random guess at the numeric code?-Splash June 29, 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  • Redirect to molecular nanotechnology. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:14 (UTC)
  • keep, expand. Molecular machine can refer either to a nanotech device or to a naturally evolved biomolecule or biomolecular assembly. I've been to talks which refer to motor proteins as molecular machines or the ribosome as a molecular machine. Salsb 1 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Reads like something written under the influence of either alcohol or extreme spirituality. We can give it a chance when/if someone actually manages to build such a machine. /Peter Isotalo 7 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bio-molecular-Tony

Yes, it was too simple, too small. Needs more work. But does not need deletion. I am not a great writer. This issue is the GREATEST thing coming our way.

"if someone actually manages to build such a machine": This have already been done. Wakee, Wakee. That is why we NEED this NEW PAGE. The wall between nanotechnology and so-called LIVING SYSTEMS (LIFE) has already been broken through. Most of the "WALL" still stands in the way, but it's holes for seeing throw are now getting bigger. This wall is about to be completely removed very soon. Let's not be the last to know it. Repost topic with improved format, etc. We are all still learning about this. More information will soon be on the way.

--24.42.133.215 13:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. Incidentally, it doesn't appear to be a hoax insofar as Daniel Brillman is a lacrosse player, the rest is unverifiable and non-notable anyway. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brillman

I remember I saw him and thought it was Colin Ferrel, I was shocked by his beauty. Delete --nixie 29 June 2005 06:22 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  • Delete will continue to lead in their fight against ignorace. I giggled Sherurcij June 29, 2005 07:31 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it's quite true that Andrew Goldstein is a gay lacrosse player [4], this article is certainly a hoax attack page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 29 June 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity or attack page. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:17 (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 Delete --Allen3 talk July 6, 2005 19:06 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Bischoff

The first teenager with a podcast, delete--nixie 29 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Delete: Some dude who's a kid. Geogre 29 June 2005 18:47 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:17 (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 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.

I count 7 clear "deletes", 2 "keeps" (one from an editor who was very new to Wikipedia at the time of voting) and 3 "redirects". From the comments, I consider it clear that the "redirect" voters oppose the idea of keeping this as an independent article. Reviewing the comments and the respective articles, I find no evidence proving that this is a related concept, only the unsubstantiated claim of the article itself. On such thin evidence, I decline to create the redirect.

I am calling this one as a delete decision. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will it float

Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. Whether or not this Letterman segment is notable enough is something which should be discussed at VFD. Personally, I think this is a pretty long running sketch and that the article should be kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the article well enough. It is not about the David Letterman segment (which I think would be notable) , so delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 29 June 2005 09:44 (UTC)
  • Delete this article on Australian ex-pats diversions. Unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 29 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)
  • No it won't. Sink I mean delete. Capitalistroadster 29 June 2005 07:18 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 08:21 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Late Show with David Letterman AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 11:23 (UTC)
  • Redirect per AиDя01D. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 14:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Section redirects don't work. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is a variation on "sink" from the principia discordia, pre-dates letterman, thus is not originally a letterman sketch. IreverentReverend 29 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know I've done it, letterman's sketch was interesting too; even kids shows use this as an "experiment". Title might need help, I've heard it called Sinkers/Floaters most often. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:22 (UTC)
Didn't it appear in Winnie the Pooh as well?
  • Delete. Not notable or verifiable. Obscure references from the Principia Discordia are even less notable. Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 07:12 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Late Show, as above. It's already mentioned there. It's more notable than a game played by Aussies in China. The article claims they got the idea from Letter man anyway. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)
    • Oh, and Winnie the Pooh played Pooh sticks, which was a different gamne altogether. It was a race between two sticks; there was never a question whether they would sink. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
      • I find it ironic that while discussing this article for deletion, someone should link Pooh sticks as evidence. Both games seem equally notable to me, and should have the same level of treatment - FabioB 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/inside joke CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 14:22 (UTC)

[edit] John Swapceinski

Created a website, I don't think this meets the biography criteria, delete--nixie 29 June 2005 06:45 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 08:22 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:13 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Actually popular sites and very early on the "rate my..." front. Would need rewrite to encylopedia standards, or at least a better stub in order to keep. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:27 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to the site he created. If somethign is notable it does not mean the person who made it is. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 14:33 (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 --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 14:27 (UTC)

[edit] Tad Kepley

Minor figure in anarchist circles. Only sources available about him are forum postings and a dubious blog. Article is currently filled with libelous allegations related to Bill White (activist). Delete as unverifiable. Willmcw June 29, 2005 06:50 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 08:25 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this is a hoax, its a long running one; forum posts/articles date back to 1995. Not highly notable, about a third of the 100 hits or so on the name aren't him, however, given he's labelled as an anarchist, it would follow that he doesn't show up much on the net. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:37 (UTC)
    • FYI, nobody says it's a hoax. This is undoubtedly a real person. Are you comfortable with an article based entirely on forum entries? Being an anarchist does not mean avoiding the internet. Just the opposite. -Willmcw June 30, 2005 19:58 (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 delete by Stewartadcock with reason (Speedy delete, because:not noteworthy) --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

[edit] Nada stepovich

I initially marked this for speedy deletion because of vanity, but now it's up for proper VfD. Delete as non-notable vanity (nnanity). — JIP | Talk 29 June 2005 07:20 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable vanity. Forbsey 29 June 2005 07:21 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can show that Nadia is notable for something other than being NBA player John Stockton's wife. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] June 29, 2005 07:23 (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 keep. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

[edit] Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten

Should be deleted or moved to bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Andycjp June 29th 2005

  • Keep. Fun little article like AYBABTU. Samboy 29 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important meme and I think it's perfectly appropriate given a number of articles we have around here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) June 29, 2005 08:07 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although it's only vaguely encyclopedaeic, it's a meme that's big enough to be notable (and seen enough to promote the response as given on the page). Well-written article, informed and informative. Almost put this as weak keep, but I think it's widespread enough to warrant a full keep. --Firien § 29 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)
  • Week keep semi-notable, verifiably accurate. Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 10:45 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Notable in certain Internet circles, particularly Fark.com, though it needs a better title. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 29, 2005 11:24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable Internet meme and I think the article is very useful in explaining where this came from. 23skidoo 29 June 2005 12:20 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely notable and a pretty good article already jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:56 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. --Badlydrawnjeff 29 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedic meme. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 14:10 (UTC)
  • Keep based on previous web-meme precedents. I think the speculation on who originally created the image should be removed though (it's unverifiable since they apparently deny it) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 15:55 (UTC)
  • Keep I've seen this picture before, it was pretty famous when it was new, and having knowledge about it doesn't hurt. EliasAlucard|Talk 20:06, 29 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Memes from Something Awful are not notable. Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)
  • Keep notable meme. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Delete It is unencyclopedic. Barneygumble 29 June 2005 21:22 (UTC)
  • Keep this 'only on Wikipedia' encyclopaedic article. David | Talk 29 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable webcruft. Martg76 29 June 2005 21:44 (UTC)
  • Delete , offensive title DiceDiceBaby 29 June 2005 21:54 (UTC)
  • Weak keep.-Splash June 29, 2005 22:04 (UTC)
  • Keep. It exists outside of WP, no? Falcon June 29, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. carmeld1 29 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 30 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Wikipedia is not a book. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
  • Keep, because there's no reason not to. LeoDV 30 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are quite a few more worthy of deletion articles. Besides, since when was Wikipedia a real encyclopedia? — (Gateman1997 forgot to sign.)
    • Regarding your first point, Wikipedia is not consistent. The existence of some deletion-worthy articles is not an argument for keeping others. Regarding your second point, why are you bothering to contribute if you don't believe Wikipedia is/has the potential to become a "real" encyclopedia, whatever that may mean? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 1, 2005 01:34 (UTC)
  • Delete. An joke spread around the Internet in 2002 is not encyclopedic Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
  • Delete. No verifiable encyclopedic information other than its existence, which is evident on its own. If someone were to compile verifiable info about its standing among other "memes" or to write a scholarly article about the psychological implications or something, fine. Right now its just one of a long list. Dystopos 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable meme Salsb 1 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a rather notable and famous meme. Spiritsnare 2 July 2005 9:26 (PST)
  • Keep. I remember this. Notable. CanadianCaesar 3 July 2005 03:36 (UTC)
  • Keep. Explanations like this belong in Wikipedia. Punkmorten 5 July 2005 08:24 (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.
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. 5 to delete, 3 to keep, on the edge, but not over it. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 03:29 (UTC)

[edit] Division by two

Description of an algorithm to divide a number by two. Unencyclopedic and doesn't really deserve a separate article. Delete Laur 29 June 2005 08:22 (UTC)

  • Agree delete - what's described is just a not-very-interesting special case of long division. --RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)
  • I quite like the piece, but agree that its subject doesn't merit an article - delete jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)
  • Delete & redir to long division. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:45 (UTC)
  • Keep, well written and informative. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:46 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't even deserve a comment. Groeck 4 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting case Intersofia 4 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't think where this would be merged to. It is interesting, and can be expanded. I've read about this algorithm, it is sometimes called "Russian division", (er...or something like that). It is an algorithm that has been commented on by a number of well known "math people". If this survives VfD, I will expand the article. func(talk) 8 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete and redirect → Jessica Hahn --Allen3 talk July 7, 2005 21:32 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Han

Delete as vanity, googling for '"Jessica Han" fitness' gives 13 results. Laur 29 June 2005 08:20 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Bubamara 29 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect after deletion to Jessica Hahn Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 10:28 (UTC)
  • What Andrew Lenahan said. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 14:14 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Starblind, as that's who I thought this would be about.Dcarrano 29 June 2005 17:59 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Redirect as stated above. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per Starblind. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:48 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Northcott

Appears to be either self-promotion or hideously campy PR.

