Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 3

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. JeremyA (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dashboard Effect

Neologism for lucid dreaming sleep paralysis. I couldn't find any relevant google hits. —Cryptic (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It was doing quite well until the last sentence. However, I can't get any ghits for things like "Dashboard effect" sleep or "dashboard effect" awake, so reckon it's either a 'logism or slang I've not heard of. Either way, do not redirect. -Splash 00:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Amren ^(talk) 00:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Clean up - I've heard of it on a few paranormal phenomena-related TV specials, I believe it was on the History Channel. UniReb 00:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Did they use the term "dashboard effect" for it? --DavidConrad 03:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with sleep paralysis if some reference can be found. Crypticfirefly 01:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Clean up. Its seems notable.

  Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

  • Journalist, could you please indicate in at least some of your "keep, it seems notable" votes what it is about the article being discussed that makes you think it's notable? Or is everything ever written in Wikipedia notable? Zoe 22:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do not redirect unless it can be verified. Is there anything here that isn't already covered by sleep paralysis? --DavidConrad 03:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I believe the author is referring to lucid dreaming. -- Kjkolb 05:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with NO redirect, unless some credible reference suddenly pops up. Even then, no more than a redirect. Joyous (talk) 20:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect, unless verified. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced claims. Possible neologism and original research. Quale 18:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per above Roodog2k (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blame Transfer Protocol

I'M pretty sure this is a joke. I originally put a speedy tag on this, but I'm going to list it here instead, on the very small chance that there actually is something called BTP!--Shanel 00:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and confine to BJAODN. It's not my fault! --WCFrancis 01:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Contrast with IP over Pigeon, an implemented protocol. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 05:08:21, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
• BJAODN, AfD is better than the funny pages anyday. Alf ^melmac 12:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Joke, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN CAERWINE to SHANE1  : WHO  ? Caerwine 00:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I like the article, I think it would be appropriate (if expanded) for an April 1 Internet RFC, like the one on TCP/IP by Carrier pidgeon, but a joke specification, unless it is to give information about the reason for the joke or has some other significance, is not really appropriate to Wikipedia. Paul Robinson 21:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Update: I agree, it belongs in Bad Jokes Paul Robinson 23:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kotl

non-notable. Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanel (talk • contribs) 00:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn forumcruft. Alexa rank is 3,600,000th or so which is very low for a website around since 2001. They say "first" site; I can't find a subsequent more notable one elsewhere. -Splash 00:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've definitely heard of this clan because I think I remember playing with an KOTL clan member on AOE2 years ago, yet they're not notable on a Wiki-level. UniReb 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—not notable

  Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

• Delete - Completely unworthy of a Wiki article. 00:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-An online gaming clan does NOT belong in a self-respecting encyclopedia. --Gpyoung ^talk 16:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Very good article...LOL.
• Keep - Online video games are as much of a sport as football, soccer, or baseball and therefore are noteworthy in any respectable encyclopedia. The article is informative in the respect of historical accuracy of an online sporting team.
• Delete - Unnecessary. Catzrthecoolest 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forumcruft. Nandesuka 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as we are not a web guide. The picture needs to go, too. Joyous (talk) 22:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not exactly familiar with the correct way to go about this, but I just recently found this article, and am ashamed and embarassed by it. I am KOTL_AdMiRaL and I obviously take my online image WAY too seriously). I'm the founder of the clan, and a full-time college student in Virginia. This is not the type of site for gaming clans, and this article should be deleted. How do I go about this? Thanks.
  • Don't worry, given the debate above it will deleted in due course. These debates usually last about 5 days, after which an admin will come along and delete it. -Splash 14:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • yeah...quite a debate going on here.
• My name is LeGenD Sultan and I am offended by this article. Please remove it before I make a wiki arrest on KOTL_AdMiRaL.
• Delete - We've seen the idiotic responses (see LeGeNd Sultan's remark) this article has generated, they're a non-notable clan, its patent nonsense, and also violates "What Wikipedia is Not" policy.--Knucmo2 00:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tythreck

Vanity page JLaTondre 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn. UniReb 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Might even qualify as a speedy. --TM ^(talk) 08:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above Rhyddfrydol 09:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google search on Tythreck is empty. Google search on Neverwinter Nights + Snowmoon OR Neverwinter Nights + Snowlake provides small number of hits. Furthermore, article does not explain significance of Tythreck beside being a module builder for a particular game. Thus, this article is qualified for vanity. --Hurricane111 05:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomaso Mitzek

Possible Hoax. No googles on this name. I put a verify tag on the talkm page yesterday. User:Budgiekiller did further checking (see talk:Thomaso Mitzek) and ran into more unverifiable material. This should either be verified or deleted. RJFJR 00:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as User:RJFJR alludes to, not one element of the entry is verifiable. Budgiekiller 07:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 08:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Rhyddfrydol 09:20, 3 September (UTC)

• Delete. This article World & I gives me strong suspicion on the validity / existance of "Sons of the Crescent". --Hurricane111 06:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore keep moink 07:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R.a.G.e

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based solely on the lack of justification given for its listing here. Use words, please. Bryan 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Non-notable" is a justification; "NN" is an common abbrev. Okay, nom text was ultra-terse, but that's not a reason to keep the article. --A D Monroe III 19:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I consider it to be a reason to vote against the nomination, though. If ComCat were to relist it with proper justification I wouldn't vote against it on that basis. Bryan 05:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, based on the article. --Apostrophe 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• A defunct e-zine which was active only for three years. Not notable, delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this encyclopedia is not made from trees Yuckfoo 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article openly admits to being short lived and having a small following: non-notable, delete. -Splash 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, as a sidebar, the author included this text at the bottom of the article which I feel is very anti-wiki- "This article has not been finished. Any additional information regarding R.a.G.e, including any origional articles are welcomed." Any comments? I have removed it for the time being. --Gpyoung ^talk 16:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have tagged it unreferenced. Not citing sources is not a sufficient cause for deletion; I often vote to delete unreferenced things because I worry they are hoaxes, but here I find no cause to think it's a hoax. Sdedeo 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 19:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An e-zine from 1992 is definitely notable. But this article definitely needs sources. Sdedeo 21:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (see below)
  • Delete, the contention that something is notable because it was on the Internet 13 years ago is specious. Please provide some documentation that its very existence = notability. Zoe 22:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Zoe. Thirteen years ago the internet was small, restricted mainly to official academic and government users and nothing like it is today. For the same reason that early artifacts of print culture are important, e-zines from the early era of the internet are too. I hope this helps. Sdedeo 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So far I've only been able to find one reference from an old BBS called "NATTNAPPRAREN". By the time this zine was being published I had far removed myself from the HP scene, but Sdedeo makes a very convincing argument why this should be kept. History is important and bytes are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Argh. I put the tag "unsourced" on the article, and someone very quickly and helpfully put a link to the first issue of the e-zine. I checked it out, and the release date for rage turns out to be 1995. Furthermore, I was unable to find any later issues, and google (including google USENET) was unable to find anything about "Ruthless Anarchists Getting Even". IMO, 1995 is getting a bit late to be inherently notable. However, my residual affection for the subject matter means I cannot bring myself to vote as I should. Sdedeo 22:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep wikipedia is not paper, we dont have drive space constraints and if we'll keep made up pokemon characters, write 600+ words on a character mention only in passing in a harry potter novel, I see no reason this cant be kept. early h/p/a/v scene mags and such tended to be quite underground and as such wouldnt necessarily be spread all over the internet. 1995 makes this a post BBS cusp zine, may not be all over the net due to lack of spreading? I'm interested enough to want to know more.  ALKIVAR™ 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Whilst I respect your vote, the not-paper thing is costing us $200,000 dollars in fundraising at the moment... -Splash 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No that 200,000$ is mostly going to bandwidth charges... not storage space. We have MORE than enough storage space. hell the EN wiki only takes up like 12 gigs.  ALKIVAR™ 01:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A.D. Monroe III Nandesuka 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting historical article. Crypticfirefly 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hacker history is notable. A single-issue ezine is not. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Roodog2k (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but add the information to list of zines. --Jacqui M Schedler 05:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not provide/establish significance of subject (ie: was it published / mentioned in any notable magazine OR what impact does it have on other ezine OR any ezine derived from R.a.G.e). Historical article is not sufficient unless it provides insight as to why it is interesting. --Hurricane111 05:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Del Gado

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - He's a notable radio personality that I've heard of on multiple media outlets. UniReb 00:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based solely on the lack of justification given for its listing here. Use words, please. Bryan 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:BIO Kappa 12:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as having been responsible for two separate controversies. DS 14:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please seems notable to me Yuckfoo 16:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep all extremely notable assholes Roodog2k (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TCS Victory

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Even though I'm not one for video games anymore, yet this already has a large and possibly notable parent article. UniReb 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, especially considering that the nominator didn't bother to even use words when attempting to justify the nomination (what's "NN, D" supposed to mean?). Also, note that this article's been up for deletion before: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/TCS Victory. There was no consensus at the time. Merging into a "spacecraft of" article is a possibility, perhaps, but there's rather a lot of material in Category:Wing Commander spacecraft so it'd make a pretty big article. Bryan 06:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep per Bryan, and note that "NN, D" is extremely newbie-hostile. Kappa 12:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it has already survived deletion before so why should we do this twice Yuckfoo 16:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep. Wing Commander was a series, which in my mind helps this eke out notability.Nandesuka 02:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was the person who wrote this article as an anonymous user back in October. It was nominated for deletion then and kept (rather, there was a merge result, but merging this and everything else in Category:Wing Commander spacecraft would make a really long article.) The TCS Victory is the most important ship in Wing Commander III. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is nothing but video game cruft. The other articles certainly don't justify it. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totay

NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based solely on the lack of justification given for its listing here. Use words, please. Bryan 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you consider changing your vote, Bryan? It was a pretty obvious AfD. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and suggest Bryan not disrupt wikipedia to make a point (WP:POINT. Sdedeo 21:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If the article were relisted for deletion with an actual justification provided instead of this obfuscated code-lettering, I'd have no objection to that listing. As it stands, however, I consider this listing itself to be disruptive. So I'm voting against the nomination. Seems reasonable to me. Bryan 05:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You're the one acting disruptive, Bryan. / Peter ^Isotalo 07:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef. Read the articles you're voting on and vote according to WP:DEL, please. Quale 07:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as dictdef. Karol 08:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary - delete from Wikipedia Rhyddfrydol 09:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Useless content - does not even state what is it a slang term for. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef slang articles. Wiktionary doesn't take transliterations, so do not transwiki unless someone provides the original Punjabi script. —Cryptic (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WINAD, and what Cryptic points out is important. -Splash 16:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with everything Sdedeo said. Zoe 22:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef. Peter ^Isotalo 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Mahon's Englishcut.com

NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lowly alexa rank [1], unlikely search term. Flowerparty 05:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based solely on the lack of justification given for its listing here. Use words, please. Bryan 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as counteraction to asinine Keep reasons and because it's a nn website.--Pyroclastic 07:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• "The first blog to be written by a Savile Row tailor." Appears to be an attempt to bypass the speedy deletion criteria (an article which does not claim notability). Spam, vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 15:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I have heard of this blog, it is as of yet non-notable. Sdedeo 21:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. JeremyA (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicol paone

NN, D. ComCat 00:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Actually it's a copyvio - [2]. FreplySpang (talk) 00:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based solely on the lack of justification given for its listing here. Use words, please. Bryan 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't legally retain a copyvio for any reason. If you want the article to survive, you can write a non-copyvio on the article's /Temp subpage, otherwise, irrespective of the outcome of this debate, it will be removed. -Splash 16:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It is, however, perfectly valid to vote keep on an article nominated on AfD and subsequently discovered to be a copyvio. AfD is used to determine whether the topic and not the content is valid. The current version is going to be deleted as a copyvio regardless of what the result of this AfD is, but the AfD result may be valid if a new version of the article is created. JYolkowski // talk 22:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's what I wanted to say, only I didn't. In the absence of a new version, though, even an overwhelming 'keep' AfD wouldn't have effect. -Splash 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • What JYolkowski said. Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is an entirely separate process from VfD. Bryan 05:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cypy-and-pasted fragment of text from a website. Delete as copyvio. - Mike Rosoft 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Sdedeo 21:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GameFAQs Legends Board

Looks fairly crufty. Karmafist 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Any useful information is already at GameFAQs message boards. --Apostrophe 01:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above

  Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

• Delete per above Mcfly 02:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one website, one article. There's such a thing as too much information! --TimPope 09:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Dont delete we are a community all our own contained on the a site we have a bunch of history just like there is a separte article for LUE User's only edit. --Apostrophe 14:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Unlike LUE, I doubt anybody's ever heard of this board and it doesn't really have a very interesting or noteworthy history. This article adds nothing. Merge with GameFAQS to salvage anything useful. --Oppolo 15:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete Legends are a rare breed with a unique history that deserves to be saved.

--LosGunD 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)written by 68.78.101.30, user's only edit. Karmafist 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice. Nandesuka 02:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without question. If ZSB got shut down for being stoo specific, so shoudl this one Hbdragon88 05:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dziga Vertov Group

I kept placing speedy on this russian_english/spam nonsense but it kept getting vandalized by anominus users out of the speedy Its still Spam/Nonsense should be speedy and I hope this Dont get vandalized niether Speedy--Aranda56 01:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poche

Non Notable It is a normal beach and i dont really think it should merged with San Clemente California nither cause it is so non-notable and the article also said it wasnt even popular and it had been wating to be merged since July Delete not even merge --Aranda56 01:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, real beach. Alternatively keep waiting to be merged, no hurry. Kappa 09:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to San Clemente, California . Minor natural feature which will benefit from far greater context in the main article. I-Splash 16:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per appropriately-named Splash. Sdedeo 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Poche Beach. Zoe 22:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Booth

Keep. This is not a vanity page; my first film was not self-released, it was distributed through Final Cut Films (a company I happen to own, but nonetheless it is a proper production/distribution company). I own the intellectual copyright to the biography and posted it on IMDb as well as Wikipedia. If you like, I could amend the biography so it's different from the one on IMDb. More information on Final Cut Films' website, [3], and IMDb. Richardbooth

No evidence of notability. Request for evidence of notability had no response except the removal of the potentialvanity template. There are 20,000 Google results but as far as I can tell, none of the first 60 results refer to this person. Joe D (t) 01:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Edited to add: Page was written by Richardbooth (talk · contribs).