—Ghakko 29 June 2005 09:04 (UTC)

  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 10:48 (UTC)
  • Delete horrendous jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)
  • Delete, either hoax or vanity. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, and email it to his boss. See if he likes it so much then. -Splash June 29, 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity for the "what the hell?" file. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:23 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. If only it was as hilarious as he seems to think it is. carmeld1 30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sistine chapel? Trying to hard to be funny and failing. NN vanity. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:51 (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 article edited into disambig page. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:48 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Johnson

I know the creator of this article... and he made it up about one of his friends. He used to be in my Further Maths class... delete.

Unsigned nomination by Deskana (talk · contribs) 09:28, June 29, 2005
  • Delete no demonstration of notability. Then turn into dab page Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • delete, nn jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)
  • Chris Johnson is a real computer scientist so this article should stay. 212.219.123.32 13:17, 29 June 2005 (comment orignally made to talk page)
    • I'm a real Computer Scientist - just not a notable one. Ditto Chris Johnson jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Shoaler 29 June 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • Check the recent contributions by 212.219.123.32 and you'll find a lot of vandalism. I can swear that this article is all lies because the person who sits next to me in computing told me about the person that created this article. Even if it is true, it's not exactly a noteworthy article! Delete it! Deskana 29th June 2005, 18:39 (GMT)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:52 (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 21:34 (UTC)

[edit] George Lawrence Stone

This is clearly copyrighted material. It's got a byline and gives the source link: http://www.pas.org/About/HOF/stone.cfm. Which, of course, says "Site contents © Percussive Arts Society 1999 - 2004" Bubamara 29 June 2005 09:27 (UTC)

  • Delete. I added another page using the same source to copyvio; either way these must go. Harro5 June 29, 2005 10:05 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)
  • Delete if it is not rewritten before this vfd is finished, as it is an obvious copyvio. However, if it is deleted, someone knowledgeable in this area should write the article as the subject seems to be notable. - Jersyko talk June 29, 2005 14:19 (UTC)
  • Please don't bring copyright problems to VFD. Take them to Wikipedia:copyright problems. The separate process exists so that VFD isn't clogged with nominations such as this one. Uncle G June 29, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  • Marked correctly as copyvio and listed on WP:CP --Tabor 29 June 2005 18:57 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhiannon Biddulph

Non notable individual. Her partner (linked to) just scrapes in on notability. Francs2000 | Talk 29 June 2005 09:54 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

[edit] GoodBadInternet

This is obviously a personal essay stuffed full of original research and conclusions. Of course, that is a big no-no! Sorry, but this has got to go. Harro5 June 29, 2005 10:03 (UTC)

  • Delete. An essay. Laur 29 June 2005 11:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay, mistitled, too narrow scope (all the world's not Australia). — JIP | Talk 29 June 2005 10:45 (UTC)
  • Delete, reads like a cheapo magazine article based on a personal perspective jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 13:08 (UTC)
  • Delete OR which deserves a C- at best. -Splash June 29, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
  • Delete personal essay. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 15:58 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

[edit] Taiteilijat

Possible hoax. I've never heard of such a black metal band. Googling doesn't reveal any hits (note that "taitelijat" is Finnish for "artists", so you get lots of hits about artists in general). "Kalliomaalaus", the lead singer's surname, is Finnish for "rock painting" and is not a real surname. Most of the album titles are vulgar Finnish profanities. Delete unless verified. — JIP | Talk 29 June 2005 10:12 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 29 June 2005 10:52 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/hoax. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:32 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN or hoax. -- .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:00 (UTC)
  • Delete, (almost) certain hoax.--Jyril July 2, 2005 19:57 (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 8, 2005 11:22 (UTC)

[edit] Cypress Lake High School Center for the Arts

No content, only 1 page links there, possible vanity. Delete or expand. Laur 29 June 2005 10:42 (UTC)

  • NB originally listed as Cypress Lake High School but I think that was a newbie's attempt at a redirect to Cypress Lake High School Center for the Arts, the latter however is a non notable school. Strongly delete both. Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 10:48 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn Proto t c 29 June 2005 13:57 (UTC)
  • Delete — Branch of non-existant article on the high school. Falls under: "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" — RJH 29 June 2005 16:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)
  • Delete unless incredibly expanded/shown notable. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:01 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  1 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was content was merged with Quran Alone

[edit] List of the most popular Quran Aloners

  • I supported Quran Alone and even Edip Yuksel of questionable notability (based on his past popularity in Turkey), but this article is inherently POV (popular?) and... oh man... gren 29 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)
  • Quran Aloner- I believe this is an excellent article to inform the people of the important figures who believe in Quran Alone. Btw u say that you supportED Quran Alone. Have you changed your beliefs? If yes, then what do you believe in now?
  • Oh, to clarify I mean the creation and allowance of the article Quran Alone once it had been created. I did not mean I support it as a religious view. I do find it to be interesting within Islam and I have read about it, but I am not it. If you are going to cast a vote in favor it is best to bold the word keep and put it at the beginning of your entry. I don't think a list of Qur'an aloners is a good idea, especially in terms of "popularity". gren 29 June 2005 13:09 (UTC)
  • At the very least, the POV complaint is valid; this information can be copied into Quran Alone.DS June 29, 2005 13:00 (UTC)
  • Delete - The Quran Alone article is enough - there is no need for this separate list unless everyone on it is notable in some way. Naturenet | Talk 29 June 2005 13:14 (UTC)
  • Merge to Quran Alone and redirect (for GFDL purposes, can't merge and delete) Proto t c 29 June 2005 13:56 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect Somebody removed the VfD notice, too. I've restored it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary list, as per Starblind. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:20 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see the point of having a list of (popular?) "Qur'an Aloners" on Wikipedia. --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)
  • KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.57.122 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 June 2005

This article should be kept coz unlike mainstream Muslims who follow hadith these guys are totally peaceful and also in my view much more rational and logical. If you only came to know these guys you would change your mind immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.57.122 (talk • contribs) 06:12+, 30 June 2005

I would not say mainstream Muslims are not peaceful. They aren't bad people, they just aren't notable... we can't say "hey these are good guys, let's give them an article and remove those of Zarqawi" because, that's not how encyclopedias work. Hitler will always have a bigger article than Saint Stephen. gren 30 June 2005 12:33 (UTC)

Quran Aloner- I dont like that view. Ok if you mean criticism of Hitler, then let the article be as long as can be. Every group or religious faction should have one article and a few of it's popular followers especially the very peaceful ones.

  • Merge to Quaran Alone though famous might be a better criteria than popular. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
  • Delete - Promotional article of non-notable group. Same attempt seen in insertion of promotional text in many other articles. --Ragib 30 June 2005 22:06 (UTC)
Haven't you already voted thru 84.130.85.101, which from this diff seems to be your IP? --Ragib 5 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 05:14 (UTC)

[edit] East coast skank

Delete - not notable. Naturenet | Talk 29 June 2005 13:06 (UTC)

  • Delete - yeah... no. Dcarrano 29 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)
  • Keep "awesome" band, with happy songs. Delete and correct they're spelling. -Splash June 29, 2005 22:10 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. "short lived" says it all. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:20 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:08 (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 8, 2005 11:29 (UTC)

[edit] Ziontours Travel Agency

A major travel agency (if it is that) may deserve an article, but this is just advertising: "...on the cutting edge of the Information Superhighway. They can handle all your travel needs..."; "...the best flight prices..." etc. Delete unless notability is established and article rewritten. Uppland 29 June 2005 13:16 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I'll probably get some disagreement, but 59% is not good enough to me when you have a split like this. If you take just the merge/keep/delete votes and not include the separate Watford votes, it's actually a dead heat. Woohookitty 03:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knutsford services, Corley services, Hilton Park services, Keele services, London Gateway Service Area, Watford Gap service station, Hopwood Park Services

These four (now six) articles were marked as speedy, but the discussion on Talk:Knutsford services prompted me to post these here on VFD instead. The question: do each of these motorway service stations in the UK noteworthy enough to have their own article? I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 29 June 2005 13:27 (UTC)

KEEP. Of course they're noteworthy enough - as are the others. They're known navigation points, each with a history (they rarely opened when the motorway did; they've changed hands, their services differ; and so on). Unless of course, you intend to delete the page for every non- major railway station in the UK, too. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 13:48 (UTC)

If someone has something to say about a high school, railway station, service station or phone box- and the information is noteworthy and worthwhile- then the article should remain. this however does not mean a stub should be created for each of these entities extant in the world on the off chance someone will write the article. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 22:35 (UTC)

Keep Perfectly good stub. Proto t c 29 June 2005 13:54 (UTC)

  • Delete, service stations are not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. In fact, delete everything under Category:Motorway service stations in the UK. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

MERGE into UK Service Stations where we can explore the history and sociology of service stations, even list them all. They are collectively noteworthy, not individually. --Dave63 29 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)