• Comment: It looks like someone did at least expand the article after evidence of notability was requested. Is listing of the film in IMDb enough? (I'm unsure of the standard of notability for writers of films.) Crypticfirefly 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity entry on a filmmaker with one self-released film.--Calton | Talk 04:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment maybe this could be userfied? User:Richardbooth obviously isn't shy about revealing his identity and as it stands his user page is blank. However, one problem with the article is that currently the bulk of its content is a copy and paste from his IMDb bio. --TM ^(talk) 08:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity about a self-released film. If the author doesn't volunteer to have it userfied, then that's tough. -Splash 16:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a copy of his bio on imdb, both of which were probably submitted by the same person, but imdb claims copyright on everything on their pages, so we can't have it here. I have listed it on copyright problems as appropriate. Zoe 22:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio nn vanity---CH (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. All delete votes were hedged somewhat on the understanding of non-notability, and Hurricane111's excellent research establishes that the subject is marginably notable. If there is a dispute on this it should be the subject of AfD on the article resulting from this discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Francys Johnson

possible vanity - perhaps should be userfied. --WCFrancis 01:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not sure he's notable; delete unless more notability is provided/clarified. Nowhere to userfy to, as the only contributor is an anon. Meelar (talk) 01:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also, there is no assertion of notability here (stating a profession doesn't count), so this is an A7 speedy. His page at the Uni [4] is blank, so he almost certainly fails the WP:PROF test and would fail the WP:PRIEST test if we had one. -Splash 17:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His website should be here instead. Notability is established by being chair of a conference discussion on National Conference on Black Studies [5]. Also, subject has served in the executive board (as regional director) on NBLSA (National Black Law Student Association) [6]. However, article should be rewritten for NPOV. --Hurricane111 06:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep with a suggestion to merge. -- Joolz 20:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of mayors of New Castle, Indiana

List of Mayors in a town of less than 20,000 people.Delete--Aranda56 02:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. By itself, I'd agree with Aranda56, but it does link in very nicely into the article for the town.Crypticfirefly 05:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Merge list into New Castle, Indiana and delete. Merge and delete is valid for this article as it contains no copyrightable material under U.S. law. It is interesting that mayors of a U.S. city smaller than 20,000 have party affiliations. In my city of 200,000 mayoral races are nominally non-partisan, although in practice individual mayors do often have party affiliations. Quale 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, don't clutter main articles with this type of thing. Kappa 12:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, these mayors influenced the lives of thousands of people, and they were involved in public education.Klonimus 09:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, per Kappa, but no strong objection to merging. At least this list is nicely presented. -Splash 17:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into main article. It is customary on many organization pages (government agencies, etc.) to have a chronological list of leaders. MCB 18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge/delete per Quale. Sdedeo 21:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, mayors of a real place. I would probably draw the line at city council members, but mayors are notable enough. Zoe 22:17, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real place, real mayors. What's the problem? older≠wiser 22:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC) Addendum, considering the size of the artcle, I've no objection to merging this into New Castle, Indiana older≠wiser 03:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above Catzrthecoolest 23:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into New Castle, Indiana and delete. There's plenty of room. If someone wants a list of mayors of New Castle, Indiana, they are not going "List of mayors of New Castle, Indiana" but they might well type "New Castle, Indiana." What is the advantage of separating this list from its context? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Political leaders of political entities (large or small) are notable. UniReb 23:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And they should be in Wikipedia. But why, exactly, shouldn't they be in the article for New Castle? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Don't clutter Wikipedia with this sort of thing. Gamaliel 03:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep User:Nichalp/sg 10:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New Castle, Indiana. List may be interesting to some people. I don't think that this will be a serious cluttering. Deleting the redirect might be acceptable under the GFDL since this kind of list material can hardly be copyrighted, but the redirect is harmless, so no need to delete that either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Why is this even listed on AfD? SchmuckyTheCat 00:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a list about a very specific, very non-notable subject. Some things are simply not needed in an encyclopedia. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete I am beginning to think that I am a deletionist.... Roodog2k (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brigance

Oooo...tricky! Albert Brigance is probably non-notable in terms of an encyclopaedic entry, although it migh be interesting. The website link in this article is to a site selling the 'Brigance System', which makes it vfd advertising. Eddie.willers 02:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up. Looks like a noteworthy enough subject to me. --Oppolo 15:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Albert Brigance. Google seems to indicate that his materials are fairly widely used, although the article desperately needs some good sources. -Splash 17:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nominator; it is non-notable and even if it might be interesting to someone, it's not encyclopedic. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 21:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skyseifera

vanity. WCFrancis 02:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - possibly speedy deletion material. --Hurricane111 05:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - not place for this kind of material on wikipedia Rhyddfrydol 09:27 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete if we can't Speedy Delete. Rubbish. --Oppolo 15:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Croke

A non-notable Australian undergrad who wants to be Prime Minister some day. A borderline speedy candidate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete nn. Brighterorange 03:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the debate thing can be verified [7]. The "I want to be prime minister" is vanity and, at a minimum, should be trashed as crystal ballism. I don't know if the debate thing alone is sufficiently notable. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 05:13:57, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
• delete. Vanity as subject is currently not well known. --Hurricane111 05:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Are you sure this isn't speediable? No claims of notability, vanity. Quale 06:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think is quite speediable, as it certainly makes some verifiable assertions. Whether they are assertions of notability or not is a tough one, so it ought probably to come here. Aaaaanyway. I don't think those assertions qualify him as notable yet: they're all high-schooly things. He might try again in a few years once he's done something truly significant. -Splash 17:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Biased article about a young individual's school-boy achievements. Singopo 19:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete quickly as opinionated vanity. Hall Monitor 18:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Have suggested a redirect to the new article at conclusion of the CV process.-Splash 20:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flaneur

dicdef ♥purplefeltangel 03:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• As this is a competent dictdef somehow submitted to the encyclopedia instead of the dictionary, it's not surprising to find that it's a copyvio. —Cryptic (talk) 03:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Flâneur. The concept deserves an entry beyond a dictdef, so I wrote one last night. --Lockley 00:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funnybef

Does not come close to WP:MUSIC: "they recorded two demo tapes", "the band never was signed to a record deal and did not open for any major musical acts", "there was a lack of professional recognition", "it was college that would ultimately dissolve the band". Delete DavidConrad 03:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Archtypal band vanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Mr Bound 13:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Punk's not dead, but this article should be. -Splash 17:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, it's nice when the article itself proves the subject's lack of notability. Zoe 22:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. Catzrthecoolest 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French tattoo

Yet another non-notable/made up article about a sex act. I blame the internet for all this. 2 google hits, neither relevant. Meelar (talk) 03:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Have heard of this, but did not know whether it was real. (unsigned comment by User:66.234.33.101, article author)
  • Hey there. You might want to take a look at things like WP:V and WP:RS; they're quite informative. Oh, and get an account!-Splash 17:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete weird neologism. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 05:15:52, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
• Delete per my comment to the anon. The first few pages of Google don't provide any evidence of this usage. Owch. -Splash 17:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bubble burning

Vanity game activity. Not encyclopedia material. Verifiability is in question. --WCFrancis 03:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete until such time as it becomes popular and notable. And yet, for some reason I cannot fully understand, I felt compelled to partially wikify it. (Addendum 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC): I also placed a message on the creator's user talk page). --DavidConrad 04:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Nice article, perhaps next time they'll write about something wikipedia can accept. Kappa 12:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly, but it's actually a well structured article, and even fairly encyclopedic in tone! -Splash 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete'. Speedy. Gamaliel 10:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The game was apparently made up while some kids were waiting for a marathon on TV. Deathawk 23:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asquantabism

Being a hoax isn't a valid criterion for "speedy delete", which is why this is here. DS 03:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax, with nonsense. --WCFrancis 03:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

*Don't Delete Has this has been erroneously place in the deletion category? -- SPBrown 08:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC) This vote actually by User:82.195.99.23. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC) *Don't Delete I don't know but it's a very interesting theory --K_Paul 08:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC) This vote actually by User:82.195.99.23. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

this is no hoax man

• Delete , speedy as nonsense if possible, and block User:82.195.99.23 for vote vandalism and pretending to be other users, please, nice admin. Proto t c 10:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

But I don't think this should be deleted - it's still a worthy entry.

This unsigned entry from creator User:82.195.99.23 continues to state he wants article to remain with no verification of the shifting claims in the article. Neither Andrew Peach nor book named in early version were found on Amazon. As for Google: "Your search - Asquantabism - did not match any documents." --WCFrancis 17:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. Unless you provide some evidence that some philosopher actually proposed this theory (as opposed to you just making it up), I am going to maintain that it is a hoax/patent nonsense (which Google is unable to find) and a possible BJAODN candidate. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Peach exists but the word isn't Googlable (or in OED). Possibly a neologism of his but unverifiable. Dlyons493 18:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. MCB 19:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No hits. Nonsense and a hoax. --A D Monroe III 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. -- Curps 04:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

err.(ahem)....just because you don't understand it doesn't make it nonsense.

Yet another unsigned comment from User:82.195.99.23 with no attempt to provide verification. Where is any evidence that this is not something you made up?--WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it's real easy to sign and date your comments/edits. Just type four tildes, "~~~~--", like this: WCFrancis 22:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

test 82.195.99.23 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

ok fine. delete it 82.195.99.23 00:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't give up so easily. I have read about asquantabism before. :-) 195.96.144.45 00:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes but I can't argue cos they are effectively right... I read "Asquantabism for Dogs" and touched upon it briefly as a philo module at Uni, but i can't find it on Amazon nor Google anywhere... 82.195.99.23 03:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 21:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe guillotin

And the hoaxes just keep coming. Again, nicely detailed, and again, not one goddamn shred of evidence, and again, so full of telltale flaws that it's not even funny. DS 03:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's actually a copyvio from [8] but with the name "Francois Roulin" changed to "Joe Guillotin", which is weird because the page it rips off appears to be written by a J. Guillotin. At the bottom of that page it says "© 2003 Guillotine (All rights reserved)". Oh, and on the AfD template it says "do not blank this page", and guess what I just did? So sue me. But at least it gave me the opportunity to google "unusually large and misshapen genitalia". Delete --DavidConrad 04:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ok to blank the article during an AfD if it's a copyvio. -Splash 17:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Splash. It seemed like it should be, but I wasn't sure. --DavidConrad 22:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dheeraj Chand

This person is not notable at all. Nothing links here. He started it as a vanity page. This should be a no-brainer. MrVoluntarist 03:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain – Does he really qualify for an entry in an encyclopedia? I am not sure. Someone closer to Dheeraj Chand’d area of operation may comment. --Bhadani 12:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. A notable person involved in current events would have some independent press out there about them. Bunchofgrapes 03:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Roodog2k (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carl DeSouza

Im not sure if this is A7 but still not notable vanity Strong Delete--Aranda56 04:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete high school guitarists. I don't know if membership in various bands is enough to keep it from a speedy either, and I wouldn't have tried tagging it as one. After all, if the band is notable, then membership in it is a claim to notability. —Cryptic (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't qualify as notable. --Hurricane111 06:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, would have speedied as A7. I mean, weren't we all in bands in high school? MCB 19:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Jpgordon. -Splash 21:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto's Mexican Food

Not notable, Ad ,And the worst type of it a negative ad,Nasty AlsoStrong Delete --Aranda56 04:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Negative Advertisement. --Hurricane111 05:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 21:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incendiary Pig

Delete As far as I can tell, this is a joke article (note the smiley in the comment of the first history entry). The only reference I have been able to find to them is as a unit type in the computer game Rome: Total War. Caerwine 04:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, there really was such a thing. As memory serves, it was used by the Mongols once, at least, along with incendiary cats (sad to say). The Mongols started a siege of a city, and demanded all the pigs and cats from the city. The city folk complied in hopes of getting the Mongols to leave. Instead, the Mongols tarred and set fire to the pigs as described, and tied burning material to the cats' tails. The poor panicked animals ran for home, and the city was burned down. I'd put this all in the article, but I don't have a reference to cite. Let's keep the article and see if someone comes up with something. --A D Monroe III 19:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources provided, in which case keep. Sdedeo 21:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I once worked on a computer system for the Saudi Arabian Ministry of the Interior (their state police). One of the programs involved keeping track of a list of things which the Saudis considered crimes. I noticed a listing for "arson using an animal". I asked one of the Saudis working with us what this meant, and he said that it's a common crime in Saudi Arabia to tie a donkey to a cart, load the cart up with hay, set fire to the hay, and whip the donkey into your neighbor's fields. (Another crime was "whitearm", but I never did get an explanation for what that meant.) Zoe 22:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure there is some off-hand reference to this in some old chronicle, but only when that reference has been found should it be included. In Military history of the Roman Empire, where it belongs. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep Well, it is in a video game [9]. Roodog2k (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Krunq

Likely Hoax only 64 results for Krunq in Google and most are unrelated.Im supriced it went More a month without being at least nominated for deletion. Strong Delete --Aranda56 04:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe a hoax. but certainly a dictdef. Karol 08:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because Crunk, also spelled Krunk, means crazy & drunk. So it is unlikely that an identical word means sober. -- Reinyday, 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remarkably, it has 44 Google hits. These appear to be related to someone with that surname, however. Since WP:ISNOT a genealogy any more than it is a dictionary, it can be deleted on either or both counts. -Splash 17:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loser rock

This article was created months ago, and no one has found it worthy of expanding. I personally have never heard of 'Loser rock' and dont beleive that this stub can be expanded significantly.Steve 04:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Lose this content. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 05:17:52, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
• Delete. Reason as noted above. --Hurricane111 06:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jark Family

Delete This article had for over two months a notice asking anyone to explain why the Jarks are notable, no one has. Caerwine 05:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I asked about the Fairchild Family, but no one answered there either. -- Kjkolb 06:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notibility is established. Nateji77 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judge Mark Gempeler

Not notable Just A Normal judge who precided over a Not So Big trial Delete--Aranda56 05:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Interesting. Are all judges de facto notable? I think probably not unless they have presided over a particularly notable case(s) or done something that otherwise establishes their notability. The case would have to be on the way to the O.J. Simpson scale I think. Not knowing my sport very well, and Google not offering anything obvious regarding the importance of the trial, I'll notvote delete-with-persuadability. -Splash 17:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable judge. Judges are no more notable inherently than doctors or priests. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Next: college professors. -- Kjkolb 06:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Hill

Tagged for speedy, but it's not a candidate. No vote. Flowerparty 05:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity/advertisement. --Hurricane111 05:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert (for drivers?) Nateji77 07:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable - vanity. I put up the original speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 07:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jibble

Likely Hoax and if its not Wikipedia is not a place for people to put slang terms Delete --Aranda56 05:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete an article about a word which confesses to the word have no meaning (or, more accurately, having all meanings)! WINAD and we don't do neologisms either. -Splash 17:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Google turns out many hits on the word Jibble - thus it is highly probable that Jibble is an interesting word to define. However, the definition of a word is more in the area of dictionary then encyclopedia. --Hurricane111 06:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D. R. Rockwell

Despite the article title, this is about a novel written by Rockwell. It reads like a book review or press release, and a Google test finds all of 2 hits for "The Adventures of Five City Girls". Clearly non-notable, apart from any other considerations. Eric119 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert and/or vanity. Marskell 11:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither book nor author appears to be in Amazon.com. NN, vanity. MCB 19:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Could somebody explain to me why, all of a sudden, we're getting all of these articles by newbies with pre-created headers for External links, etc.? Is somebody following a boilerplate for article creation that I don't know about? Zoe 22:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soul Power

vanity. Not important for Wikipedia. Hurricane111 05:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. Nateji77 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Joel Lindley 07:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Dublin Crew

Vanity/non-notable Hurricane111 05:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Bandraoi 10:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Demiurge 17:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy West Dublin Crew has already been vfd and edits deleted. Dlyons493 18:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was now a redirect. -- RHaworth 10:12:31, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow dog Updater

I created this document without noticing already one exists Yellow Dog Updater Modified robmv 05:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Articles created in error may be marked for speedy deletion by the original creator as long as no other editors have contributed to them. This will save you the time of sending it to Articles for Deletion! Thatdog 06:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact you should not even have marked it for speedy - just made a redirect. -- RHaworth 10:12:31, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Nomura

An interesting and entertaining page, but about a nonentity. I did a speedy, but creator objects, so AfD. jimfbleak 06:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable outside the subject's high school (unless article demonstrate notability). --Hurricane111 06:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, too close to an attack for BJAODN. Nateji77 07:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• I hardly think it's an attack page. I also think that Mr Nomura would be quite embarrassed to know that some of his students have created this for him, most inappropriately. Delete to spare him further humiliation. DS 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

How is this page any less notable than "List of Star Trek Enterprise Episodes" or "Elvish Languages"? At least Mr. Nomura is a real person!

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. JeremyA (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No sex just dancing

Vanity/Non-notable. Come up empty in goggle and AllMusic search Hurricane111 06:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as NN/vanity. Nateji77 07:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to get the numbers up. Proto t c 12:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IT Conversations

• Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 06:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Nateji77 07:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – in the present form, it is an advertisement. --Bhadani 12:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Gary King 18:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too bad. That site is cool. If only it were a real article. --Jacqui M Schedler 05:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Not that this changes my vote, but IT Conversations has an interview with Jimbo. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not going to userfy despite the comments, since the page has been blanked. That was by an anon IP, who is unlikely to have come across the page randomly: it was probably the article's author. If they want it back, they can let me know. -Splash 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BrianandTammy.com

Personal webpage advertisement. Should be moved to user land instead. Hurricane111 06:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy to User:Bsjeep. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chess Misc. Overview

Posting VfD from Aug 11. The nomination page has gone missing, perhaps it was never created? Not useful collection of unrelated chess position images, each of which is already in Category:Chess unused images. Quale 07:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• The nomination page is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess Misc. Overview. ("For older discussions, see here instead.") I've merged it below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is completely useless and should be deleted. Andreas Kaufmann 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andreas Kaufmann 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.245.191 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 17:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Also renominated above —Cryptic (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Karol 08:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sleepless Dream

Smells like band vanity. No allmusic entry; I couldn't find any relevant google hits; Alexa rank for their site (a .net) is 4,845,428. —Cryptic (talk) 07:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn bv per nom. --TM ^(talk) 08:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not even a claim of notability. --rob 11:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Another non-notable band. Amren ^(talk) 15:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Walking like an Egyptian. -Splash 21:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tutting

I myself wikified the page a bit, but doubt this is widely known as tutting, since I can't find any info anywhere. Karol 08:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - As the The Bangles said in Walk Like an Egyptian "they do the sand dance don't you know". But seriously, I don't see any use of the word "tutting" in Google, that's related to dance. --rob 11:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• See "tutting" in this guide to dance. It's real terminology for this form of movement, but the people who employ it apparently haven't read our article on walking like an Egyptian, otherwise they'd know that this particular style of dancing dates from at least the 1930s, and is not a mere 15 years old as this article implies. We should assist such people in learning the somewhat longer history of this dance form with a Merge (although there is almost nothing here that isn't already in the better article). Uncle G 20:12:27, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks for this as I wouldn't have thought about walking like an Egyptian :) One thing makes the tutting page different - the connection to King Tut! Is this relevant at all? If not, then maybe a simple redirection will work? Karol 20:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • No it isn't, because that doesn't actually make "tutting" different at all. Follow King Tut to see what it redirects to, and then read walking like an Egyptian again. Uncle G 21:22:12, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
      • You're right. Karol 07:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and re-direct to walking like an Egyptian per Uncle G. --rob 07:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Tutting is a dance-style--a subset of popping, which is a west coast "funk style"--that began to be referred to as such in the 1980s. Here is a google reference: http://www.google.com/search?hs=fZd&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=tutting+wiggles&btnG=Search Your research is clearly very lacking in this area, I recommend you stop messing with it.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernadien Eillert

Page reads "Bernadien Eillert is the girlfriend of Arjen Robben. He is an Dutch footballplayer."; no assertion of independent notability. --Alan Au 09:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Per nom. Marskell 10:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability is not contagious. --TimPope 10:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to get the numbers up Proto t c 12:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Softpress Freeway

Commercial advert for Non notable product. jmd 09:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As nom. Soo 13:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nandesuka 02:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad if not expanded to show notability. --TOBY 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE BOTH. -Splash 21:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flashing Red Man and Alfred Lam

Band vanity, consisting mostly of unverifiable, forward-looking statements. --MarkSweep✍ 09:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed, delete. I've found nothing about either subject. (My Google query was "Flashing Red Man" -traffic -cross) --Finbarr Saunders 09:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More non-notable bands. Amren ^(talk) 15:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. Nandesuka 02:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 17:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veritee ® Wellness

Advertisement. This is an exact copy of Veritee, which I've also put on AFD. Mysid (talk) 09:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pretty blatant advertising.
• Delete spamfork. -Splash 17:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• If it's an exact copy, then redirect it and let them both be deleted when the first's afd is closed. No need for extra bureaucracy. —Cryptic (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• this page Veritee ® Wellness can be deleted as the disscussion is now exclusively happening under the VERITEE[10]page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.73.29 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, Advertisement Jll 20:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earth shape debate

Delete. Flat Earth absolutely has this covered. There is no debate and we shouldn't suggest there is. This was a good faith start-up but really it comes very close to nonsense. The arguments for a round Earth are laughably sparse here. No Eratosthenes, no Magellan, no mention of ships on the horizon, constellations changing or other intuitive tests. Marskell 09:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, the constellations are mentioned, Megellan didn't prove the earth is round (his path is possible on the flat earth model) and the tests are mentioned. If you want more detail, add it. Just for the record, I don't believe in a flat earth, but your arguments in no way justify purging the page, but rather at most merging. MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is rather reassuring to know that you don't believe in a flat earth, but perhaps non-belief is the problem. Hypothetically, perhaps a case could be made for a flat-earth - it is certainly a great test case for logic and epistomology. But there is no 'debate'. Who is actually debating this? Where? With whom? --Doc (?) 17:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the epistemological problems involved in ruling out a flat earth. Many people say "obviously it's false. Anyone can just build a rocket ship and see." (And again, no, I don't think flat-earthers are right.) To answer your questions in the order they were asked, 1) members of the Flat Earth Society and various fundamentalist Christians; 2) on various internet forums; 3) pretty much anyone else, especially creationists.

• Wow, this gave me a whole new perspective - I like the bit about the 'moon rock' conspiracy. Can I add something I learned on my alien abduction that rather supports this theory? No? Well, then delete --Doc (?) 10:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I talked with the Great Turtle while sleeping last night. He confirmed that the thing resting on his back was a sphere not a flat disk. ;) Marskell 10:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect seems to me like somebody might search for the term but the topic is covered by flat earth. Bandraoi 10:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant with Flat Earth (and to a lessor extent Flat Earth Society). A good rule-of-thumb is articles about theories shouldn't outnumber proponents. --rob 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Argument for merging, not deleting. MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Much ado about nothing. Vsmith 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge The actual points of the debate (and the debate does sometimes occur) should appear somewhere on Wikipedia. MrVoluntarist 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• The list is hopelessly misguided, bordering on patent nonsense. (And, for the record: "claiming that ... the Earth is round, but large enough to appear locally flat" is not a middle position, but a simple fact.) Delete, do not merge anywhere (except, perhaps, BJAODN). - Mike Rosoft 08:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Where should people learn about the arguments flat-earthers use? MrVoluntarist 19:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a pretty atrocious collection of arguments, too. No reference to the millions of ships from Magellan onwards... Shimgray 01:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I should explain somewhere why Magellan's voyage doesn't prove a round earth. Oh wait, I already did. Thanks for reading the full page before voting. MrVoluntarist 17:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't read it fully. I can't see it changing my vote, though... you know, it being mentioned twice on this page suggests that it might, just might be classed as "an argument used in the debate". (How exactly would sailing around the earth be explicable by flatness, but walking around wouldn't, anyhow?). And "for #3" is just unbelievably silly. Yes, we all claim the Earth is round because we want to disprove Scripture. Shimgray 17:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Greeks had it nailed before Scripture was even written. Marskell 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Patent nonsence. The half the arguments (both for and against) aren;t even real arguments. --BadSeed 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's funny patent nonsense! Just look at this pro-"round" argument provided: The motion of the stars makes more sense from such a perspective. So subtle... / Peter ^Isotalo 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I sure hope this article was someone's idea of a joke.---CH (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Joolz 20:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Cory Elementary School

Elementary school; importance not established. TimPope 10:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, part of the sum of human knowledge wikipedia promises me. Kappa 10:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa, please, "the sum of human knowledge" is a reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica's slogan. It means "knowledge" in the sense of "learning, erudition;" it does not mean an indiscriminate collection of information. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't indiscriminate information, and the Britannica thing is obscure. Kappa 00:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is jimbos wishes we keep this Yuckfoo 18:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do you people realize how many other elementary schools are in southern california alone? Let's stop cluttering wikipedia with this useless nonsense. --Kennyisinvisible 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not paper, so the idea that it is being "cluttered" is itself nonsense. Kappa 19:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Clutter" can happen well before space runs out. My room can be cluttered even if not filled to the brim. My directory can be cluttered even if not even close to being full. Each additional article leads to extra work for everyone. Sdedeo 21:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • This is a self-sufficient article and require no work except from people who might wish to improve it. Apart from that, no-one but random page users needs to encounter it. Kappa 21:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Problems a non-notable article might be subject to include vandalism. Also, non-notability usually leads to severe NPOV problems, since the only people who are aware of it are those with personal connections. All of these lead to strain on wikipedia editors who now have to keep track. Sdedeo 22:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We should be focusing on making useful articles better anyway. Quality, not quantity. --Kennyisinvisible 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Feel free to focus your efforts wherever you like, but deleting this article will diminish wikipedia in both quality and quantity. Kappa 20:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Please reply on talk page How about merging this information somewhere? Then nothing is lost, eh? - brenneman^(t)(c) 03:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete like most primary shcols, not notable. Dunc|☺ 19:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Covered on San Jose Unified School District. Institutions below High School are generally non-notable and should be covered on school district pages. — RJH 19:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too large to merge into San Jose Unified School District parent article. That, and it's notable. —RaD Man (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable elementary school. Quale 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Barely notable, but admirably sourced. Sdedeo 21:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep magnet school. -- DS1953 22:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Schools are notable. UniReb 23:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because this article mentions nothing notable about this school. It may be true that all schools are notable and, if so, someone should find the notable thing about this school and add it to the article. If this is done prior expiration of AfD discussion I'll withdraw this vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 23:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent article of which Wikipedia can be rightly proud. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not indicate anything notable about this school. Nandesuka 02:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clutter. Gamaliel 03:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More of Project Drown Wikipedia in Trivia. --Calton | Talk 03:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable grade school. Jonathunder 15:26, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, good article. JYolkowski // talk 15:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A good start. CalJW 19:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:42, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a school to me. --Nicodemus75 08:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Four walls and a roof are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 12:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, notable. 24ip | lolol 22:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I've been to this school, it's less notable then my dog and per Schools for Deletion.Gateman1997 03:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I don't know if the school is notable or not (from above comments, I would guess not), but the article itself makes absolutely no assertion of notability. Cmadler 14:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article isn't about a person, so it wouldn't be eligible for deletion on those grounds. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It isn't eligible for speedy deletion on those grounds. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If only people were eligible for deletion on the basis of notability (or lack thereof), then we may begin to see an article on every individual building ("101 Elm Street, Townville", "102 Elm Street, Townville", "103 Elm Street, Townville", etc.). If I wrote an article about my house, which is insignificant apart from my living there, that could be considered nothing more than a vanity (by association) article. I hope that Tony Sidaway (and the rest of the "all schools are notable" crowd) see the folly and the absurdity of taking Wikipedia down this path. Any article not asserting notability should be eligible for speedy deletion. Cmadler 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I hope you see the absurdity of deleting articles about universities, villages, rivers and species of bug which don't assert notability. Kappa 20:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, to clarify: I meant it cannot be speedied on the grounds that it makes no assertion of notability--that's a CSD A7 criterion that applies only to articles about people. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable School Guerberj 16:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not a notable school --SpaceMonkey 18:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a school which is no doubt important to its community. If Wikipedia is really trying to accomplish its goal of being the sum of all human knowledge, this article falls under that umbrella and should be kept. Silensor 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If "information" and "knowledge" were the same thing, then "the sum of all human knowledge" would be "an indiscriminate collection of information." Why do you consider this article to qualify as "knowledge," rather than merely "information" or "data?" Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also define important. I've seen this school and it's not that important to its community either. If it were to close the students would just go to another box, I mean school. It's barely above a preschool.Gateman1997 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Text should be merged with San Jose Unified School District, or moved to a new Elementary schools of the San Jose Unified School District article. BlankVerse ∅ 19:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school was nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after creation. Please give other editors a chance. Bahn Mi 01:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I know wikipedia is not paper, however, neither is it a yellowpages and this is just clutter. If every school, and every teacher, not to mention all the university professors, had a page, then that content would dwarf the useful content in wikipedia by many fold. This is stamp collecting gone mad. More is NOT better. David D. (Talk) 04:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Suppose it were true that an article on every single school in the world were ever likely to appear on Wikipedia. Suppose further that these articles would, in their number, "dwarf" all the other content of Wikipedia. Why would this be a problem? You don't have to look at articles you aren't interested in looking at. If I go to the article Embryogenesis, in what way is my reading experiences affected by the existence of 1000 or so articles about Pokemon? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is true, and subtrivial-but-probably-accurate articles are almost harmless. Wikipedia is not intended to be mainly used via the "random article" link. And it doesn't have an easily visible list of contents. But let me ask: if I go to the article Embryogenesis, in what way is my reading experience affected by the existence of inaccuracies in articles on other topics? If there is, say, a group of people who wish to contribute inaccurate articles about a topic that is of interest mainly to other people who tolerate these inaccuracies, should anyone be concerned? If so, why? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd definitely like to see a coherent answer to this. Why does it matter that WP has lots of articles about schools or any other marginally interesting thing? Surely our primary concern ought to be that the articles are well written, so that if someone were to look up X chool, they are not faced with nonsense or ugliness? Why would it matter if there were 64 million articles in Wikipedia, and 60 million were about schools? You keep saying it matters, guys, but you never actually explain why. Do you feel it is a question of dignity? Do you think it somehow reflects badly on you?
    • I don't understand your question, Dpbsmith, which is a pity because you are at least more thoughtful than most of the wannabe deletionists in this area. Your enjoyment of an article is not in the least affected by inaccuracies in other articles so long as it doesn't link to them except that if you read many very inaccurate articles, your faith in the accuracy of the article in question is damaged. This would seem to be an argument for accuracy (and by extension verifiability) and nothing much to do with whether articles should be included. If you are trying to argue that deletionists should be encouraged to spend more time ensuring that articles we have are accurate and less on trying to delete things they don't like, I wholeheartedly agree. If you are arguing that we should be encouraging people to contribute poor articles because others who tend to read them don't care about their mistakes (which you seem to be suggesting), then I don't agree. We should neither encourage nor discourage it, but should do our best to mitigate it by fixing up the bad stuff. Grace Note 02:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tony seemed to be arguing that I shouldn't care about articles if they are not on topics of interest to me, because if they don't interest me I'll never see them and therefore they don't affect me. I'm saying, well, copyvios and inaccurate articles and POV and hoaxes do affect me even if they are on topics on which I would never consult WIkipedia. Therefore, I say, yes, I do have some interest in the quality of Wikipedia as a whole.