  • It cannot be reasonably expected that anybody could write a meaningful article about these services. they consist of a burger king, food kiosks, some toilets, and little else. i beleive individual articles will contain nothing of note: I challenged the user who created them to produce more detail but he has not come forth with any detail, just his insistence they stay. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 14:16 (UTC)
they consist of a burger king, food kiosks, some toilets, and little else Utter nonesense. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)
  • Delete Why are petrol stations noteworthy? Who would look up an encyclopaedia for this of minimalist information?--Porturology 29 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
They are not petrol stations. c/f railway stations. Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)
"Just north of junction 38 on the M6 you will find Westmorland Motorway Services. Both the northbound and southbound services have large farm shops which Prince Charles opened in early 2004. In 2003 they won Best Local Retailer in the BBC Radio 4 Food and Farming Awards." Doesn't sound like a petrol station to me. [5]--Dave63 29 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)
Keep - these stubs communicate little, but then stubs are like that. I think there are some service stations that might not be notable, but these ones all are. Each one could be developed into an article with enough unique content to be worthy of inclusion. Naturenet | Talk 29 June 2005 14:44 (UTC)

Comment A lot more people use a service station every day than a school, yet schools are deemed notable and service stations not? Proto t c 29 June 2005 15:16 (UTC)

A school stub which was exactly the same as this (lacking in any relavant context or notable info) was deleted just this morning. Some schools are notable- others are not. Some service stations are of note. Most are not. 81.7.41.148 29 June 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article, place redirects for all of these. It is doubtful that any of these will be anything more than a stub. A larger article inclusive of these stations is more appropriate. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy, under "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article". There's a lot of work to 'undo' here to make the merge, but it needs to be done. --Durin 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 16:05 (UTC)
  • Keep Watford Gap, Merge the rest - not notable individually, but maybe as a group. Shoaler 1 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  • Merge into the relevant M1 motorway, M6 motorway, etc. article. -- RHaworth 2005 June 29 16:15 (UTC)
  • Keep Do not merge. Merged articles cannot be adequately categorised. Merging is almost always a bad idea. CalJW 29 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have expanded Watford Gap service station (which should be renamed "Watford Gap Service Area" if it survives) to show the kind of thing that can be done with these articles. Most of them have their own history and unique features, having been through several phases of development. In this case I have not touched the architectural aspect of the subject, for example.—Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Indeed there will be some of note, but to create an article for every single one in the country (which is what I caught POTW doing) is a bit silly. I beleive there is one service station on the M1 which is a listed building! There certainly could be an article about that. Leonig Mig 29 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)
caught?!?. Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 23:56 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless Wikipaedia is to become a preserve information solely related to American schools, Australian politicians, Korean gamers and multinational companies. --Simon Cursitor 29 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)
  • Keep, like railway stations. Merging geographically distributed tansport nodes does not make sense. Kappa 29 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 19:14 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. They seem to be similar to travel plazas on US toll roads -- noteworthy enough as part of the road, but not on their own. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  • Delete. No different from truck stops; just turnoffs where you can gas up and get a bite. At best they deserve brief mentions in the relevant motorways' articles, but these articles are useless on their own. "If we keep high schools, we must keep absolutely everything trivial" is not a convincing argument. — Gwalla | Talk 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
  • Keep. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
  • Certainly keep Watford Gap service station (which is a splendid example of an article about a quotidian but notable location): but the other ones should be merged into a single article about the phenomenon of UK service stations, unless they have a similiarly interesting story to tell. -- Karada 29 June 2005 22:42 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think we should be treating the articles as one. Each article must be able to establish it's notability, if it cannot then it should be deleted. They're all on one VFD, and therefore we're voting on whether the topic as a whole is notable or not; which seems an unsual step compared to any other VFDs I've seen. -- Joolz 29 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is in fact precedent for batch nominations when the articles are significantly similar in that the arguments for deletion are appliacable as a group (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kanji articles for one recent example). There is also precedent for breaking the vote into separate votes if votes are split for some and against others. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 04:54 (UTC)
    • Comment: While not common, it is a tool that is used at times. Another example is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bob Burns. Sometimes users see a group of articles "missing" and create them all in rapid fashion, before a discussion has a chance to decide what to do with such a group. Grouping them together in on VfD allows us an opportunity to discuss them as a whole, and not repeat the same discussions in a large array of VfDs. If there is a case to be made for some of the concerned articles, it will usually be made and that article or articles treated differently. Standard VfDs are easy affairs. This type of VfD is not; undoing the work of the original author is time consumptive, and requires a significant amount of attention to detail. Nevertheless, the outcome is productive, regardless of the voted result, as it pushes us ever on to a better version of the encyclopedia. --Durin 30 June 2005 14:04 (UTC)
      • Without wishing to attract censure for voting twice, may I comment that I find it an interesting version of a "better encyloapedia" that removes articles which a significant minority of its readers feel are worthwhile, when the main argument against them is merely non-notability. To a tone-deaf, boring old f*rt like me, endless articles on little-known rock bands are (effectively) "cruft", but I accept that someone somewhere will want to look them up. I happen to feel that the sam can be said for locales and structures which have existed for, in some cases, 50 years, under constant development. \endrant --Simon Cursitor 30 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)
        • If you want to argue about VfD itself, rather than the articles under discussion, this is not the place to do it. Take it to a policy talkpage. — Gwalla | Talk 30 June 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Keep Watford Gap. Merge and redirect the rest. David | Talk 29 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)
  • Merge into one article, place redirects for all of these. carmeld1 30 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)
  • Delete petrol stations are not inherently notable, as per Gwalla. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:23 (UTC)
service station != petrol station. Andy Mabbett 30 June 2005 08:44 (UTC)
Merge into one, except Watford Gap which is sufficient to have it's own article. -- Joolz 30 June 2005 09:27 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot of them. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:46 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree these would be better as one article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
  • Keep Watford Gap, which is significantly more well known than the others. Merge the others as previously suggested. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge somewhere and expand. --SPUI (talk) 30 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
  • Merge. I didn't think them important enough for their own articles: I left them unlinked at creation of the exit box list. Keep Watford Gap though, as above. --Erath 30 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

To help clear up the tangled mess: The votes so far can be broken down as:

  • Straight keep: 9
  • Straight merge: 7
  • Keep or merge: 1
  • Delete or merge: 3
  • Merge, but retain Watford: 6
  • Using a pro-keep perspective: 10
  • Using a pro-merge perspective: 17

At this point, it seems likely the turnout of this will be merge. I'd like to suggest that those who have not stated anything in particular regarding Watford Gap do so in addition to their other votes, as I think we'll need some concensus with that article. Personally, I agree Watford Gap should be kept. --Durin 30 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Keep Watford Gap, merge the rest. Leonig Mig 30 June 2005 22:07 (UTC)
Leonig Mig has voted twice; once to delete, once to merge. Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
This is not the case, I have simply stated my position as per Watford Gap as requested by Durin.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
I note that you have since deleted your first vote and retained the second [6]. Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 11:12 (UTC)
well I didn't want anyone else to misinterpret my vote the way you did. i am new to wikipedia, i have never been involved in one of these before. i can't see why you need to hound me like this. i'm sorry if i gave the impression of voting twice, i just wanted to express my approval of Watford Gap.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)
Cease making paranoid accsuations. You have already been wearned about, and apologised for this, once User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Barnt_Green.
In that case I apologied if it appeared I was being uncivil to you and asked you to try and be civil yourself. I apologise if it appeared i was voting twice, certainly that was not my intention. I edited merely to prevent other making the same mistake.Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
  • Keep all the notable ones (e.g. Watford Gap, Leicester Forest East, etc.) but delete or merge all the non-notable ones (e.g. Knutsford, Corley, etc.). — P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)
  • Keep all of them. ‡ Jarlaxle July 1, 2005 10:19 (UTC)
  • Keep all. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 11:39 (UTC)
I have expanded Corley services and Hilton Park services. This was done very quickly, based on little more than a quick googling. They are still stubs, but I hope they will at least convince people of the fact that there is something to say about these. They are at least as notable as railway stations. I would urge merge and delete voters to reconsider. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 1, 2005 15:36 (UTC)
Query: Is there a procedure to re-start a VFD, where the subject(s) have chenged so radically? Andy Mabbett 1 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
Wait until it has closed and then re-nominate the articles. --bainer (talk) 3 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
Excellent in theory. Difficult once the Cabal have successfully deleted the article, whereas you thought they had changed enough to be worth keeping.--Simon Cursitor 3 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)
Should you believe that an article has been deleted inappropriately, you can ask an administrator to undelete it. Most of us will respond by reviewing the VfD and will restore the article if the deletion is mistaken.—Theo (Talk) 3 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion is the place to go to reverse a deletion if you believe it went against process or the article had sufficiently changed between nomination and deletion that the arguments for deletion no longer applied. It isn't really relevant in this case, because it looks unlikely that these articles will be deleted (consensus seems to be to merge). BTW, accusations of an evil Wikipedia conspiracy are unlikely to make people take your arguments seriously. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 21:51 (UTC)

Keep Watford Gap, merge everything else into one general motorway services article: adding trivia to the minor ones doesn't make them the least bit more notable ("My god! Corley has a fibreglass-clad concrete footbridge!"). --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

The fibreglass may be of little import; but the existence of the footbridge (not all MSSs have them) is useful to know about, for anyone wanting to meet up with someone travelling in the opposite direction. Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
Would anyone seriously consult an encyclopedia for that? Ever? — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
  • Merge smaller stubbish ones into their respective motorway articles (plenty of space in there and no need to break out onto seperate pages unless and until more is written) and keep expanded ones like Watford Gap. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)


Helping to clarify the mess: The voting so far looks like this:
  • Abstain  : 1
  • Keep  : 13
  • Delete  : 6
  • Merge  : 19
  • Keep Watford Gap : 11

I realize the voting has been a bit contentious. If someone feels I've placed their votes in an inappropriate category, speak up and say so. Two voters (noted with an asterisk in the table below) had votes that were unclear regarding their opinions on articles other than Watford.