Now, let's take this to the next step. Should really low-quality articles ever be deleted, simply because they are of low quality? This is tough, because we all recognize that Wikipedia articles are improved over time. But not at the same rate. There's no harm in a low-quality article about Beethoven, or Buddy Holly, or Wisconsin, because a lot of people know something about these topics and they will get improved quickly. On the other hand, very few people know much about Heathcote Elementary School. If the first person to write about it write a good-quality stub, good. If not, it may be months or years before anybody gets around to writing one—and it will likely be an independent event, i.e. the new article will probably not have "grown" from the old one.

Let's suppose that, for some reason, there is a class of topic that is attracting the contribution of large numbers of low-quality articles. If they are being contributed faster than they are being improved, yes, that's a problem.

There are no absolutes here. School articles are less of a problem than they used to be, because there are more serious, experienced editors working on them than there used to be.

People can't believe the Wikipedia process actually works. Well, it does work—but not automatically and not without conditions. One of the conditions is that there really be "many eyes." The problem with "non-notable" topics is that they attract few eyes.

At some point, articles are deletable if they are about something that is too non-notable. As you'd expect, not everyone draws the line at the same place. And, as you'd expect, at the borderline, there is great contention. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Okay, I think I can respond to that. I think the point is precisely this: that school articles are generally of such high quality, or can be made so, that deletion of a school article is actually quite a rare and surprising event. For nearly 276 school article deletion nominations, we've only had 37 school article deletions--less than 15% of those listed.
  • So is the problem that most school stubs created are rubbish? Well no, I don't think that claim can be defended either. Here is a log I have just created linking to every school article created on Wikipedia in the past three or four days: Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/New. There are some duds in there, but I'd happily take on most of them and pilot them through a AfD with a very high confidence of keeping the result.
  • Okay, is the problem that most school stubs aren't being improved, and there are too few eyes? I think one has to adopt a very blinkered approach to article production to support this hypothesis. Firstly, I think it's highly likely that Wikipedia or some successor project is likely to maintain this knowledge base in some publicly editable form for many decades. Secondly, only articles that people want to edit ever get created. There is no evidence that some mechanical script, like the one that created all those articles about tiny blips on the US census map, is at work here.
  • But finally I just don't buy the thesis. Schools are public institutions, so there is plenty of verifiable information about them. There is no reason to support the hypothesis that lack of eyes will be a problem. Any reasonably well educated, reasonably bright person can look at any school article and determine whether the statements in the article are adequately sourced and neutral. There is no problem with school articles that cannot be solved by the normal process of editing. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Three questions. 1) Is it possible that there could be a class of article that attracts a rate of creation of articles of low quality and has a very low rate of article review and improvement—so that, at any given time, the average article quality was very low? 2) Would such a hypothetical class of article be a problem for Wikipedia? 3) Are school articles an instance of such a class? Obviously your answer to #3 is "no." But what about 1 and 2? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't buy 1 and 2, really. I think it's an interesting hypothesis but I don't find a lot of articles that are likely to be a problem for Wikipedia. A low rate of improvement is absolutely of no concern here; there is no deadline. I've got some concrete examples, too. Of the sixteen school articles created since midnight, UTC, I'd say three or four need cleanup, but the others are already pretty good stubs. Not bad going for their first day. Older schools get more edits and I think they tend to fare better at AfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is not toilet paper, either. --Carnildo 07:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There is yet no consensus on schools, and that's why on occasion they crop up on AfD. Especially if the article is as trite as this. Pilatus 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Replace with an article called "Elementary schools in California" or "California elementary schools" which would list the schools and mention any notable information concerning specific ones. That way the knowledge is included in Wikipedia but in the most compact, kilobit-economical way. --wayland 11:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • To all 'keepers', what is your argument against Waylands suggestion? David D. (Talk) 14:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a school. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a non-notable elementary school. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It accepts 430 students each year and has had its picture taken. 129.215.194.205 19:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Pilatus 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN elementary school. Keep all secondary schools Roodog2k (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Somehow K-2 seems to be a pushing the limits a bit. Vegaswikian 04:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Schools don't need to be notable any more than small towns, population 10. Unfocused 05:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete completely nn school. Dottore So 23:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools. --Idont Havaname 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, relevant to education in San Jose, California; especially important for its Hispanic community. Nice picture too. --Vsion 23:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the grass is green today... so keep.  ALKIVAR™ 05:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP --Aranda56 06:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Harmonicats

It's just a huge list of songs, with no formatting. Possibly self-promotion 83.70.40.193 10:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Someone was advertising their record collection, but I replaced it with a band-stub. Kappa 10:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per record sales (now in stub) and slightly interesting history mentioned on web site.. --rob 11:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable band of the 1940s. 23skidoo 15:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is really notable anyways Yuckfoo 16:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep', us oldsters remember them all over TV in the 50s and 60s.  :) Zoe 22:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per WP:Music. Had million selling single. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am 21 years old, and even I know that "Peg O My Heart" is a big, notable deal! --Jacqui M Schedler 05:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP but move to non-nude pornography. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Nude Pornography

Even if article is improved, it would just be subset of pornography. It seems to have been created as an excuse to toss in an external link, since removed. rob 10:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Pret art seems to cover the same topic as well (I say that based on the current wording of the article, which seems to focus on under-age models). So, there's no purpose for a second article, and the capitalized article name, isn't even worth keeping as a re-direct. Plus, this is prime link spam bait if kept. --rob 10:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Non-nude pornography. The main pornography article is quite long (34kb), so adding in another section that would seem to have expansion potential is probably not the best thing to do. Pret art is not an epsecially common term, but would seem distinguished from this topic by being usually free. The current article needs the OR removing, sources citing and a bit of a clean, but I think it should stay. -Splash 18:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move per Splash. Notable, different from pret art. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! There is a distinction between art and pornography. User:Ravenswood1969 18:03, 3 September 2005 (CST)
• Keep and move it to 'Non-nude pornography' as per Splash. *drew 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Before choosing the name, it's necessary to decide the scope. The current article, if kept, should be called something like Non-nude internet pornography of minors and those who look like minors (or something more concise). The name Non-nude pornography is a perfectly legitimate name of an article, and could discuss many things given a similiar label like Baywatch, Maxim(US), and a host of other things *some* people (as their POV) label "pornography" on the grounds it has the same purpose, but is done with a few clothes on. --rob 02:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: is this an actual term? It seems like merely a model's preference, like when a model won't do hardcore videos? -- Kjkolb 06:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 21:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robb Hanrahan

Delete. NN. I don't know if there is a consensus on this but I don't think news anchors make the cut unless they have an obvious national profile or were involved in a notable way in some event. Marskell 11:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, well-known entertainment figure with an audience far more than 5,000 people, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 12:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 5000 test is for authors, editors and photographers (i.e., people producing original work). He is none of these. The (admittedly vague) line dealing with this entry is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers" and, again, I don't think a local news anchor qualifies. Marskell 12:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd say he fits in the category "TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors". Kappa 12:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I suppose my point is an anchor doesn't produce, perform or provide original commentary. They aren't entertainers and they aren't opinion makers. Marskell 12:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A news anchor does "perform" in a sense. Also, according to entry this guy is a CBS anchor for Miami-- news anchor for a major network in a city of some 375,000 people. I'd be willing to guess that his name is mentioned in CBS' advertising and the local gossip columnists report when he goes out to dinner. Crypticfirefly
• Delete. Non-notable, of local regional interest only. Local TV news anchors change jobs frequently are and almost always completely interchangeable with no essential differences to distinguish any of them. Generally of no encyclopedic interest until they get jobs with national networks and reach beyond regional audiences. Quale 21:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major market anchors are notable to far more than 5,000 people, as Kappa noted. And in my experience, major market evening news anchors do not change frequently and are heavily promoted by their stations. -- DS1953 22:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:Bio. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Crypticfirefly. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Eighth Sea

Non-notable bandity, Google test returns 451 hits, none relating to the band. [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] 11:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nnandity indeed. Nothing on allmusic.com either. Fails all of WP:MUSIC soundly so far as I can tell. -Splash 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Joolz 20:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Chase (school)

A school-stub that lists nothing but the place the school serves. No attempt made to establish notability Pilatus 11:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this article seems to have been created as a substub to prove a point [11]. Kappa 12:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So, in other words, anything written in violation of WP:POINT is inherintly notable? --InShaneee 21:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. And Kappa makes the best argument for deletion I've ever heard. I can't see why he votes keep. If this was created only to make a point, it should be deleted immediately. This should be an encyclopedia, not kindergarten. --Lomedae 13:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this is an encyclopedia, not kindergarten, we don't delete valid articles because of their origin. Kappa 13:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We do actually if they're not encyclopedic. :-P --Lomedae 20:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did anyone bring popcorn? Pilatus 13:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Feel free to stay on topic. Kappa 13:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I thought we were taking a break from nominating schools for deletion. If an article on a notable subject includes insufficient information please feel free to do a bit of research and fill in the missing details, as Kappa appears to have done. Pburka 16:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a beacon school is actually quite special. (Being a tech college isn't much, though.) -Splash 18:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 19:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A very brief search revealed that the current Minister of State for Schools was educated there. I have updated the article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Splash and Tony Sidaway. -- DS1953 21:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools and WP:POINT. Soltak | Talk 23:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Schools are notable. UniReb 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools. Nandesuka 02:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clutter. Gamaliel 03:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  Aren't we supposed to be creating "clutter"? Wouldn't the "sum of all human knowledge" be fairly cluttered? Keep on cluttering up our encyclopaedia with verifiable information! Grace Note 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. More clutter. --Calton | Talk 03:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the largest schools in Worcestershire (1700+) and in the top ten for pass rates in the county. It's a former military base and the previous head was given a knighthood for his services to education. violet/riga (t) 10:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see any of that in the current version? - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

    That would be an argument for including the information, not deleting the article. Perhaps deletionists who insist on nominating schools could consider doing more of the former and less of the latter? Grace Note 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

    • Hence the problem with immediately nominating an article for AfD within 4 days of the article's creation.--Nicodemus75 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 15:27, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable, seems quite important. JYolkowski // talk 15:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk 17:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Promising article about a notable institution. CalJW 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This entry is about a school.--Nicodemus75 21:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:44, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
• Delete. This entry is about a school. Proto t c 12:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This entry is about a school. Guerberj 16:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, schools aren't all notable, but per Schools for Deletion, this one is notable.Gateman1997 19:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all high schools. delete all nn primary schools Roodog2k (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is about a school. Being up for a government inspection this year is not notable; neither is having one notable alumna. --Idont Havaname 04:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  You don't explain why not. In any case, being a school is notable in itself. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia of enormous, almost limitless scope. Grace Note 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • One notable alumna listed. violet/riga (t) 21:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Then list the others. --Idont Havaname 23:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

      Maybe if it had supplied a college basketballer, you'd be a bit keener? Grace Note 02:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

      Indeed, she's only the Minister of State for Schools. :-D --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

      • I've updated my criteria for school inclusion on my user page and have added some stuff at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. I would prefer not to comment anymore here as I would prefer to avoid conflict. --Idont Havaname 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

        No problems here. It seems that the more effective we get at writing decent school articles that end up getting kept at AfD, the more extreme in their "notability" demands for school content some people get. Now we've got to the point where a school isn't necessarily notable if a famous person went there. Never mind that people will want to read about it, the ever-more-unreasonable demands of a diminishing number now say that it mustn't have an encyclopedia article. I am left scratching my head and wondering what on earth some people believe an encycloped is intended to do if not present factual, verifiable information on subjects of interest. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per previous arguments. Schools are inherently notable. Unfocused 05:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Dottore So 23:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, relevant to education in the beautiful town of Malvern, Worcestershire; producing some good female inventors/engineers. --Vsion 23:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the sun still comes up in the morning... so keep.  ALKIVAR™ 05:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ByeByeEstateAgents

Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 11:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advert. CambridgeBayWeather 12:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. violet/riga (t) 12:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – it is a blatant advertisement. --Bhadani 13:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• I put this on Speedy deletion if anyone wants to get rid of it there. Marskell 14:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Bye bye, estate agents! (Well somebody had to...) Flowerparty 15:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean Bye bye, ByeByeEstateAgents? --Calton | Talk 03:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you like. Flowerparty 03:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Calton | Talk 03:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Blatant spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 08:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why wasn't this speedy again? --Jacqui M Schedler 06:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrongful abortion

User 24.17.46.62 (talk · contribs) added the {{vfd}} tag to this article earlier today. I'm just completing the nomination, so no vote. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, I'll vote keep in light of the debate below. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 11:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: If the term can be referenced with more than just one source I do think its notable. Marskell 13:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a neologism in a single journal article isn't notable. Dunc|☺ 14:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism unencylopedic and uninformative.--Tznkai 15:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Google indicates this appears to have been the topic of court case in Georgia, US and may have caused a bit of a stir. I'll leave it to legal-eagles and locals to determine whether this was just a media flap in a locality or a case of some significance. If kept, sourced and cleaned, it might be best off with a merge to abortion. -Splash 18:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; a legal term of definite interest and at least some currency. More sources, as always, are better. Sdedeo 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep. It seems to be a legal term in the state of Texas. See http://www.tcdla.com/leg/docs/78th_review.pdf - note it's a .pdf file. Zoe 22:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the counterpart to wrongful birth. There have been numerous abortions due to equivocal triple test results that lead to the termination of a healthy foetus. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete. If it is a legal term, then an entry/re-direct for such a term would indeed be appropiate and welcome. However, as this page is now, it is a highly POV entry, based on one, from what I understand, not very well-known source with an uncommon definition/interpretation of the term. I'll try to go over it later to see if there is something salvagable, but I think that I know too little on the subject and term to produce anything worth keeping. --kissekatt 02:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This appears to be a legal term, so this article must be expanded, cited, ect...Voice of All(MTG) 07:20, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is indeed a legal concept. The mirror image of wrongful birth/wrongful life. There are only few notable academic sources because the legal discussion is relatively new. But it is not merely a neologism. Please do not let laymen determine the worth of professional terms. 132.74.99.84 13:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Add some references and links to other articles. This is a Community Portal Wikify article. --Banana04131 18:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I've really re-written the article. I think this is a default to keep but we'll need an admin. --Banana04131 20:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I added one reference, but I'm sure there are more Dr.Genius 23:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guitargeek.com

Spam for a site with an Alexa rank of 109,619. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem notable. Flowerparty 14:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 15:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I believe that such an Alexa rank almost demonstrates sufficient suitability considering we have 700,000 articles. JYolkowski // talk 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I shudder to think of the possibility of 1/7 of Wikipedia's articles being about nn websites. Zoe 22:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoe. Sdedeo 23:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kasper balslev

Okay, this one is tricky. Balslev is the founder of CasaSwap.com, which I'm not sure is notable enough for a Wiki article. If his company is, he is; if it's not, he's not. I think it was Lucullan who said that that he'd rather have people ask "why isn't there a statue of him?" instead of "why is there a statue of him?" Alexa rankings for CasaSwap aren't terribly impressive, but Google hits for "casaswap" minus "site:casaswap.com" make me wonder if I'm missing something. Anyone? (and of course, I should have moved it to Balslev first, but oh well)DS 14:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• CasaSwap.com seems internationally famous, so I wouldn't object to having an article on the website, but not on the founder. Zoe 22:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity. Sdedeo 23:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like vanity. Martg76 12:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Abdul Qadeer Khan has already been applied. -Splash 21:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Kahn

is the same as Abdul Qadeer Khan Aleichem 08:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• So redirect it then. This was never added to the main VfD page; adding now. JYolkowski // talk 14:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect. Flowerparty 14:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was handled as copyvio. JYolkowski // talk 15:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isabella Motadinyane