We're eight days into this VfD now, and it is likely this will close soon. While we have consensus (keep Watford, merge others), it's not a glaringly clear consensus:

  • 35% want to delete Watford, 65% keep ; if we include in this the 'keep' votes as also meaning keep Watford, then it's 20% delete Watford, 80% keep which is quite clear.
  • 41% for keeping all of them, 59% for merging).

The most likely candidate for a merge destination is Motorway service area (UK) (which is a stub itself).


If anyone wants to clarify their vote further, please do so now. If anyone who has not voted wishes to speak their minds, please do so as it may help gain further consensus.


Tabular voting status (note that voting twice in a sense, with "keep/merge", "delete/merge", etc. has happened):

Abstain Keep Delete Merge Keep Watford
Zzyzx11 Andy Mabbett bainer Dave63 Shoaler
Proto Porturology Starblind Karada
Naturenet Starblind Durin David/Dbiv
CalJW Carnildo BD2412 Joolz
Theo Gwalla Shoaler Francs2000
Simon Cursitor JamesBurns RHaworth Erath
Kappa Carnildo Durin
Duncharris Karada Leonig Mig
Falcon David/Dbiv P Ingerson (*)
SPUI carmeld1 Calton
James F. Joolz Trilobite (*)
Jarlaxle Radiant!
OpenToppedBus Jareth
Francs2000
SPUI
Erath
Leonig Mig
Calton
Trilobite

--Durin 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
In what way is a 13:19 split a consensus? Andy Mabbett 8 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. It is up to the administrator who closes this VfD to determine whether such concensus exists. In my opinion, there's somewhat weak concensus with 59% in favor of merging the articles. If I were an administrator, I would most likely close this VfD and indicate the contents of the articles (excepting Watford) should be merged into Motorway service area (UK). You are welcome to disagree with me. However, I'm not the person who will be closing this VfD. I'm simply trying to clarify the situation as it stands now, in a complex situation. --Durin 8 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 17:23 (UTC)

[edit] People of Punjab

Short and incomprehensible text. We already have an article on Punjab. Recommend for deletion. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 29 June 2005 13:31 (UTC)

  • Delete or speedy as nonsense. Article excerpt: "where ever you find Potato, there must be a Punjabi" Huh? I guess that means there's one hiding in my pantry, then. After deletion, possibly redirect to Punjab. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 15:31 (UTC)
  • Redirect: to Punjab. --Durin 29 June 2005 15:52 (UTC)
  • Speedy as nonsense. 23skidoo 29 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)
  • Delete~~~~ 29 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  • Potato, or if not a candidate for potatoing, delete. I suppose someone will suggest a redirect to potato; I oppose that in advance. -Splash June 29, 2005 22:17 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:23 (UTC)
  • Speedy nonsense and potato molestation. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:23 (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 19:03 (UTC)

[edit] Fragzunlimited

Questioning notability and factual accuracy. The page was created by a vandal who is adding bad jokes to other articles. According to google, 227 pages mention the site. Joe D (t) 29 June 2005 13:37 (UTC)

  • Delete--Scimitar 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  • Delete - wikipedia is not a web directory. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)
  • Delete website promotion. --Etacar11 29 June 2005 23:36 (UTC)
  • Delete --RobertG ♬ talk 30 June 2005 09:24 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Pravious

Was marked for speedy deletion for being "a hoax character" but I decided to post it here so you Star Wars fans out there can help me verify if this is really a hoax. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 29 June 2005 13:44 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to List of minor Sith characters. --bainer (talk) 29 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)
  • Only three Google hits; of these, two are from Spanish Wikipedia; the last one is a Spanish Star Wars forum. It seems to me that it is some kind of a quiz, and "Darth Pravious" is somebody's (incorrect?) answer. (Correct me if I am wrong; I cannot speak Spanish.) Merge if somebody verifies the information; otherwise, delete. - Mike Rosoft 29 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable fan fiction. Nufy8 29 June 2005 16:11 (UTC)
  • Delete. My points stand- by anonymous, poorly written, unsourced, conflicting with what is known of Plagueis and the Sith prior to Palpatine, no real Google hits etc etc... --maru 29 June 2005 16:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons stated above. -- Jason Palpatine 29 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)
  • Delete. This kind of thing is getting annoying. Also, the whole "Plagueis creating Anakin" thing is just a fan theory.--Kross June 29, 2005 17:07 (UTC)
  • Darth Letious. nnff. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
Could you give us the phoentics for your reasoning? I'm struggling to make up my mind, and don't know how to pronounce what you said. -Splash June 29, 2005 22:20 (UTC)
Comment. He voted Delete and nnff means non-notable (not not-notable) fanfiction.--Kross June 29, 2005 22:32 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation - I'll avoid using super-abbreviations in the future. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 23:14 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)
  • Delete; not even ff, this is a theory/guess/hoax. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:28 (UTC)
  • Delete --Wetman 30 June 2005 18:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. BD2412 took my joke. — Phil Welch 1 July 2005 00:48 (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 speedy deleted --cesarb 29 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

[edit] Information and Communications University

The article consists of just a single link. Shoaler 29 June 2005 14:24 (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 failed to reach consensus. (by Francs2000 2005-07-12 01:03:53)

[edit] Parrot harness

I first thought this was a bad joke but it seems to be a real thing. Not notable either way. KFP 29 June 2005 14:36 (UTC)

  • Comment. Deleted at 2005-06-19 12:55:44 Petaholmes deleted "Parrot harness" (7 june copyvio). This is a completely different version. (I nominated the other for copyvio diff from WP:CP)--Nabla 2005-06-29 16:12:16 (UTC)
  • Merge with Parrot? Or delete would be cool too. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)
I think this would be out of place in the main parrot article, but for some reason we have an article called how to care for a pet cockatoo. Perhaps this could be merged there. --KFP 30 June 2005 15:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be worth a mention in a pet care article (which we don't seem to have). .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:31 (UTC)
    • As the creator of that article on Parrot Harness, I rather not vote.
    • That article was first slated for deletion because of copyviolation. Since I was the author of that article that it was supposed to violate, I find it very strange that I was accused of plagiarising myself.
    • Harness for parrots is a very serious subject in the parrot world. Are the voters, one way or other, conversant with either parrots or harness? if not, are they qualified to decide it that should be merged or deleted? On what basis have people decided that "it is not notable either way'?
    • We even have an entry for Worshipful Company of Coachmakers and Coach Harness Makers and another entry for dildo harness which surely cannot be that relevant to the world. Those did not seem to be bad jokes (which I thought they were). Yet something which are of very serious concerns to parrot lovers are now being debated to be thrown out? --shanlung
      • As to the copyvio notice and deletion: all you had to do was to explicitly release it under GFDL on its talk page (something like this: Talk:Tom Campbell Black).
      • Yes, WP is a mess regarding "(something) harness" articles. I found "parrot harness" while trying to figure a way to organise it a little. Mostly because there is no harness article per se (it a disambig pointing to «Horse tack»).
      • Just because there is something worse it is no immediate reason to keep an article (although it is an hint to) some strange keep/delete decisions happen in grey areas...
      • 1 460 Google hits from several different sources make me vote as weak keep. - Nabla 20:14:30, 2005-07-09 (UTC)
    • I am so new to WP that I even have problem in adding to this discussion officially with date and time stamp to authenticate myself. I tried at the beginning to releae it under GFDL. But it is only now with the example of Tom Cambell Black that I think I know how that is done. In a way, I am glad that was not allowed as that meant editing would also be allowed. I would not wish for any editing from people who never have that kind of practical experience on what I have written as I stand by what I said having walked that walk. --shanlung
    • WoW! I did a search for "dildo harness" on Google and found 69,100 hits. So is the number of hits meant Encyclopedia is only a repository of stuff that is desired by many people so that is politically correct? Techniques and information so new that few people heard of it meant those new stuff should be merged, canned and deleted? Perhaps a new defination of encyclopedia should also be made in this encycolopedia so that uninformed people like me be better educated --shanlung
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 7, 2005 21:37 (UTC)

[edit] TELibraybasketball

Delete - Nice local information, if cleaned up, but not notable enough for an article and does include some vanity. Naturenet | Talk 29 June 2005 14:35 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn and not much left after POV/vanity removed. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:32 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 02:50 (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 deleted --cesarb 29 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

[edit] MODF

This articles seems like just an advertisement for a military discussion group. There's no real article; just an external link. Shoaler 29 June 2005 15:11 (UTC)

  • Delete: Currently just an advertisement for the forum. --Durin 29 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete criterion #3, platform for an external link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, marked as such. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 20:59 (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 21:11 (UTC)

[edit] Queenstown Road Medical Practice

Tagged speedy, by Outlanderssc, as not noteworthy-linkspam. Doesn't look as a speedy to me, but sure looks unencyclopedic.--Nabla 2005-06-29 15:58:09 (UTC)

  • Keep. Older, inferior encyclopedias would not have room for it, but this one has. CalJW 29 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)
  • Strong delete what next, an article on every school? Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 16:32 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic topic, and housed in a notable building. Could be merged somewhere. Kappa 29 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication of encyclopedic notability. Closest from the article is "It has been on Queenstown Road for over 90 years." Well now! Otherwise it would hardly retain that name, would it? If a supply closet were housed in that same barely-near-the-edge-of-notability building, would that make it keep-worthy, or would it need some indication of independent notability beyond that of thousands of other supply closets? Barno 29 June 2005 20:35 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Wikipedia is not a directory of doctors' offices. carmeld1 30 June 2005 02:38 (UTC)
  • Delete - first schools, then teachers and now medical practices - Skysmith 30 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Structure itself might be an article, but not the practice. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with CalJW, older paper encyclopedias may not have room for this, but an online electronic encyclopedia possibly does. Wikipedia is online, theoretically the storage space is limitless, so what's wrong with having an article on every school, every teacher, every medical practice... an article on every little thing in the world!
(previous vote by user:84.43.95.196.) --Nabla 2005-07-05 17:11:03 (UTC)
  • Delete; Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Specifically, Wikipedia is not a directory. There are millions of businesses in the world. To have entries for all of them, even just medical offices, is no different than being a directory. What makes this office encyclopedic? That it is in a potentially interesting building is not enough; the building could have an article noting the current tenants, and that's where this information should be merged if such an article exists. Another potential merge location is an article on Wandsworth Primary Care Trust, which does not exist. Failing the existence of a merge location for this article, this medical office has no place here unless there is something encyclopedic about this office that has so far not come to light. --Durin 7 July 2005 21:01 (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 Speedy delete by Infrogmation as junior high vanity insult. --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 11:32 (UTC)

[edit] Jihae lee

Vanity, or girlfriendcruft. smoddy 29 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable Shoaler 29 June 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  • A very obvious Delete jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 16:26 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Personal slam/attack against Jihae.--GrandCru 29 June 2005 18:02 (UTC)
  • NN junior high aquaintancecruft, Speedy deleted for the obvious vanity insults. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:46 (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 Redirect. --Durin 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

[edit] Three Dead Trolls In a Baggie

  • Don't look very notable. Prove me wrong and I'll vote keep; otherwise delete. -- Zantastik talk 04:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (see below): I don't know that WP:MUSIC really applies here, as they are not exactly a musical group (but not exactly not a musical group either). They've been in existence for 19 years now though. Here's one link of interest: [7]. According to that, they've released three albums. I don't know what label though. Three albums, depending on label, exceeds WP:MUSIC's #3. Comedy is their forte, not music. >8,000 hits on Google. Seems notable enough to me. --Durin 21:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, warranted by 8,350 Google hits. - ulayiti 21:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Was not properly listed on the VfD log. Adding to today's log to correct ommission. --Durin 29 June 2005 16:09 (UTC)
    • Nor did it have the correct headline. Now fixed. smoddy 29 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)
  • Well-known in Canadian comedy circles, albeit not quite as recognized as the Arrogant Worms. Keep, even though this is a horrendous article. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 17:43 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. Definitely should be kept, notable comedy/novelty-music group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 29, 2005 18:19 (UTC)
  • Whoops! Good catch Scimitar. Redirect as a above. --Durin 29 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
  • Redirect. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:21 (UTC)
  • Absolutely well-known. Redirect. DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  • I can't believe no one knows about Three Dead Trolls! Redirect. 23skidoo 29 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Scimitar. Capitalistroadster 30 June 2005 01:34 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Scimitar. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:25 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Scimitar. DoubleBlue (Talk) 30 June 2005 06:31 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:37 (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 8, 2005 11:33 (UTC)

[edit] Gadgy

Dicdef. Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 16:29 (UTC)

  • Delete. orphan dicdef -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  • Delete: dicdef. --Durin 7 July 2005 21:03 (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 8, 2005 11:36 (UTC)

[edit] Charismatic preaching

This page reads like a sort of theological essay. It is also very POV. Delete Dr Gangrene 29 June 2005 16:53 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, it's hideously POV but could conceivably be completely rewritten and still be useful. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:46 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This topic has little or no potential for real information. It could be rewritten ten times and still read like a propaganda leaflet (if the rewrite didn't end up being blank). Falcon June 29, 2005 22:11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Entirely POV. No realistic chance it will ever be otherwise. carmeld1 30 June 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • Delete POV essay. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this topic could have an encyclopedic article, in its current form it is so riddled by POV and essay that salvage would be nigh impossible. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:43 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it does read a lot like a sermon, or religious book, given the quality of the content, I think it has a place here. I'll make some edits today to make it less POV. Gbeeker 30 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)
    • I added the disclaimer at the top of the page. Gbeeker 1 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Wikipedia is not for guides to get closer to God. This article cannot be made NPOV. All possible NPOV elements are in Charismatic. If there are good elements in this article, they can be copied there. — 131.230.133.185 6 July 2005 20:23 (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 8, 2005 11:39 (UTC)

[edit] List of mutually exclusive song lists

Not encyclopedic, not useful. Somewhat self referential, as it is about the qualities of certain Wikipedia lists in particular. After seeing this page and List of songs that reference bosoms, I am beginning to wonder if the permissive standards for inclusion of articles at Category:Lists of songs is making it a breeding ground for pranks. --Tabor 29 June 2005 16:57 (UTC)

  • Delete drini ☎ 29 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might as well have "list of self-referential lists". -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • These are not "pranks". We've been in this situation before. All editors are encouraged to please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton#IMPORTANT_development and to help avoid events taking the course that they took last time. Uncle G June 29, 2005 19:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic, WP self-reference. An editor's autism or Asperger's syndrome is irrelevant to VfD voting, although I agree that the earlier exchange is a good reminder for voters to discuss the topic and not the editor or nominator. Whether someone is using WP to illustrate a point or goofing around or expressing some unusual patterns of connection-making, the resulting article needs to give factual verifiable non-trivial information about the real world, or it will get deleted. Barno 29 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)
    • It is relevant, because the same "these are all by the same editor, I see" murmurings and comments about vandalism and "pranks" are beginning in several VFD discussions, in the pattern that occurred last time. Last time, this escalated and eventually culminated in the RFC that you see above. I strongly encourage editors to read the RFC and to not repeat the events of last time. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:43 (UTC)
      • No offense intended to the creator of this article, Uncle G, which I do not doubt was a good-faith effort to contribute. But we must not open this door to those who would use such an article as a pretext to achieve less savory ambitions. -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 23:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. What about List of lists not listed anywhere ? ~~~~ 29 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyc list.-Splash June 29, 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • No vote. This list was made for people to enjoy reading, it was not a troll intention. --SuperDude 29 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
    • I hope that other editors understand that, SuperDude115, and I hope that you understand that other editors view this list as being unsuitable for an encyclopaedia for the reasons that they are giving here. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:43 (UTC)
  • Sadly, I must vote delete as well. This certainly is not an attempt at trolling. It is an interesting attempt at out-of-the-box thinking. I just don't know how useful this would be as a reference. I'm not even sure what it means. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:20 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonencyclo. I don't know how Uncle G can claim with such certainty that this is not a prank---unless he can somehow intuit the intentions of the author in a way that others are not able. Making an absurd and trivial list article is prankish behavior in my book. carmeld1 30 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)
    • Based on my interactions with SamuraiClinton/SuperDude (I brought the RFC against him), I can assure you that this is not a prank, but, as Lucky says, an example of "out-of-the-box thinking." SuperDude is an eager and enthusiastic contributor, but just has a radically different idea of what makes an article encyclopedic. Could he be just another troll pretending to be autistic? Sure, but I find that highly unlikely, and there's always the need to assume good faith. I will also have to vote to Delete this one. Barno said what I was going to say better than I was going to say it. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 03:15 (UTC)
    • I won't reiterate what Android79 said, but will reiterate my strong encouragement not to go down the path that we went down before, as levying accusations of "prankish behaviour" does. Let's try to do this differently the second time around. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:43 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete useless and unmaintainable list (as are the entries on it). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 30 June 2005 06:34 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant listing drawing irrelevant connections - Skysmith 30 June 2005 08:32 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although it's impossible for the same song to end up in both lists, they have no other relation to each other. I doubt that alone makes them "mutually exclusive". Difficult to maintain and unencyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 30 June 2005 10:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting list and thinking, but not something for an encylopedia. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete by MacGyverMagic as fan-created character. --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

[edit] Twin'el Secura

Fan created character. No hits on Google. Kross June 29, 2005 17:01 (UTC)

  • Moving to Speedy as nonsense. r3m0t talk June 29, 2005 17:04 (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 Speedy delete by Duncharris as patent nonsense. --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 14:33 (UTC)

[edit] Nick ginsberg

It burns... Vanity at its very worst. smoddy 29 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted - nonsense Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 17:37 (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 8, 2005 18:05 (UTC)

[edit] SERE

Advertisement copied directly from website. NymphadoraTonks 29 June 2005 17:46 (UTC)