VfD tag added by User:Tejastheory but VfD not completed; adding it now. keep. JYolkowski // talk 14:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Copyvio from here [12] and offline source Timbila 2003, a journal of onion skin poetry. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 14:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cool, I'm tagging it as a copyvio and, as I'm effectively the nominator, speedily closing this nom. JYolkowski // talk 15:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant-abulous

obscure neologism NeilN 14:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: seems to be a growing term, and tracked from another Wiki entry --GLH 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)GLH

• Comment Google returns 13 hits for the term. Still obscure. --NeilN 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Google returned 13 hits, and found another 100+ on the two sources listed and other anime-based chats. --Zyber

• Delete WP:ISNOT a dictionary, and this is a neologism specific to one forum. Not encyclopedic, and not at all widespread: Google finds about 7 hits at my count, whether I hyphenate it or not. -Splash 18:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash. Sdedeo 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete any neologism used by people who spell its as it's. Zoe 22:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Splash and Zoe. :) --Jacqui M Schedler 06:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 21:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redline (band)

if $NotableBandA breaks up, and $NotableBandB breaks up, and members from both groups join together to form $NewBand, but $NewBand falls apart before ever producing an album, is $NewBand notable? DS 14:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Per WP:MUSIC, $NewBand is notable if it "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such". In this case, I've never heard of $NotableBandA (The Watchmen) (thus calling into question whether it's extremely notable), and $NotableBandB (Headstones) doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Merge and redirect as appropriate. --Metropolitan90 15:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC) or $NotableBandB (The Headstones) either. Abstain due to new information from Pburka. --Metropolitan90 01:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Sure they do. It's at The Headstones, and both previous bands are extremely notable in Canadian alt-rock. Redline seems to get a reasonable number of google hits, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and vote weak keep, or merge and redirect. Not quite sure where to merge to, though. Pburka 15:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• When reading bios on band members, do they leave the failed band attempts out? Of course not. (It's something else again if the person was never in a notable band to begin with.) Weak Keep based on this philosophy and WP:MUSIC. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Although a copyvio, that process was never begum whilst this one has now ended so this time AfD takes precedence. -Splash 21:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herb Grika

Vanity page - main author is the guy's son, the text coming straight from the Herb Grika website he runs. Excessive CV anyway for someone not terribly notable - only about 100 Google hits for "Herb Grika". Tearlach 14:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio Herb Grika website. Dlyons493 18:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The guy seems to be not entirely unimportant. At the same time the article reads very much like a CV rather than an encylopedia article. Unless it gets changed radically I would say it's a vanity page and vote for it to be deleted. Jezze 20:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, pure vanity, I'll put my own CV up later if this stays... Budgiekiller 12:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for multiple reasons already listed above, all valid. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Joolz 20:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goths In Sunshine

And the hoaxes just keep on coming. Dionne Warwick and John Lydon together? I don't think so. Just to check, though, I googled for warwick + lydon + "goths in sunshine" and got absolutely 0 hits. DS 14:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Well done on catching it. --Oppolo 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed. Nandesuka 02:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Proto t c 12:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 21:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holosophic Society

reads like an ad NeilN 14:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• If you find unwikified text dumps which look like advertising, such as this one it is probably a copyvio, and a quick google check confirmed that. Tagged as such and listed on WP:CP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ cuntfinger

Stunningly, not a hoax (and believe me, this was a bitch to google for), but he's only got one genuine mention on Google, which leads me to wonder if he's truly as notable as the article claims. Any Ukrainians out there who can say one way or the other? DS 15:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a Ukrainian, but stunningly non-notable with 1 Google hit, a blog. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, thanks for going through the trouble googling for him ;). Amren ^(talk) 15:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense Tintin 17:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Hitler in popular culture. -Splash 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler (South Park)

• Delete This should be merged with the South Park page. This does not merit its own article. WATCH THIS USER -- he is posting a lot of nonsense. Paul Klenk 07:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If you thought it should be merged, why are you nominating it for deletion? A merge does not involve a deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Anyone can merge an article, or if you're too nervous to do it yourself, suggest it be merged with a {{merge|South Park}}, not a {{vfd}}. CanadianCaesar 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• So merge it then, don't nominate it for deletion. This nomination never made it to the main page; adding it now. JYolkowski // talk 15:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting for South Park fans, and a illustration of how Hitler is portrayed in popular culture. Should not be merged with the main South Park page because it's too high a level of detail. Kappa 15:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this really good faith, Kappa? / Peter ^Isotalo 20:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose merging it somewhere else, but not with South Park. Kappa 10:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Hitler in popular culture--Doc (?) 15:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Hitler in popular culture, per Doc. Best course of action here - then redirect to "#the specific section" in that article. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Doc. Sdedeo 23:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Doc but do not redirect. Nandesuka 02:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete outright, no redirect. --Calton | Talk 03:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• You mean there was a real Hitler, too? Delete. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (has this debate invoked Godwin's Law)?
• weak delete Does every character's alter-ego deserve its own article title? Roodog2k (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Hitler in popular culture. Good idea, Doc. --Jacqui M Schedler 06:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Hitler in popular culture as Doc suggested. That is more sensible than cluttering up the main South Park article with minor characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agothaya Server

non notable Raistlin 19:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. KeithD (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Groeck 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable (and boring). Cje 18:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. This never made it to the main VfD page until now, adding it. JYolkowski // talk 15:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete An article on an individual game server? No way is this encyclopedic. Amren ^(talk) 15:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clutter. Gamaliel 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not a server directory. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Almost Positive

Band vanity. Coffee 08:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Allmusic hasn't heard of them. Although google turns up a number of results for "Almost Positive" band, none seem relevant to this particular band. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/self-promotion. Misza13 19:26:18, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
• This never made it to the main VfD page until now. No vote, at least not yet. JYolkowski // talk 15:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Another non-notable band. Amren ^(talk) 15:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. Whilst I intensely dislike the partitioning of votes, having looked at the contribs for the registered users in that section, they are all discounted as are the redlinked users in the other section again, after examining their contribs. Given the apparent bad-faith of the nominator, and the fact that after discounting the raw numerology is just below 2/3 (I get 6d-4k), this is a no consensus. -Splash 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Government Simulation

Despite the large number of votes, this never appears to have been added to a main VfD page, so listing now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-Notable Game, Advertisement Frank 00:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

(Please note: The nominator contributed only to the VFD debate over US Government Simulator, his user page, and this VFD.)

• Comment. Please do not reorganize and categorize votes during a VfD, Jaxl. Sdedeo 21:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes from registered users

• Keep Formatting and information can be fixed over time. AGS is the most significant forum-based American political simulation on the Internet and deserves its place on Wikipedia. USGovSim -- imho -- is also significant enough and I think anybody who wants a war over something this stupid should (personal attack removed) stop wasting oxygen. Incidentally, here's the official AGS position on the matter, FWIW -- http://www.forumforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=ags&showtopic=58721jj_frap

• Delete Joffey's comment makes me believe that it's either vanity or an ad. Karmafist 03:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Deleting in vengence really isn't that good of an idea. --RobbieFal 05:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. While the community seems rather small, it is growing at a good pace, I fully agree with.erm..whoever made " It's an informative article about an informative game " etc etc. - Mrdie

• Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. Alexa rank of 3,000,000 (but it's gone up 2,700,000 places in the past three months!). Less than 500 members on the forums, far short of my threshold of 50,000. --Carnildo 18:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Whilst I respect Jakob Huneycutt to the highest degree, this is less notable than my daily lunch menu.-Ashley Pomeroy 23:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep and censure the users from usgovism trying to abuse WikiPedia to sort out their own petty rivalries. WikiPedia is under no obligation to be "fair", and especially not to be "balanced". One game/site/whatever being notable does not automagically make its competitors notable. WikiPedia is not a venue for advertising. Entries document existing notable whatsits, they don't make them notable through advertisement. To say that "if x gets an article, you're being unfair to y" displays a stunning ignorance of WikiPedia and its aims, and to throw a tantrum as y'all have done shows not just ignorance but immaturity too. --fuddlemark 17:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Encyclopedic article about an online political forum simulating aspects of government, not just an advert for an online game as stated above. Alf 23:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think this is notable and if a more authoritative nomination were made, I would vote to delete. This nomination is clearly bad faith, however, and for that the usgovsim people should be permanently censured and sent to their rooms for throwing a pathetic and childish tantrum. Dottore So 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep The history of AGS ought to be allowed on Wiki. Govsims are an expanding form of online gameplay and sims such as AGS, USGovsim, USSS, and TWS are just the beginning. And if there is any question about who I am or why I'm calling for a Speedy Keep, I am *THE* Admin of USGovsim. A couple overzealous players may be out to harm AGS (and have been rightly ostracized for their spamming) but I have found AGS to be a very reputable game worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia and strongly believe that any discussion about deletion is in bad taste. thrasherssyn3443 11:39 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The above edit is signed as "Thrasherssyn3443", by User:Thrasherssyn3443, but the username link goes to the nonexistant user User:Wiki Will Caldwell. --Carnildo 18:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Carnildo. Nandesuka 02:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 06:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is an interesting and informative article. Eterry 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment AGS is probably the largest government simulation on the net and as far as government simulations go, it is probably the most important one out there right now. It has made significant contributions and advances as far as Sims go and it has influenced several other government sims. I'm not voting on this one way or the other. If people want to vote it off because it's non-notable, then I don't have much of a problem with that even if I think they are incorrect in their assessment. What irritates me, however, is that the attempt to delete was initiated by (apparently) an anonymous source, who hasn't contributed to Wikipedia at all other than for this article and the government simulation article. It leads me to believe that this is all nothing more than an attempt to carry out a grudge. I won't really shed any tears if this article is deleted, though. It seems it's more trouble than its worth with all the trolls coming in. But I will say I strongly disagree with Carnadillo. His standards are a bit absurd. It's not clear how ANY simulation could maintain 50,000 members. That doesn't mean that all net simulations are not notable. Government sims with over 200 members are considered very large by their relative standards and within the simming community, a Sim with 200-500 members would be very well known. I would say notable Sims of the past include NGS2, AOL Senate Sim, and Senate Sim. Jakob Huneycutt 12:30, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, its nice to have a page on it.

[edit] Votes from IP addresses, very new users, and unsigned votes

• DELETE If USG is up for deletion, than so should AGS. Fair's fair after-all. We want to keep wikipedia fair and balanced, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.131.105 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 August 2005

• Delete If USGovSim is up for deletion and is considered a "Non-Notable Game", AGS should certainly be deleted with it. Either delete both or keep both.Eric3446

• Delete It's poorly formatted and uninformative.msrpotus

• Keep. Members of another, smaller simulation are trying to start a flame war. Several of these individuals have discussed the plan here. This is a serious, though sadly typical, breach of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.196.120 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 August 2005

• That thread, assuming it existed, has either been deleted or removed from anonymous view. Al 14:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an immature attempt by several members of a smaller simulation trying to 'declare war' on AGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobschmidt (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 August 2005

• Keep. It's an informative article about an informative game. Regardless of what's going on at any other sites, AGS is now a community, and deserves to be defined as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.93.177 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 18 August 2005

• DELETE: Non notable site. This is just a glorified ad. Furthermore, AGS already is mentioned in "government simulation", which is appropriate. It deserves a mention as a kind of simulation, but does not warrant a full page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.181.35 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 August 2005

• Keep. While 500 members may not meet the vaunted "Carnildo Standard", the number is significant in that it is arguably the largest online government sim communities of all those mentioned. It is short-sighted and asinine to set arbitrary limits on size and popularity. Doing so is to say that polka great Frankie Yankovic is "non-notable" because he was never as big as Elvis. Context matters, people. (Disclosure: I am involved in this sim, but have been involved in Wikipedia (sans login) significantly longer.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcarlson33 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 19 August 2005

• Delete It's nothing more than an advertisement, and it certainly doesn't merit its own unique entry..mrzippy13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.194.77 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 21 August 2005

[edit] Discussion

• Comment: I have no problem letting AGS have a wikipedia page. I DO have a problem with the nonsense and double standards going on with trying to have USG's page deleted. Especially when those voting for deletion are random people who have no right no pass judgment about a subject they know nothing about.

--John Joffey, Founder of USGovsim and current Co-Admin

• Comment: This is simply not a flame war. All we would like is for our article to be able to be on Wikipedia. We did not expect a full out frontal assault from AGS in an effort to remove the article. We only want Wikipedia to be fair. Either keep both or delete both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.55.215 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 August 2005

• Comment: There is no evidence to support these specious claims of "frontal assault from AGS"; in fact, the evidence that does exist suggests the opposite. AGS administrators have said on their forums that they encourage members to join other sims, and have even posted a link to the simulation in their web links. The announcement is here. Wikipedia should not be a playground for petty revenge based on imaginary, non-existent "frontal assaults." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.196.120 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 August 2005

• Comment: Once again AGS should be allowed to keep their page. All the Admins of USG agree on this. We are however, miffed, that there is a huge deletion attempt going on against our page, brought on by ignorant people with nothing better to do. I implore Wikipedia Mods to end both the deletion attempt here, and against the USG page.

--John Joffey

• Comment. This is a bad faith VfD. If not for that I would vote delete as non-not

able. --Al 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep this cool page! The sim deserves it. This page is NOT and advertisement, and the o

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 REDIRECT to Wilderness. -Splash 21:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outdoor

dicdef already present at Wiktionary. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:24:47, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with nominator. Amren ^(talk) 15:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to wilderness, just like outdoors does. —Cryptic (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, seems like something people might search for. JYolkowski // talk 19:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. With no comments, I'll start the CV process now. -Splash 21:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Davidhazy

This appears to be a vanity page. No substantial comments as to achievements of user except his position (University professor). No additions except creation and request for cleanup six months ago. Text may simply be a marker to allow the link to self-promoting home page. Suggest deletion.