  • Delete. Besides being an advert, its also a copyright vio.--Kross June 29, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete Info come right off web page
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 community concensus is clearly against the retention of this as an independent article. The decision is about split, however, between "merge back" and "straight delete". Noting that 1) this content is already present in the history of the parent article and 2) that it has no significant independent edit history, I am going to make the administrative call that this is a "delete" decision. GFDL attribution is preserved in the main article's edit history. Whether or not this content survives as a section of the main article is an appropriate discussion for that article's Talk page and is outside the scope of this VfD decision. Rossami (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pensacola Christian College Demerit System

The material is not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 29 June 2005 17:55 (UTC)

  • Merge back to Pensacola Christian College, where it was before. Another editor caught me sleeping and split it off into its own article. Sorry, we're just in the middle of an edit war over there. At any rate, no PCCcruft deserves its own article; I think it should all just be merged back. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 19:20 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Idont Havaname. This is one of several articles that have been created that should be merged back. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 19:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe put summary of rules on Pensacola Christian College, like before edit. Other articles could also be deleted. Eriknikel 29 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • Keep, Some editors feel that it is better to put this gob of information on the main page. There are pages of information about this topic that could be added and this unclutters the main page by leaving a clean and obvious link to it.
It needs to stay here instead of on the main page where it is vandalized every thirty minutes by partisan editors. Otherwise the main page is a total waste of time. If you don't believe me, check the history of the parent page and you will see what is going on.
Some of the previous voters are obviously biased against the college and that isn't conducive to a fair entry. The edit war is a result of random users showing up and vandalizing the page with tons of POV information that would be better served to not be in the main entry.Shawn fard
  • Delete as per Eriknikel. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)
  • Merge back. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:46 (UTC)
  • Merge per Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 19:20 (UTC) Peter Grey 30 June 2005 14:02 (UTC)
  • Merge back where it belongs, nn as its own article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't agree that pages of encyclopedic information could be added about this topic (a disciplinary policy at a private college). This material belongs in a handbook, not an encyclopedia. Even if the policy were notable by being influential, unusual or barbaric, it would still only merit a mention on the main PCC page, not a comprehensive republication as a separate article. Dystopos 1 July 2005 16:21 (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 8, 2005 18:30 (UTC)

[edit] Architects kenya

Blatant advertising. -- RHaworth 2005 June 29 17:55 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising. Dr Gangrene 29 June 2005 19:43 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious orphan advertising. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  • Delete bad advertising/promotion. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:29 (UTC)
  • Delete spam. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:55 (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 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.

I count 3 clear "delete" votes to 2 "keep" votes.

Doing my own investigation, I can find little evidence of the company other than their own website and a few product reviews. I was unable to verify their claims to be a "leading" anything. They do not release financial statements, etc. I did find evidence that they are part of the Canopy Group which appears to be a venture capital company. According to SEC filings, the venture capital firm as a whole is worth about $5 million. We don't have firm guidelines for the line where companies should be included or not but based on the evidence available, I think that Maxstream currently falls well below it. I'll add my own "delete" vote to the list.

That brings the decision to 4 to 2 which just barely qualifies for deletion. This decision should not be seen as precedent against re-creation of the article if/when it goes public or otherwise becomes more notable than the current evidence suggests. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maxstream

It appears that this page is just advertising. JJLeahy 29 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphan advertising. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs a bit of a rewrite and NPOVing, but company is notable in wireless. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:58 (UTC)
  • Keep, the promotion has been removed -- KJensen
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haunt

Meaningless. Toytoy June 29, 2005 18:31 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. Either delete it or rewrite it. -- Toytoy June 29, 2005 18:26 (UTC)
  • Looks to be describing a character in some game, though it isn't clear. Either rewrite and move to "Haunt (name of game)" if there's any indication it is notable, or just delete if not. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:38 (UTC)
  • Merge if game it belongs in can be found, otherwise delete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:04 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing from the article that it is from Thief (computer game), but the later article doesn't even mention anything about "Haunt"s nor link to "Haunt", so if so it seems a minor part. I'll put a note in Talk:Thief (computer game). If no one who actually knows about this finds it of enough note to incorporate or rewrite, I think we'd be safe in deleting the vauge current stub. -- Infrogmation June 30, 2005 17:11 (UTC)
    • While there are "haunts" in Thief (computer game), they're nothing like the ones described in the article. Also, a Google search for '"red hoods" haunts' yields abotu 13 results, not one of them seemingly related to the article subject. So, delete. --Goblin ›talk 1 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its definately about the Haunts in the Thief series, but a lot of it appears to be fanciful speculation. That said, I've only played through the first game, and about half-way through the second, so far. Even then, it's not really worth making an article on them, or merging the info into the main article.--DooMDrat June 30, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are undead enemies called Hammer Haunts in Thief, but the description here has no factual basis in the game at all. --Malathion 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article called: ghost. Current content reads like a description of some roleplaying game monster that could as well be homemade. However, in my opinion "haunt" is a valid search term as a synonym for "ghost". The Merciful 30 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have played through the whole Thief series, and I can say for certain that this article does not accurately describe the Haunts from the games. There is no order of the Red Hoods in Thief, and the stuff about a legend is pure bunk. Besides, even if the article were accurate, they would hardly qualify for an article all to themselves. — EagleOne\Talk July 1, 2005 01:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. As others have stated here, although the article claims at the end that it is a description of the Haunts from the Thief series, it is factually inaccurate (conflicts with what the official game literature tells) and not worthy of merging with the game article. --TouchGnome July 2, 2005 20:11 (UTC)
  • Delete It might vaguely be ased on the Thief computer game series, but the article doesn't make that clear, and if that's the source of the article, it's a highly inaccurate depiction. If it isn't, then it's total nonsense and just somebodys rambling about a monster they made up. In either case, it doesn't belong here. --Wingsandsword 2 July 2005 21:26 (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 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 --cesarb 8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Crunch and the Bus Stop Vandals

Tagged as patent nonsense, but quite understandable. Have no clue what to do with it, looks like vanity. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) June 29, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sold over 100 albums, eh? Dancing cats can sell more than that. --Yamla June 29, 2005 19:22 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but dancing cats are notable. Even the article admits that this lot are little-known. Delete Sonic Mew June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
  • Delete nnanity. We had another Cap'n Crunch VfD a little while back. I don't remember what it was...is there a link? -Splash June 29, 2005 22:27 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, DEFUNCT band vanity. It's even worse. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:29 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:05 (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 Infrogmation as obvious joke/prank. --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 18:39 (UTC)

[edit] Spongebob City

  • Delete - Completely bogus, need I say more? Unsigned nomination by 65.164.19.236
  • Delete lol Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. 198 Google hits for "Spongebob City", most of which are Spongebob's City! Sonic Mew June 29, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted, an obvious joke/prank. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:23 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampirefreaks

Is this notable? Delete if not Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

  • Delete. Falcon June 29, 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd say edit ruthlessly, merge into something about vamp/goth culture and keep, but I'm not going to do that. The trial sounds notable, but not the website. Nateji77 30 June 2005 13:37 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be wrapper for a news story. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:07 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jareth, plus news story seems to have lifted word for word from somewhere, copyvio-like. carmeld1 2 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable due to involvement in a mistrial relating to a murder. --Sanguinus 5 July 2005 20:51 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

P.S. (October 2007) This article was recreated in 2006 as VampireFreaks.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.38.190 (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thriftbooks

Tagged as speedy for linkspam, but not all bookstores have good webpresence. Alexa nearly 250,000. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) June 29, 2005 18:46 (UTC)

  • keep Andycjp ３０th June 2005 AD
  • Keep Thriftbooks is an innovatave company that will continue to make occasional national headlines as they grow larger. --Measure June 30, 2005 22:59 (UTC)
  • I looked them up on Alexa.com and found that their traffic rank 3 month change is +1,884,325. I don't know enough about them to say one way or another. Wall Street Journal unsigned comment by Franky1007 (restored by .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:21 (UTC))
  • Recent article written on Thrift Books by The Wall Street Journal

Start Up Journal unsigned comment by 216.254.11.144

  • Delete unless more info on notability. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:21 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I just removed several paragraphs that were taken from thriftbooks' website: [8] - FreplySpang (talk) 30 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Comment -- These paragraphs were added by permission of Thriftbooks. unsigned edit by LoneWriter (talk · contribs)
    • Then provide the contact point name and the date such was given. A comment from a Wikipedia editor is insufficient to clear copyright problems inherent in copying text from an external website to this one. --Durin 7 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
      • Thriftbooks, LLC Headquarters (206) 903-1175 Owners can be found at this number. unsigned edit by 216.254.11.144 (talk · contribs)
        • Comment: This is still insufficient. WHO was spoken to? What date this occur? What did they state? I too can look up their headquarters number. It does not mean anything. Copyright violations are a serious matter; Wikipedia could get into some very hot water for violating copyrights. This could ultimately threaten the project. Unsigned edits, affirmations without source, etc., do not lend any comfort that the copyrighted text has been released into the public domain. --Durin 8 July 2005 13:56 (UTC)
      • Comment:I am Daryl Butcher, and I appove of this message. 7/8/2005. I can be reached at the number above. unsigned edit by 216.254.11.144 (talk · contribs)
        • Comment Please sign your edits. I've contacted Thriftbooks to confirm. Awaiting response. --Durin 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
        • Followup: I've been in contact with Daryl Butcher from this company and he has indicated his acceptance of releasing the concerned text into the public domain. I was left with the impression that they intend to place a notice on the page in question [9] indicating the text on that page is in the public domain. --Durin 21:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- I have purchased several books from this company, and believe they will be around for a long time. --LoneWriter 1 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 8, 2005 14:05 (UTC)

[edit] Mooshy

Very questionable dicdef created by IP whose other edits are vandalism. --Tabor 29 June 2005 18:48 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a neologism definition repository. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:21 (UTC)
  • It's an adjective. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this isn't its definition. No obvious adjective→noun redirects are available. Delete. Uncle G June 29, 2005 20:32 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable dicdef. JamesBurns
  • Delete neologic dicdef. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, nor a dicitonary period Bananarchy.
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 8, 2005 14:03 (UTC)

[edit] Alloy/chrome

I don't even know what this is supposed to be. Seems to be both a personal review and self promotion. delete Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 18:58 (UTC)

  • The title appears to have been due to a bad redlink in Ford Duratec engine. First-person contributions from an anonymous user are to all intents and purposes unverifiable, even if they aren't contrary to the NPOV. Nothing to merge. Erroneous title. I've replaced the bad link. Delete. Uncle G June 29, 2005 20:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:00 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedily if possible. -- Karada 29 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:31 (UTC)
  • Delete opinion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:22 (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 --cesarb 8 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)

[edit] Casagrande

Vanity. Appears to be one of the many trial lawyers based in Virginia. A google search finds he joined his firm as an associate in 2002. No other indications of notability. --Allen3 talk June 29, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn. And this isn't even the Casagrande that we have two wikilinks for. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:19 (UTC)
  • Delete nn lawyer vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:38 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:32 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not assert notablitity. Missed bonus points by not including a link to Casa Grande  :) Wikibofh 30 June 2005 19:12 (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 05:31 (UTC)

[edit] South Red River Township, Minnesota

Vanity page, only 23 inhabitants, excessively silly. We should delete the page. Yamla June 29, 2005 19:15 (UTC)

I clearly was mistaken in nominating this for deletion. Can I withdraw my nomination? --Yamla June 30, 2005 18:38 (UTC)
  • Keep. Small towns are still notable. Unfortunately, this page seems to have been created by the wikipedia citybot and never updated. Almafeta 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was decided a while back to keep these generated articles. Many have been expanded with interesting additions, but some like this haven't... but if anyone ever has need of info on South Red River Township, or someone from there becomes famous, hey, Wikipedia is ready. -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:17 (UTC)
  • Keep Small yes, but not silly. There are far more useless articles floating around that we keep for good reason. Gblaz June 29, 2005 20:22 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, per WP policy on municipalities. Currently a 'bot stub, 8 households, 23 people, and no indication of any special notability, but real municipalities with governments get kept. Barno 29 June 2005 20:52 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Rambot articles have been hashed over before. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)
  • Keep as per precedent. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)
  • Keep These city articles may oneday fulfill a purpose. They may be usefull to researchers and geographers. This is all coming off the top of my head lol. Jaberwocky6669 June 29, 2005 21:25 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a side note, I wish the city bot had flagged all of these as stubs. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. Granted, a town of population 23 is not as interesting as a town of population 0 or town of population 1, but if it is a census designated place, and it is, then I strongly support its inclusion. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 22:50 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places with communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 30 June 2005 01:45 (UTC)
  • Keep all real townships. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:38 (UTC)
  • Keep as per precendent. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:25 (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 no consensus. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

[edit] TESO

Non-notable hacker group that only originated in 2000. Bratschetalk 5 pillars June 29, 2005 19:22 (UTC)

My vote is delete, in case I didn't make that clear. Bratschetalk 5 pillars July 3, 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Keep. I disagree. Teso was significant. They didn't make perfect media stunts like others in the hacker groups category, but just ask anyone who monitored BUGTRAQ back then if they remember the group. They had impact because of their releases. Also they were started in 1998, not 2000 as you wrongly claim. They are responsible for discovering and releasing many exploits and tools that are still widely in use, and/or were revolutionary. They also made the media a few times, despite not trying to, and are still quite famous for repeatedly finding and/or exploiting bugs in openbsd.

The original article was flagged for deletion before i could add more references. I've added some now. Maybe the article requires restructuring, or should be marked as a stub while i'm still working on it. If you need more references to evaluate TESO's significance, please google for "teso security" and "team teso".

Also i'd like to note that TESO had been a dangling link from List_of_hacker_and_cracker_groups as Team Teso before i renamed it and started writing the article. However, I'm not sure of List_of_hacker_and_cracker_groups's significance, as categories should take care of automatic listing. --Enki 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

    • User has 12 prior edits. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)
  • Delete ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Likely to be completely irrelevent in ten years, if it isn't already.--Scimitar 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously it exists, and is not an advert, and I see potential for some meaningful content. Stub for now. Falcon June 29, 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  • Keep. The group has over 3,000 Google hits from a wide variety of sources. As for the comment that Enki has only 12 edits, he plainly states that he is the author of the article so this is not the case of a sock puppet coming on. Even a newbie ought to be able to defend his own article, particularly in a case like this when someone slaps a vfd on the article within two minutes of the time it was started. DS1953 29 June 2005 22:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable hacking group. Capitalistroadster 30 June 2005 01:55 (UTC)
  • Keep and continue expanding. I can agree with Enki; no high profile stunts but still notable due to tools/continuing use. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:29 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. Kaibabsquirrel 1 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
  • Keep, not vanity, and notability is not a deletion criterion, still. James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable (a perfectly fine deletion criterion). Most of the claims in the article are unsourced and must either be verified or removed if the article is kept. Quale 3 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 appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Two Stooges

Orphan likely vanity on a project to write scripts, no indication that anything has actually been produced from the scripts. The counter on the freewebs.com website indicated I was the 12th vistor. No evidence of notability. Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

  • Delete this article and the episode listed below.--Scimitar 29 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly not-notable - founded this month. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful into a trivia item at The Three Stooges since this is obviously inspired by them. Otherwise doesn't quite make the notability bar yet. 23skidoo 29 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Keep Found 811,000 Google hits. If it wasn't for their site I would delete it. MLSfan0012
    • Comment: The vast majority (all the top I've seen) of Google hits have no relevence I can determine to this particular group calling themselves "The Two Stooges". -- Infrogmation June 30, 2005 04:21 (UTC)
  • Cleanup or Merge...this article doesn't seem like vanity at all, but it should be put at a higher standard of quality. RSLRule44
  • Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  • Keep then Merge I have t
  • Delete nn. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:31 (UTC)
  • delete nn Ashibaka (tock) 30 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)
  • Keep, the site says its only a couple of days old, even though I was the 23rd visitor. May be a popular scriptwork. GeneralTY39
    • Note: Above vote actually by anon 64.12.116.203. No doubt this VFD discussion is getting more hits for the website than they've gotten from any other source. -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 06:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo/advert/non-notable. The article says that the group formed in June 2005. Quale 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
  • Keep. Evidence that this exsists due to a hyperlink to it's [www.freewebs.com/thetwostooges site]. So sorry Wikipedia, I say this is a keeper. MlsFREAK!777
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 17:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In Need of Food...(and money!)

Episode of "The Two Stooges" project listed above. No evidence of notability that I can find. Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:12 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

[edit] Appetizers And Inc

Appears to be simply an advertisement. Google search pulls up their own website and a couple of other mentions, but I feel notablility is a real question Gblaz June 29, 2005 20:20 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete if possible as blatant ad and possible copyvio. Let's not feed these trolls longer than necessary. - Lucky 6.9 29 June 2005 20:37 (UTC)
  • It's a copy of the copyrighted blurb on the company's web site. Use Copyright Judo on such things. Don't burden VFD with the subject unless someone actually writes a rewrite article, which in most Copyright Judo cases doesn't happen. Copyvio. Uncle G June 29, 2005 20:38 (UTC)
  • Good to see you back, lucky. Meelar (talk) June 30, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:34 (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 Denni. --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 13:48 (UTC)

[edit] Sei mutig

Whatever language this is, it doesn't belong on the English Wikipedia. 216.186.51.2 29 June 2005 20:45 (UTC)

  • Delete, orphan non-article in non-English -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  • Rough translation of the entire page from German: "Do it! Write articles, go out in the sun, talk to people! What you do at any moment becomes part of your own story shortly thereafter. It is yours to continue to write it. Save the day."
Given that, I vote speedy delete as patent nonsense. Martg76 29 June 2005 21:51 (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 delete. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew vickery

Not notable DJ Clayworth 29 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable, lowercase last name. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Scimitar 29 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)
  • Delete nnanity. -Splash June 29, 2005 22:30 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn vanity, "I met a famous person" article... but the name of the "infamous John Ciacci" gets only 7 Google hits, and Matthew only gets about 100... --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 22:48 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:40 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:35 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:32 (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 userfy to User:Ilya --cesarb 8 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page/iTemp

This is an old, no longer being edited, obsolete version of the main page. The principal editor Ilya has not been active since March 20. Paul August ☎ June 29, 2005 21:03 (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 19:08 (UTC)

[edit] The Tintin Shop

Shopcruft. Dunc|☺ 29 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

  • Delete. Tintincruft from persistent anon user. tregoweth June 29, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising, crystal ball gazing etc-Splash June 29, 2005 22:30 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:36 (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. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Capozzoli

Vanity. CDC (talk) 29 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)