• This was previously malformatted and not listed on the VfD page. Listing now. weak keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio from [13] Dlyons493 18:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anyonesblog

advertising. BrainyBroad 00:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

• This never made it to the main VfD page until now, listing. weak keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Spam for a non-notable website with an Alexa rank of 1,795,343. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnblogcruft. -Splash 21:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian indoor-rules quidditch

VfD tag added by User:Squeed but nomination not completed. Merge with Mac Hall or keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pages about non notable games should be dealt with swiftly, as there seem to be many of them. Paul 21:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When I first saw the article name, I thought this was a case of Harry Potter-related fancruft; now I see it is a case of webcomicscruft. And the article lacks any verifiable example of it having been played in real life. What next? Australian indoor-rules Calvinball? -- llywrch 19:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN C'mon... its kinda funny... Roodog2k (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Texas Inn

non-notable NeilN 15:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is established. Pburka 17:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Pburka Dlyons493 18:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Do not Delete I would say that this article has notability. Though it may be limited, the restaraunt does serve several highly unique dishes, and it would ot be considered a vanity article, considering that I live in Florida and have never had a job at a restaurant. User:misterknowall 14:59, 3 September 2005
• Delete, the mind boggles at the thought that a hamburger with mayonnaise is "unusual". Zoe 22:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• No vote yet. Merely serving unique dishes is not a sign of a restaurant's notability; I would recommend that the author locate some evidence that this is a famous or important restaurant and include that evidence in the article. --Metropolitan90 01:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Make my vote a delete due to no evidence of notability being provided. --Metropolitan90 07:11, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• weak delete all dinercruft. But is it notable? Roodog2k (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE into Babson. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babson E-Tower

There are several "towers" at Babson College. This one is no more special than the others. A "tower" isn't actually a physical structure, like a building, as the stub would suggest. At Babson, this simply means that students share a block of rooms. There are towers for cooking, outdoors, entrepreneurship and so on. There does not need to be an article for "E-Tower". --Prescott

• Delete or Merge into a section on the Babson article about the tower system Drdisque 09:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• This never made it to the main VfD page until now. merge as above. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per Drdisque. JYoklowski, nice job of finding all of these orphaned vfd's. Zoe 22:51, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It helps that the new AfD template points to a different category than the old one, so almost everything that Category:Pages on votes for deletion contains now is an orphaned or incomplete nom. JYolkowski // talk 20:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baten Kaitos DS

Vaporware. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Hamster Sandwich 00:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiably in development. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Amren ^(talk) 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• This never made it to the main VfD page; adding it now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Baten Kaitos, well it has some info there already so maybe redirect. --TimPope 17:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect until some actual information is known. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baumhardt, Nick

vanity with an attempt at notability. Google search for relevant terms garnered 2 hits. i would speedy except there is a small attempt at notability. that said, Delete -- Bubbachuck 16:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd prefer speedy, but a simple Delete will do as well. --DrTorstenHenning 16:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• This never made it to the main VfD page; adding it now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bi-Rotor

• Delete Sounds like self promotion of something that never even reached market. Not technical details at all. ---Richhil 01:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Google shows the farming press and web is quite interested in it. And Deere is making funny noises about a major new announcement. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I think this has enough credibility as a new development to stay. Denni☯ 03:50, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• This never made it to the main VfD page; adding it now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Extract useful info and then redirect to combine harvester. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bit meddler

Vanity page. --Several Times 19:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete -asx- 03:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. --Firsfron 23:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP This is a notable and well known artist in his Genre, perhaps one of the best known, however, this article needs to be seriously improved Drdisque 08:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• This never made it to the main VfD page; adding now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. --maclean25 20:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp

Unless Ted Bundy stayed there or they invented a new kind of doughnut I can't see the reason for keeping this article.--Hooperbloob 06:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Blue Lake Fine Arts Camp is a major contributor to the arts community of the Great Lakes. Many, many orchaestra musicians trace their early training to this well-funded, well-regarded regional arts center. In essence, they have invented the fine arts camp for highly talented middle school and high school artists.

Wmjuntunen 19:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps listing those orchestra musicians in the same way that has been done for actors in Neighborhood Playhouse would be a good start. That would give it scope beyond the Great Lakes region.--Hooperbloob 20:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Hooperbloob ! I'll see what I can do. Wmjuntunen 03:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

As a prior BLFAC camper, I have a personal bias towards keeping this Wiki entry (it's not like this listing is some violation of the Wikipedia terms or anything). Truthfully, while I would agree with Wmjuntunen that BLFAC has had a significant impact on current musical talents, that is not the only reason it should be kept. The BLFAC instrument museum, in and of itself, is one of the few of its kind anywhere in the world, with both historical and reproductions of early musical devices. Additionally, BLFAC holds several contests each year such as the Falcone Euphonium Competition, as well as their annual Jazz Fest, contributing to the world's appreciation of music. Lastly, BLFAC, while in a no-name town in Michigan, has an impact well beyond the Great Lake region. Campers from not only all over the United States but also the world attend one of their sessions on music, theatre, piano, dance and art each summer. In most artistic circles, BLFAC is second only to Interlochen, which not only is also in Michigan, but is the world's premier artistic venue for high school age students.--Jigordon 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• This never made it to the main VfD page until now. weak keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clutter. Gamaliel 03:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If nothing else, it is at least as notable as many of the articles for regular schools that are included. 68.20.28.234 01:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wmjuntunen's and Jigordon's assertion of notability is verifiable and correct. Cmadler 14:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Other non-notable article subjects don't justify it. / Peter ^Isotalo 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP WITH POSSIBLE MERGE. moink 06:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Booger

• Merge with mucus. Booger is not the proper scientific name-I agree it should be merged with Mucus.
• Merge with mucus. Booger is not the scientific name for dried nasal mucus. booger is slang. This article if it is to exist should be under a scientific name 64.12.116.71 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but choose between snot and booger. I personally prefer snot, but since it disambiguates here, whatever. While I do not support merging, I do support changing the name to a more scientific term. ~GMH 07:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Such as "nasal mucus"?...Just a possibility.~GMH 06:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Since when does Wikipedia only document scientific names? See also, the previous deletion debate. --Mysidia (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Some articles should be under lay synonyms (e.g. vomiting vs. emesis) but not under slang terms. Others do better when they go under a scientific name; this should be done if the term itself is imprecise (e.g. stroke is less specific than cerebrovascular accident). JFW | T@lk 17:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A well written article DEng 11:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. – Pladask 20:30, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mucus 161.243.63.172 23:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mucus (oh dear I'm a sheep) --realwingus 10:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• This never got added to the main VfD page until now; adding. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to mucus, and this term should definitely be mentioned in that article. Meelar (talk) 17:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to mucus. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For fuck's sake, people. -HX 22:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to mucus. Wasn't that what we already decided? In (click, click) July? Why are we discussing this again? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to mucus. Nandesuka 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --InvaderJim42 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This is what had been decided previously. Proto t c 12:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For fuck's sake, people. (Agreed.)
• Merge to mucus -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As is, but cleanup a little bit. Booger, as a word, has more interest than mucus and would be totally inappropriate there. Hell, this article is already longer than that at mucus.SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to nasal secretion and cleanup. JFW | T@lk 17:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I feel the importance of the term booger needs to be given equal status to other encyclopedic terms because of its importance to our youth today. Sorna Doon 09:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this would take over mucus if added there. I'm not totally against finding a suitable blanket term for booger, snot, etc... but, it doesn't belong on the same page as mucus. gren グレン 09:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• I posted under my friend's name as we are visiting each other... and I forgot to change login... so, now I am fixing my mistake. gren グレン 09:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brett thompson

Probably should be deleted. The search "brett thompson" comptia on google returned four results, and a search without 'comptia' gives unrelated results. His position in CompTIA seems fairly minor. Unfortunately, this individual doesn't seem to be notable enough. Paul 17:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was incorrectly formatted and not added to the main VfD page; fixing. Weak keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oops! Thanks for fixing. Why keep, out of curiosity? Paul 16:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I personally find that the information presented in the article regarding his position in CompTIA is sufficient for me to believe that he's worthy of inclusion. Or, if he doesn't need his own article, we could merge and redirect it. Actually, upon reconsideration, Merge and redirect to CompTIA. JYolkowski // talk 19:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Merely nice asses are NN - notability requires exceptionally nice asses (and I'll still vote for delete even if it's edited to to 'spectacularly nice ass') Dlyons493 18:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The above user appears to have been viewing a vandalised version of the article. JYolkowski // talk 19:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. Still fails the average professor test though - no change in vote. Dlyons493 19:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn high school teacher. Sdedeo 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if you look on CompTIA's website, you'll see that he's a member of a minor committee--I wouldn't say his position is a major one. Paul 15:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 18:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brownie points

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bcrowell 03:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep no brownie points for you. Mmmbeer 03:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- looks like more than a dictionary entry to me.. --Mysidia (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable pseudo-currency. Kappa 04:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep not sure why we have the {{vocab-stub}} if words aren't fair game, but this is as much a concept as it is the word signifying that concept. Nateji77 04:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Words aren't fair game. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopaedia. {{vocab-stub}} was created as part of the stub-sorting and sub-stub elimination project, as a temporary holding area for sub-stubs that were dictionary articles that should be eventually transwikied to the dictionary and otherwise dealt with. See the explanation at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kybernetès by Grutness and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria/Archive9#.7B.7Bvocab-stub.7D.7D. Articles that give etymologies and meanings of words and idioms are dictionary articles, that belong in a dictionary. An encyclopaedia article is about a person/place/concept/event/thing. So an encyclopaedia article on brownie points would be about the concept of brownie points, not about the etymology of an idiom. Uncle G 06:39:56, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
    • Comment: while what Uncle G says is completely true, "otherwise dealt with" can include expanding the article into something more encyclopedic than, um, dictionaric. Whether that can happen in this case, though, I wouldn't know. (No vote). Grutness...wha? 04:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OK? SchmuckyTheCat 05:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. At this point, it is little more than a dicdef but my gut reaction is that there is still room for some expansion exploring the history and modern usage of the term, so I am slightly inclined to give it a pass. -- DS1953 06:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Well known phrase. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• A definite, nailed on keeper. jamesgibbon 10:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. To delete a stub, you have to be sure that it can never grow into something worthwhile. That clearly isn't the case here. Soo 12:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair | Talk 13:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - C'mon now :) --fpo 18:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - No reason I can tell to delete this. ~Don.
• Keep. I could see users needing to study the history and relation of this concept outside of the literal dictionary definition. Che Fox 06:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• This never made it to a main VfD page; listing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it did. It was listed on the 2005-08-20 per-day page for a few hours until it was removed by Matt Yeager (talk · contribs). Uncle G 19:40:34, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary. -- Reinyday, 16:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I'll conceed the posibility of making more than a dictdef out of this, and it's only been a mom-redirect for a little over a month, but if this comes back in a few months without having been made more than a dictdef, I'll gladly support a deletion then. Caerwine 00:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CalJW 19:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Give it time. --Meiers Twins 14:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not amazing material, but it's worthy enough to live. --McA 19:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butterfly fields

• Delete. obvious advertising for the company. Wikipedia is not a marketplace. -- Bubbachuck 00:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert Soltak 00:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• This never made it to the main VfD page until now. No vote. A and B looks like enough for today (-: JYolkowski // talk 15:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's an advertisement.

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. The first four comments, including the nomination, are made by very new or anon editors, and I'm inclined to discount them. The final editor has enough contribs and things, but this is their only edit in Wikipedia: space and is also discounted. Among those who remain, there is no desire to retain the article outright, and certainly no consensus that it should be merged and no further support for keeping (with a weakly reasoned comment anyway). With the 'opposition' divided, I'm going to call a consensus to delete. -Splash 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psycho hose beast

:It appears this was never actually listed - no vote --Doc (?) 16:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as much as I love Wayne's World, this isn't a very useful article. I think the term is used like once or twice in the movie, and it never caught on as a popular catchphrase or something. - Theuniversal
• Please do not delete. I hear this term very often in South Carolina, and learned its origins from this article. Strattonssirus 14:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strattonssirus's first edit. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Beg on my knees. Helga, Norway (user 'Helga' on no.wikipedia)
• Guest says: Please keep it. I use this phrase rather regularly, as I am exposed to women (and sometimes men) of this caliber with unfortunate regularity.
• Keep Why not? I've heard it being used before. --Richy 17:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "I heard it before" is not a keep criterion. Zoe 22:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or (very weak) transwiki. Dictdef and etymology, such as it is. —Cryptic (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Wayne's World. In my experience, term still has some currency, but there's not much to be said about it other than it originated in the film. Sdedeo 21:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable at all. Teklund 18:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; dict def at best. Proto t c 12:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 18:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Wayne's World. per Sdedeo. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem notable enough outside of Wayne's World, even if other people use it elsewhere. I don't think every in-joke from every movie deserves an encyclopedia article. --Elkman 19:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Apart from the author and David Gerard, the outright 'keeps' are not included, being rants from anons (with sometimes forged signatures). David Gerard conditions his comment on acceptable references — the references do not appear to have sated the critics. What remains is consensus to delete. -Splash 22:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Freedom Watch

Webpage with Alexa ranking of 862,598. Alexa description: Church of Scientology effort to expose religious intolerance, especially--but not exclusively--that directed against Scientology. The information shows a strong bias and is presented without any source. There is nowhere indicated who is responsible for the site. Site is not noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Irmgard 17:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• 'Speedy No context, exists solely for external link. Could probably be made into a real article but isn't one at present. Dlyons493 18:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletion is not the way to expand a stub. --AI 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Irmgard's statement is inaccurate. The information on RFW is presented with sources such as court records, police records, etc. Check out their page on Rick Ross. Who is responsible for the site is irrelevant, but if it is a concern: WHOIS reveal who is responsible. Site is a notable critic of the critics of Scientology Note: RFW is more notable than Barbara Schwarz which is also up for deletion and currently looking like a keep. :) signs of Wikipedia's sytemic bias... --AI 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC) AI (talk · contribs) is the article's author.
  • • I agree with user AI. Wikipedia can't allow rather unsupported articles and sources but the other side not allowing the RFW who backs most of its claims up with official documents as information source or reference! Part of User:VIVALDI ROCKS!'s second edit.

• Keep, but please include information as to the actual nature of RFW (i.e., a front group founded by Scientology to harass critics.) Sdedeo 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Delete per Modemac below. Sdedeo 18:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok but make sure you attribute any claims. I doubt you have any proof that it was founded "to harass critics." The site itself claims to expose critics, of course the critics do not like this and claim "harassment." --AI 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hee hee, yes, of course. But it is founded by the Church of Scientology, according to Alexa [14]. Sdedeo 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL. Alexa claims it is founded by the Church of Scientology but provides no proof or reference to it's claim. Actually RFW was founded by individual Scientologists who want to support their church. :) --AI 01:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• I am afraid I am going to have to vote Delete on this one. Despite AI's claims that he wants "contribution from all POVs and NPOVs" his actual editing shows that he wants it to be his own view and no one else's. Since when was it acceptable Wikipedia practice to revert three times, asking for attribution and then refusing to accept it once you get it, and then placing all the attributed material you don't want under a header stating "Claims by [[USERNAME]]" in the article? If AI is going to defend what he erroneously sees as his article with these unacceptable tactics, then we are better off having no article on this subject -- rather than one claimed by this editor as his private soapbox. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletion is not the solution to a failure to resolve disputes --AI 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • AI, I agree that VfD is not the place to resolve NPOV disputes, but I have looked at your edits, and it is pretty clear that you are behaving very poorly. Antaeus needs to supply sources (online or off) for the various statements in the article that you are trying to delete. But right now, it appears that you (AI) are behaving very disruptively. Sdedeo 03:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Sources were supplied for all of them except the claim that RFW is a Scientology group -- a source for which was given in this very AfD. After that, AI changed his story; instead of wanting contributions from POVs other than his own to be sourced, he wanted them to not "look like propaganda to me" -- i.e., he does not want all POVs to contribute after all, he only wants information favorable to RFW to go in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This whole article could be summarized as a notable mention under Scientology versus The Internet. The site does not contain much more than smear bios about Scn critics, and the article is turning into an edit war. Make the whole subject into one paragraph or so, and move it where it fits better. Marbahlarbs 06:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence of notability. Deserves a mention at some scientology article, but not an article for itself. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The only noteworthy thing about this Web site is that it is a Scientology propaganda page full of unsubstantiated, undocumented claims designed to smear critics of Scientology in a slanderous and arguably libelous manner. The site is not newsworthy (only mentioned at all in Scientology press releases), and the group has done nothing except harass critics of Scientology. This is not noteworthy enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, as it is already amply covered in the Scientology controversy section (under "Dead Agenting"). It is in the same category as an article created by a company trying to advertise their own product: biased, irreversible POV, and nothing more than hot air. --Modemac 12:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete NN Borisblue 13:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wacko cultcruft Proto t c 12:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Religious Freedom Watch is just one of a long series of bogus groups used as fronts for Scientology's Office of Special Affairs. (Earlier ones included the Scientology Parishioners League and the Foundation for Religious Tolerance.) According to Tory Christman, the now ex-Scientologist who worked with him on a previous front group, Joel Phillips is clueless and is NOT the real person behind RFW; he's just a cutout. RFW deserves at most a few sentences in an article on Scientology dead agent campaigns. This article should go. --Touretzky 14:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The RFW site was created mainly for internal consumption by Scientologists. Its impact on the larger world is nil. A wikipedia entry should not have more substantial content than the subect of its article, which limits the practical size of this entry to to or three lines.