  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. 2 varsity awards this year is short of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 21:51 (UTC)
    • Note: after I cast this vote, my talk page was vandalized (here's the diff) by an anon purporting to be Christopher Capozzoli. -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity - speedy if possible. No point in userfying it; an anon wrote it. --Idont Havaname 29 June 2005 22:45 (UTC)
  • Delete nn high school vanity. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:36 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. --Briangotts 30 June 2005 19:19 (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 keep pending WikiProject:F1 determination of alias status. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

[edit] Bernd Nacke

Not notable. r3m0t talk June 29, 2005 22:02 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. Kappa 29 June 2005 23:16 (UTC)
  • Keep. David | Talk 29 June 2005 23:22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Formula 1 drivers are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 30 June 2005 09:37 (UTC)
  • Comment. The WikiProject Formula One aims to have an article for everyone who has ever entered a Grand Prix. It is possible that this article should be merged with Guenther Bechem. My vote would be either keep or merge depending on better-informed people resolving that identity issue. --ScottDavis 3 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears that this is an alias of Guenther Bechem - I've done a merge to this effect, but I'm waiting for consensus as to whether this is correct, and if it is, a redirect can be put in place. Alphax τεχ 3 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
Here's a more convincing reference: http://www.f1stats.de/en/drivers/details.php?d=54 Unfortunately it still doesn't answer which is the correct name. --ScottDavis 3 July 2005 10:32 (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 13:03 (UTC)

[edit] TelTel

Vanity (company advertising) Groeck 29 June 2005 22:04 (UTC)

  • Delete ~~~~ 29 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)
  • It's a copy of the copyrighted blurb on the company's web site. Use Copyright Judo on such things. Don't burden VFD with the subject unless someone actually writes a rewrite article, which in most Copyright Judo cases doesn't happen. Copyvio. Uncle G June 29, 2005 23:12 (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 13:30 (UTC)

[edit] American Moderation Party

Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of political parties. Spam - delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 29 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)

  • Delete. Political party with no known candidates. David | Talk 29 June 2005 23:21 (UTC)
  • Delete--"Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "American Moderation Party". Remove unless notability is proven. Meelar (talk) June 30, 2005 00:05 (UTC)
  • Delete, although their platform makes me hope they are successful enough to actually merit an article in the future. -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, promotion, come back if they make something of themselves. --Etacar11 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Delete political promo. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
  • Keep seems objective to me. User:Twistedflatcat 30 June 2005 01:15
  • From the Author:
    • 6/29/05 - As the writer of this article, I am also the founder. I intend to full run based on the principles I have outlined. Unfortunately, I live in Texas, which does not favor minor candidates (nor does any state in this Union). So it is my hope that these principles are adopted nationwide beginning at the local level (which are largely non-partisan) and eventually the national level. Yes, I am only one man, and yes, the system is stacked against me, but there is an article on George Galloway, the MP from the UK, who is also the only office holder of his party. Is there any objective reason why my article cannot remain if I am not overtly promoting my party? I am merely presenting the positions and hoping it sparks some interest. I am not directing them to my website, nor asking for money. I am more than willing to re-write this article if it means it can remain. This is my first submission, and as such, I am not familiar with all the technicalities (although I attempted to read them, which is why I left the webpage off of the original article). Contact me at jj4sad6@yahoo.com if responding.
      • Yes. There are political parties with 1 candidate in Wikipedia. I even saved one from deletion a while back (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pakistan Social Democratic Party). The difference between them and you is the important thing about an encyclopaedia: We are not a primary source. If no-one else has ever written about your political party, then the only source of information is you, and anything about the party is primary source material directly from you. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Party aims, membership, and policies which we only have your word for are not verifiable. We only have your word that your party even exists. Be written about by newspapers. Field candidates at elections. Get officially registered as a political party. Then come back for an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G June 30, 2005 13:16 (UTC)
    • 6/30/05 - Added an infobox, added more background information, linked page to other articles. I'm not sure how famous I can make AMP in 4 more days, but if that's what it takes to save this article, then I'll try it. I'm trying to make it as objective and informational as possible. I am not saying "Vote for me!" or "Send me money!" I have asked my supporters to post here in favor of the party just so you know it's not just me. So far, my other good friend from San Antonio has left a comment. If I am required to collect 500 votes in favor of my party to keep this informational article alive, then again, I'll do it. Once again, this comes down to the fact that I see no difference between my article and one for say the American Nazi Party, who also do not have any candidates in office to my knowledge. The only difference I see is that my party does not have the history backing it up, but it wouldn't being only 2 months old. So again, I ask that if this can be edited, you tell me what you would suggest, and I am happy to do so.
    • As one who has edited George Galloway on occasion I can say that he is an entirely different prospect. He was notable when elected to Parliament in 1987 for the Labour Party, and probably before that as a charity organiser. His party, RESPECT, has a national organisation and obtained significant votes in the June 2004 elections in the UK. He is the only RESPECT MP but they have elected members of local authorities as well. It is therefore fundamentally different to this article which is about a party which has yet to establish notability. David | Talk 30 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)
    • 6/30/05 - I understand the concerns of notability, but I have read the pages concerning the deletion policy and it is a little gray on that matter. My goal is to make this an encyclopedic entry. Several of you have stated it is not and needs to be re-written. Again, I am asking for HOW you would like it to be written so as to prevent the deletion. I have read the pages for the Reform Party, the Green Party, the American Nazi Party, and a few other parties with no candidates in office and I have attempted to base my article on their example. Again, I am not trying to promote myself, just merely attempting to present the information. If re-writting the article is required, I am again asking for how you would like it rewritten. I am new here, and I have attempted to make it as objective as possible. Please help me to make it an acceptable article.
      • Rendering the NPOV is a cleanup/rewrite task. If you can cite sources for information about your party other than your own web site(s), please do, and we can work on an article that convinces editors, with citations of independent sources, that your political party actually exists on the political radar. If you cannot cite sources, then it is not lack of objectivity that you fail on. You've made commendable efforts to be objective. But one important facet of "promotion" is that people come here to write articles about things that no-one else knows about, in an effort to introduce new things into human knowledge by having them in Wikipedia. That's not what Wikipedia is for, no matter how objectively it is done. Uncle G June 30, 2005 13:32 (UTC)
        • Well, I am working on getting some national blogs and websites to write about my party. Would that be sufficient? It is pretty much an impossibility that I can get attention from USA Today or the Washington Post (besides, an anti-Corporation party would be counter productive to their interests).
          • If you get officially registered as a political party, and actually field candidates listed on ballots at elections, then that would be enough for most editors for an article on a political party. (The bar for biographical articles on individual candidates is higher, though, and generally only includes the candidates that win elections.) But that's in the future as yet. This discussion is about now, and as of now that hasn't happened. When and if your party does gain traction, come back with cited sources. Cite independent coverage of your party, and its election fortunes, in newspapers. Cite government web sites listing registered political parties. Cite your election results. And so forth. You should have little to no problem then. The current text will have been deleted. However, it will not be lost. To re-gain access to it, once your party has gained traction, go to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion and present the cited sources as evidence that your party has become encyclopaedia-worthy in the interim and that its article should be undeleted on "new information" grounds. If the article is undeleted, it will save you writing this text over again. Uncle G July 1, 2005 11:28 (UTC)
  • I wish you luck (I grew up in Texas and know how difficult it is for Democrats to get elected there, let alone third-party candidates), but what you've written is not an encyclopedia article. Delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 30 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well written and styled but unfortunately nn. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. I echo what the lister said, but would like to add: "Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of new/unknown political parties." (If you've got ballot access, that's fine by me and you can stay here. Otherwise, good luck getting your party off the ground anyway, but wait on having an article here until the rest of the internet knows who you are. I'm a Libertarian, so I know what it's like to be in a party with little to no publicity from the news media... but then again Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 05:19 (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.
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 - 6 to delete (not including the anon nominator), 5 to keep (weak keep votes are not discounted). -- BD2412 talk July 7, 2005 21:42 (UTC)

[edit] Abby Winters

Advert for porn 193.131.222.67 30 June 2005 00:47 (UTC)

Delete. A Google check shows only references to the website and not much else, so not notable enough even for porn. I already deleted the website link as inappropriate. 23skidoo 30 June 2005 01:12 (UTC)
Keep; Relevant information. ‡ Jarlaxle June 30, 2005 01:15 (UTC)
Keep; Biography of a popular photographer is relevant, so long as it is more than just an ad for her webiste. --mtz206 June 30, 2005 01:34 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability CDC (talk) 30 June 2005 01:49 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Quale 30 June 2005 03:57 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I've heard of her, but haven't looked at her work much. Certainly sounds more notable than all the hundreds of minor porn stars that end up on VfD almost daily. — JIP | Talk 30 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quale. Radiant_>|< June 30, 2005 12:48 (UTC)
  • Delete per 23skidoo and Quale. DS1953 30 June 2005 23:05 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per JIP. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  • Keep, lots of google hits.  Grue  1 July 2005 19:43 (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 15:21 (UTC)

[edit] Vinicultuna

Musical group vanity.--Nabla 2005-06-30 01:24:22 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable band vanity. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:53 (UTC)
  • Delete — This appears to be a poorly-translated essay. It does not appear encyclopedic, even if one could make sense of the content. — RJH 30 June 2005 15:57 (UTC)
  • Delete; not quite patent nonsense but definately walking that line. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 17:41 (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.