--Vreejack 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP Informative website supported by many official references. Who cares who put it up as long as the references can be checked within courts, agencies, Usenet and other archives. Can't see the alleged harassment. Seems critics of Scientology are no saints and they dislike publication about it. SAINT 19:13, 5 September 2005 This is SAINT (talk · contribs)'s only edit.

Signature added manually by --Irmgard 18:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• ABSOLUTELY KEEP This website contains many official documents, and many of their articles are better documented than most Wikipedia articles. See yourself:

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham2.html Not accepting anything provided by Scientologists reminds of how the German Nazis did not accept anything provided by the Jews. What has religion to do with writing on Wikipedia? Apparently, these people who attack Scientology are not as good and innocent as they want to be viewed, and there is no reason why their true characters should be not portrayed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia accepts as information sources Usenet articles that could have been fabricated by anyone. Why not accepting a website that backs most of its claims up with official court and archive records? Note also that the anti-religious extremists never sued the RFW. If it would be true what Dave Touretzky claims, how come he did not sue them? He has money. There are even two attorneys portrayed as anti-religious extremists and the site is all over the Internet. I am sure they would represent their anti-religious extremist collegagues for free, if anyone of them would have a case. The problem is that Dave Touretzky and his friends are an anti-free speech advocates. They remove any critical data about themselves when they can. I had at least five websites with true and supporting information about Dave Touretzky on the Internet. I was informed that he goes after them and threaten to sue the ISP if they don't take the critic down, and the ISP don't want to be involved in legal actions, give in and remove the websites. Fine free world we live in. There is no free speech and that the RFW websites is bullied from Wikipedia is also a sign of no free speech. User Vivaldi rocks!

As with User:SAINT, User:VIVALDI ROCKS! has appeared from out of nowhere to comment on this article, and on two other articles related to Scientology critics that have seen disputes between User:AI and other Wikipedians. See VIVALDI ROCKS! edit history. --Modemac 19:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm also tempted to invoke Godwin's Law.)

Godwin's foolish philosophy works to protect Holocaust revisionists and other Nazis who try to keep their work undercover. I say shine a bright light on them and trash this obsolete Godwin's law. It is slightly similar to the "law" about monkeys at typewriters who will eventually write an entire ENCYCLOPEDIA. --AI 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of who they are, their vote should be welcome unless you have proof they are sock puppets of someone else who has already voted. --AI 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

And on what basis would you propose that they be welcome to "vote" with their first or their third edit? Their "votes" are pretty much vapor since they cannot show any sign of commitment to Wikipedia or any sign of attained experience in the goals and practices of Wikipedia. Now, if they had any significant point of view to contribute to the conversation, it would certainly be taken into account. However, they don't seem to have much to say besides stuff that isn't relevant and stuff that we seem to have read before... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect text to Scientology versus The Internet. Websites per-se are not a reason to create an article. What concerns me more is that editors are voting "delete" because they don't like what that website stands for. VfD are not for censoring, or for politically motivated deletes, but to keep WP clean of unecessary articles. --ZappaZ 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if we can find referable information that non-Scientologists would consider a decent reference - David Gerard 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to be said against the links to Judaism, Catholic Church, Christianity, etc. - but on the other hand that's not enough for an encyclopedia entry. BTW it's not necessarily so, that critics of Scientology want to suppress this site by every means - on the contrary. The critical site Operation Clambake (whose author also has a page on religious freedom watch) links to it on its frontpage as an excellent example for the way Scientology communicates.I am personally convinced this site does more harm to Scientology than to anyone else - but that's no reason either to put it into an encyclopedia. Mention in Scientology vs. Intranet, that's ok --Irmgard 21:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per Zappaz. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete RFW is a hate site using the weak US libel laws to smear scientology critics around the world. I am myself a victim of this site, as are several of my friends. Even a "balanced" article about this site would be honoring it. Tilman 16:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people who claim to be Jesus Christ

Strangely, never seems to have been listed despite the votes - no vote --Doc (?) 16:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing really worth mentioning in the article. It lists 2 people and tells us that homeless guys like to say they're jesus. delete and merge Frenchman113 18:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - article is minutes old, give it a chance. Very interesting and legit topic. Renata3 18:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete- If I had a quarter for every whacko and/or homeless person who thought they were Jesus, I'd be a millionaire. Totally irrelevant. Karmafist 01:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Most of these people are very notable, especially Haile Selassie, Jim Jones, and Marshall Applewhite. --Kennyisinvisible 19:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Please take notice that the homeless reference has been removed, even though it is an important aspect of society. There are other people added to the list as well. Please read the updated article before making judgement. --Eduard Gherkin 05:26:07, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, I already see no less than 8 people there. Secondly, claiming to be the Christ is obviously a very notable personality trait. Rama 21:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Replace with a category as suggested by Habap on the talk page. Also break down into subcategories based on who claimed what; for example, Haile Selassie not only didn't claim it, he actually denied the Rastas' claim. Tualha (Talk) 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It's an important subject, plus it's quirky, interesting, and relevant. It should definitely stay. Keep it an article though — this topic needs accompanying paragraphs to provide background and further explanation. Swingbeaver 00h40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is definitely a list that can be added to
• Speedy Delete This can't possibly turn into anything other than a "I don't believe in Jesus" thread, which is just par for the trolls--I-2-d2 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or merge with the 'list of people who have claimed to be God', that CATV whacko that South Park lampoons should be on the list.--Gorgonzilla 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it is quite an interesting topic that can be added to, and I just don't see any religious bias in it. Croat Canuck 22:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I began and wrote the majority of this article and I wish to make my case. This is not an article against Jesus Christ or Christians. It is plain to see this due to the fact that it is written in a non-biased fashion (neither for nor against Christ and Christianity). This article was put up for deletion when it was only a few minutes old and when it had only two people and a small comment about the homeless. (The homeless comment is true if one were to ask the majority of city-dwellers, but I took it out of the article because it is not Wikiworthy) It is blatantly obvious that the article has been expanded and improved. It has even been added to by authors other than myself, thus verifying that others take an interest in this notable and odd personality trait. It is true that the article can be improved (and therefore one must "be bold" to update it) but the original reason for having this page put up for deletion is no longer applicable. It is my opinion that it should remain its own article. This is a very specific aspect of people who claim to be deities. Perhaps in List of self-proclaimed deities there could be a link to this page. It is a very thought provoking subject. One must ask, "Why choose Jesus out of all other people? Why do murderous people such as Charles Manson or Luc Jouret claim to be Christ (who said "blessed are the peacemakers")? What is it about Jesus Christ that causes so many people to think that they are his reincarnation? How does a murderous person ever come to associate themselves with Jesus?" (Such were the thoughts through which this article came to fruition.) I shall summarize what I have said: this is a thought-provoking article that can be added to (and has been added to already) and the original reason why it should be deleted is now obsolete. Eduard Gherkin 23:32:27, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
• Merge --Alterego 03:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable phenomenon, although I think the list should be restricted to situations where: a) the person was, in fact, notable; OR b) where the person making the claim attracted actual followers who purported to believe the claim. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to a more accurate title, i.e. "List of people who claim to be the messiah" --Kennyisinvisible 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. MCB 19:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of messiah claimants. -HX 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge (prefer to keep, but a well-done merge might make it look better). -Sean Curtin 22:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm sure many millions of people (notable or non-notable) in the world claims to be Jesus Christ, nevertheless those who are already deceased. UniReb 23:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic list, verifiable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Klonimus (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 September 2005
• Merge with List of messiah claimants, since many of these did not specifically claim to the JC. Possible link to Jerusalem syndrome - Skysmith 11:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Keep as above, but don't there is no good reason to delete this. SchmuckyTheCat 00:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but article should talk about notable cases through history. --MacRusgail 14:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational radiation of atom

There are oodles of fundamental errors and misunderstadnings. The potential is wrong, inner electrons screen the potential. There are no terms for spin-orbit coupling, no fine/hyperfine structure of any kind. These are approx 10^40 greater in magnitude than any effect from gravitation. And the whole thing is presented non-relativistically, which is wrong for high-Z, and generally misleading. In its current form, I think the article is beyond repair. linas 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, of course. linas 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. --Ghirlandajo 16:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. It may not be obvious to everyone from what Linas wrote above, but the other corrections being "10^40 greater in magnitude" means that this is undetectable in the sense that you could never find a particular penny in a billion billion billion copies of the U.S. National Debt. We don't have the technology, we won't have the technology for countless centuries, and it's not important anyway. There is no visible effect, and no deep knowledge to be gained from this idea--we don't need an article on this. -- SCZenz 16:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with SCZenz; this is insignificant and the physics is incomplete. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. My first impression was to delete since the effect is so small, but I am reluctant to take drastic action before somebody checks the reference, which suggests that it is published in the proceedings of a conference which seems to be serious. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen, and read, similar conference proceedings which are of equal stature, containing "proofs" that special relativity is wrong, etc. so I don't consider publication alone to be a reasonable standard. And even if the conference presentation was by Ed Witten, this article fails to convey what's meaningful & interesting. (Its even mis-titled; as there is no discussion of gravitational radiation.) linas 18:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As Pjacobi points out on Talk:Gravitational radiation of atom, the last sentence is wrong and the rest is irrelevant. Gravitational radiation is a relativistic phenomenon, so you cannot discuss it without discussing relativity (please tell me if I'm wrong; I'm not a physicist). The author's website it at http://www.webfinder.ru/vm/ (in Russian) and the same text as Gravitational radiation of atom can be found at http://www.webfinder.ru/vm/abstract1.html . His resume is, uhm, unconventional for people visiting GR conferences. I'm now even more curious on the reference. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if possible to improve and contextualise. Reference is valid - see [15] but that alone doesn't make it notable. Dlyons493 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one mentioning in a conference proceedings isn't enough to establish relevance. No V V Mikheev to be found on the preprint servers. And of course the effect is incredibly small, even smaller than calculated in the article, as that calculation is all wrong. --Pjacobi 19:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Karol 07:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)Keep or merge with gravitational radiation. The page needs massive reformatting and wikification. It's also inexact (plain wrong is maybe too harsh?) in a few places and the calculations are questionable, and relativistic effects are neglected. All this, however, still doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, I believe, since it describes an actual physical effect, albeit unimaginably small (we have articles on many physical phenomenon that we can't really measure or which are only hypothetical). Lack of references also is not a reason for deletion is it? Therefore we should let it stay, put up the appropriate warnings, and wait for improvement. An alternative would be to merge with gravitational radiation. Maybe I'm missing something or wrong, though? Karol 20:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with merge. The article doesn't describe radiation, it describes corrections to hydrogen energy levels. Also, look at the comment from the anon who created the article--it implies that he is the person cited. Doesn't that make it original research...? -- SCZenz 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, this being an "actual physical effect" doesn't make it notable. Nor does appearing once in a conference somewhere. Does every paper published by every physicist (even the ones with tenure and funding at universities) get a wikipedia article? Nope, and it shouldn't. Can you explain what might possibly make this notable? -- SCZenz 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Where can I see this comment? Yes, the article does not describe radiation per se, but it should, at leasts that is what the name of the page suggests. Karol 21:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, this being an "actual physical effect" doesn't make it notable. Nor does appearing once in a conference somewhere. Does every paper published by every physicist (even the ones with tenure and funding at universities) get a wikipedia article? Nope, and it shouldn't. Can you explain what might possibly make this notable? -- SCZenz 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't think of any argument. You are probably right, it is NN. Karol 21:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete; highly speculative and non-notable. The bar for having something in a conference proceedings is extremely low. It is not an "actual physical effect", it is a "contentious, non-notable speculation". Sdedeo 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Since gravity is pretty much irrelevant on atomic and subatomic scale, the article has no use. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per other delete voters. Quale 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to the arguments the other delete voters had madeSalsb
• strong delete as crude nonsense (kind of like an article describing the phlogiston theory as an established theory in the chemistry pages) CH (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landover mall

old nom never listed -now fixed - no vote --Doc (?) 16:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE mall is unimportant. unsigned by User:WillC
• DELETE not notable G Clark
• Keep factually correct (in general, needs cleanup), used by hundreds of thousands of people in its prime. Defunct malls are an interesting aspect of Americana dml 22:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wait, so now not only do we have to keep articles about every building in every country, but we're also the junkyard repository for ex-buildings too? Delete. Nandesuka
  • No vote, but: while an everyday mall is non-notable, a mall which still exists but has been closed for decades may be notable for being just that. This isn't an ex-building, it's still there, unoccupied. — mendel ☎ 17:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Landover, Maryland. Keeping is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to LOL (Internet slang). The nominator hints at a merge, too. -Splash 22:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laugh a little

Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary, besides we have Internet slang#L. --Mysidia (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into internet slang. Mcfly 16:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's actually LOL (Internet slang) that covers this territory. Uncle G 20:24:17, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Like, Totally!

No listed by nominator - fixed now --Doc (?) 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete 'Like, Totally' not notable (no even for ultra-inclusionists) --Doc (?) 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ni --TimPope 18:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete joke/hoax. "Tap Som Bong Highschool"? Gimme a break. --MCB 19:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I would recommend merging with the school's article, but I can't find any evidence that Tap Som Bong school even exists. Pburka 20:28, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Like, Totally Non-notable! -- DS1953 21:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Please. --Meiers Twins 14:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Dallaway

Appears to be vanity and advertising all in one. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - I didn't have the balls to just put it up for speedy cause it did mention it's notability, but the sole author wrote this after I VfDed it (which I promptly reverted). Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Alex Dallaway" "Dot-Cash" = 0 googles thus hoax. --Doc (?) 17:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete unverifiable at best. Dlyons493 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL FOUR. -Splash 22:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third rebellion

Band vanity. And what would band vanity be without member vanity (Austin Post and Trevor Meiste) and even band blog vanity (One Man Rebellion)? Delete the whole "yet to release any albums or music" lot. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:02:56, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

• Delete. All four nn. --Canderson7 20:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. Non-notability, thy name is Third rebellion. Fire Star 05:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memoirs of Walter Bruce

Again, this seems not to have been listed (except as part of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Adam Beck - no vote--Doc (?) 18:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like an ad and a bit of vanity, as well --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: the VFD tag was blanked three times by 70.146.54.128 (talk · contribs). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete drini ☎ 06:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Calton | Talk 08:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, ad, non-notable. Aecis 09:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. The only google hit is this AfD. --Canderson7 20:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 22:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KTOON

Advertisement for not-notable-enough website/software. (Alexa rank 2million+). From the talk page "I am the KToon director project and i am interested in to clarify that Toonka Films is really interested in to promoting the KToon Website." Of course, Wikipedia is not the place for such promotion. Brighterorange 18:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement Dlyons493 19:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, advert. --MCB 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I cleaned it up, and removed the cut & pasted content. This is a real open source project, and is quite impressive already. (also, Alexa is an IE plugin. It isn't relevant to a Unix software project) -- Colin Hill ⁄ talk ▪ 08:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• changing my vote to weak keep based on the rewrite, which no longer sounds like advertising. I'm still skeptical about the notability, though; for instance its Freshmeat ranking is very very low. —brighterorange ^(talk) 14:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I do not know of any other OpenSource animation software (minue gimp-gap) and it is notable enough to have its own gentoo ebuild. keep

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED by Zoe. -Splash 22:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squodge mcdodge

For a prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Squodge mcdodge.

Non notable NeilN 18:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN Dlyons493 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Not in IMDB, not in Google. Apparently came up in August, see User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Squodge_mcdodge and User talk:Jerzy#Squodge_mcdodge. Possibly a re-creation? MCB 19:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedied. It was deleted just yesterday as a result of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Squodge mcdodge and almost immediately recreated. Zoe 22:59, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Maiorino

Listing nomination from Aug 7th by anon - --Doc (?) 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is nothing but an article about a doctor. There is no need for every individual doctor or person to be in an encyclopedia (unsigned by User:63.167.255.204)
• Delete not an A7 - as last paras seem to imply he is a mystic crime-fighting superhero, but looks like bs nonetheless--Doc (?) 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dlyons493 19:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is actually a chiropractor in New York by this name, but the superheroic stuff makes this article look like a joke. --Metropolitan90 01:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Varity Delete --Aranda56 04:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete, even discounting the numerous rather fishy anons. I'm particularly swayed by the contributions of experienced hands such as Mgm (despite his abstention), and JYolkowski. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Casric

• Keep Brilliant dj/producer, should be a keep. Big Pusher of prog, one of the few true prog djs that havent sold out to electro.

• KeepStumbled across this wiki from the progressive house wiki, i must say he has been one of the best up and coming djs around and i expect a high dj magazine placing for him this year. I disagree with the speedy as he has released music under different names and been featured on national radio.

I don't think this is a valid speedy. The article includes a audiography, numerous magazine appearances and a regular radio spot. That should be a valid claim at notability. Abstain. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, appears quite verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 19:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain If anybody cares enough, would they edit all the Andrew Casrics to Andrew Casric (or vice versa)? If nobody cares then NN and delete Dlyons493 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The original article was a cut-and-paste from the DJ's own website, and probably self-promotion. After that was listed for speedy deletion, the author hacked it into the current piece of illiterate rubbish. The subject is not a notable figure. --Brumburger 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I created this as he is my favourite dj and resident at one of my favourite clubs, sorry if thats not allowed but he is a popular dj and producer, ive heard his remixes played on the pete tong show on www.bbc.co.uk/radio1 and on Galaxys specialist shows, i thought it was fitting to create this page. *edit* this is also the first time i have made a wiki and did not realise that deleting the text at the top meant removing the mark... after initially creating the page i took a look at some other dj pages and used the format used on those. --82.36.170.215

• Delete Unencyclopedic nonesense - he worked on an album in the year of his birth?!? Andy Mabbett 19:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Quale 05:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

.... Where does it say that? ... Andy Mabbett the name of the song is 1979

• Keep and clean up if notability can be proved. Need some sources for claims, google not very conclusive. I don't agree that the history of the article is enough basis for deleting its current content. akaDruid 10:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. The article is now unrelated to that which was nominated. -Splash 22:58, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National Petroleum Technology Office

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Claims to give information on the topic: "Global Information". Seems to be advertising a company. Written in 1st person, so non-encyclopediac. Contact details at bottom of the page suggest a greater possibility of promoting a product or company. Google does a good translation if anyone needs one (German to English). -- FireFox 20:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• This VfD still seems to be live, so I will add my delete to that of FireFox. Physchim62 01:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. en.wiki is not de.wiki. Dlyons493 19:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

German. Looks like spam to me, but I can't tell. -- Creidieki 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm... Difficult one, contains some info but contains contact info, so who knows...FireFox 13:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Taken another look at this one. The article seems to be advertising a product or system and is written in the first person. FireFox 20:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing a VfD proccess. --Sn0wflake 02:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect if it is translated into English. The National Petroleum Technology Office is/was a real U.S. Gov't agency under the Department of Energy; its name has since been changed to the Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil. I'm all for deleting government departments, but so long as they exist, many of them will warrant WP articles. Paul 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article does not talk about a US gov't agnecy, but I agree with a redirect if the title permits it. Physchim62 23:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know what the stuff in German was, but I wrote a stub about the actual agency by this name. Paul 02:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like that does the job nicely! Thanks. Physchim62 02:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nevada State Route 401

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No One cares about a small road in nevada. Just wastes time And Space (unsigned by User:Aranda56)

• Delete. A 2.5 mile access road to a national park is not inherently notable. Pilatus 20:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a state route; also it connects a state recreation area to an interstate. It may not seem notable since it's probably in an area of the state that must not have a very large population. UniReb 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact it's a state-maintained access spur from Interstate 80 to Rye Patch National Park. I'd say the park is the more relevant thing here. Pilatus 00:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not even a national park, it's a state recreation area. --Calton | Talk 04:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Then what the fuck is wrong with merging with an article about the park? --SPUI (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Extreme roadcruft. --Calton | Talk 04:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Extreme roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that there are WikiProjects dedicated to articles on US National and State Highways. Grutness...wha? 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. It has a Nevada state route marker on it, thus is state maintained, thus has an important purpose. -- Grev -- Talk 05:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• That was one of my first edits while i was testing wikipedia a few weeks ago. Now that i am familiar i still think it its a non-notable road and i still vote Delete beacuse if U add every state route from every state u will get ALOT of Articles probaly 10,000 plus More Articles and i know Wikipedia dont want that --Aranda56 05:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor road. --TimPope 12:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's notable because it's a numbered state route. --K1vsr (talk) 15:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and all verifiable roads. JYolkowski // talk 15:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 2.3 mile road with no notability whatsoever. Quale 05:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything remotely encyclopaedic (not much) into Interstate 80 or the article on the park. A strip of tarmac is not inherently notable. Proto t c 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep humor the people into roadcruft. SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The standard seems to be to include all state highways. For the record, the county this road is in is a little smaller then the state New Jersey with a population of 6,700 or so. Vegaswikian 04:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Entirely unrelated article has been written in place. -Splash 23:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Night service

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This page was copied out of an instruction manual for some sort of telephony system and makes no sense out of context. --nertzy 11:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy A1 Dlyons493 19:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• OK, I'll vote speedy pn. --Doc (?) 20:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not sure it meets speedy criteria, but delete nontheless. -PlainSight 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Whilst there was no context before to explain what the single sentence that the article comprised was on about, after a complete rewrite there is not only plenty of context, there are also two references. Keep. Uncle G 21:41:08, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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. Those gave the option put delete first, so I presume they're happy with this course of action. -Splash 23:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 2600

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Not notable as with 3200. This one is even shorter and even less notable -Towel401 20:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to List of Nokia products, which is bad enough. Wikipedia is not a catalog. I suppose List of Goodyear tires is next. -R. fiend 20:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect as per R. fiend Dlyons493 19:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. android79 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 3110

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 19:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A completely worthless uninformative stub about a phone hardly anyone has even heard of -Towel401 20:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to List of Nokia products as per R. fiend

on similar product Dlyons493 19:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A phone "hardly anyone has even heard of?" Come off it. It was introduced in 1997, by 1998 it was the stock mobile phone, and it is still selling on ebay today. A classic. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per R.fiend.--nixie 02:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect, as above. Nothing special about this particular serial number. Radiant_>|< 15:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the article tells you precisely what is special. It was the first Nokia phone with the single central soft key. It was for a period stretching from mid-1997 until perhaps early 2000 the classic phone on the European market (not sure if the US market was at that time so well developed), and it's still available now. It is distinguishable from later models in the same family because it has a stubby external aerial and (as far as I'm aware) is not customizable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A typically bad single sentence substub. "Nokia 3110 was the first Nokia phone to introduce the Navi-key." -- that's it. WTF is a Navi-key, and why should anyone care? Quale 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge Tony's information about the phone into the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, one line sub stub, could be covered easily on the List of Nokia products. The very popular Nokia phone that was the classic one on the market in the late 90s was the Nokia 3210. Proto t c 13:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please tony made a really good point there Yuckfoo 19:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. android79 16:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nokia 6110

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need a stub/article on every single Nokia phone? Nokia has a phone archive with the specifications of every phone they ever made. Perhaps these articles contain a few worthless factoids about these phones, cant there be a Nokia phone's factoid page or something? In my opinion this article is completely worthless and not notable. Maybe this should be merged with other Nokia phone articles as there usually isnt an awful lot to say about them. -Towel401 20:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to List of Nokia products as per R. fiend

on similar product Dlyons493 19:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect as per etc. Proto t c 13:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's room on Wikipedia for an article of each of these popular and iconic gadgets. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Micah Wright

This stub has devolved into an online stalk by user Lokifer. The writer in question is NOT famous, but the amount of research carried out in an attempt to smear him is phenomenal. There's a LOT of POV problems, as well as a lot of talk such as "claims to have graduated from the University of Arizona" -- submit for deletion. Carnifax 19:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep — There was an article on this guy in the Washington Post.[16] The claims of fraud are very likely true, particularly with regard to his military service, and in that sense he could be considered notable. — RJH 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Micah Wright is (or was; I don't know if anyone will hire him again) a notable fiction writer. That his fiction included his resumé is... unfortunate; however, I don't see any reason not to keep. Also, Stormwatch: Team Achilles fuckin' rocked, man. DS 20:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The only POV problem I can see is that silly "claims to have graduated". I was skeptical at first, but indeed, I find after googling around that Wright seems to have been a liar of great proportions. Sdedeo 21:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, but watch for stalkercruft. -Sean Curtin 22:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Stalkercruft"??? -- llywrch 00:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is a known comic book writer, antiwar "activist" (I've been told that the label activist doesn't apply to him) and military imposter (ala Douglas R. Stringfellow and Wes Cooley, except Cooley served in the military). I was accused of making up the information by Carnifax, so I gave more detail with links, some are actual transcripts. Since providing the information, Carnifax has asked for this to be deleted and removed all information that he originally asked for.Lokifer 07:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Of course Lokifer the stalker would vote to keep the page... how else would he continue to smear this guy? There are FAR more famous comic book writers who aren't represented in Wikipedia,

• • interruption - just because "more famous writers aren't represented in Wikipedia" is no reason to delete this writer. Rather, it's a reason to add entries for those other writers. DS 17:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• (vote continues) and this guy's resume-padding, however offensive, isn't particularly notable. Moreover, Lokifer continues to pepper the stub with unattributed claims like 'he lied about being nominated for an Emmy' when the guy has explained how and when his work was nominated. Moreover, the claims of having participated in 'covert activities' aren't backed up by Lokifer's source material... the closest one gets is the Reporter using the words covert activities and not in a direct quote from the subject. The new inclusion of the usage of Photoshop to rework the posters isn't substantiated and runs counter to the guy's own statements about how he accomplishes his 'art' or whatever. Lokifer constantly expands the guy's crimes -- one university is mentioned in his links, but he expands that to 'universities.' He does the same thing where he finds a single quote where the guy lashed out against someone using his false military service as a soapbox, but then expands that to 'people' without substantiation. The page he links to clearly shows that the guy apologized to this Parrot person for doing so as well. Lokifer further expands the smear campagin by blasting an artist's conference as an 'anti-war-forum' when looking at the site, it was clearly a symposium of anti-war artists lecturing about technique and format to students who were there in for an artistic conference, not an anti-war rally. Lokifer complains that the guy posted a false bio on his webpage and then complains that it's since been deleted... would he be happier if the lies were still there? Lastly, to point out more semi-truths, it appears that this comicbook Stormwatch Team Achilles was cancelled well before this guy's revelations... all DC did was not publish the final issue... AND the guy clearly has published his second book of posters. It's pretty clear that Lokifer has spent a great deal of time stalking down this guy's lies and foibles online, but it's not clear that this guy's two-year-run of resume-padding is worth an entry in Wikipedia, especially not if it's going to be filled with so much politically-motivated personal bias and half-truths. Carnifax 20:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Micah (oops, I mean Carnifax), correct any errors that you see, but don't delete them. The problem with tracking down most of the information about Micah Wright is that hard facts cannot be found, usually because Micah Wright deleted most of his posts in his forum and enough place online that he was quoted at now no longer existed. There's also the damning interview at KPFK on "Democracy Now" with Amy Goodman that was available for download on his website that's no longer available. What's so damning about the interview? He embellished so much about his fake military career (most of which I have included). Elsewhere (but included in the article with links) Micah has said, "(He has seen) a lot of nastiness in South and Central America during G.H.W. Bush's regime," and he has said, "After four years spent invading other countries as an Airborne Ranger in the U.S. Army." Besides Panama, what other "invasions" of Central and South American countries was the USA publically engaged in between 1987 and 1991? There are none, so they must be secret covert operations. I've been able to find two universities that Micah spoke at: USC and New School University. At both he spoke out against the war and he was an attractive speaker for the issue since he was claiming to be an ex-ranger. Now if you want to include nice things that he has done, please add them. I'd like to see what charities he has established or other equally good deeds from this man. However, since he built his whole persona on being an anti-war ex-Army Ranger, I see nothing wrong pointing out just how engrained and far reaching the lies went by using HIS OWN WORDS.Lokifer 21:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe you didn't see my comments above, criticizing his lies. My only point is that he's hardly famous and not worth an expansive entry in Wikipedia, much less an obviously politically inspired smear job full of POV and unsupported indictments. Your interpretations aside, Micah Wright never mentions 'covert activity' in any of the articles you cite. Referencing an interview which you can only vaguely 'remember' as 'damning' isn't quite the same a citing FACTS about what he said. You're also conflating quotes from two different interviews to concoct a charge against him: that he claims he "saw ugliness throughout Central and South America" during GHW Bush's administrations isn't the same as participating in covert activities... we all saw America Imperialism at work all throughout the Reagan/Bush years. Add that to the fact that the US Army (including Rangers, which he was pretending to have been) invaded Somalia in the same period of time, and I think you're stretching it to state that "invading countries" means that he categorically claimed to have been involved in 'covert activities.' It's a loaded POV accusation which you've jerry-rigged together by Frankensteining disparate quotes. Moreover, you make the same sins of exaggeration you're accusing him of when you say he told 'people' to shut up, rather than one person. Then again, maybe this is just the kind of grammar and logic problems which afflict all of your postings about this guy: 'gave a fuzzy photographs" being a prime example. Again, it's a borderline vanity page, and the current revision is so full of POV that it's next to useless. If he's forever banned from comic books and his career as an author is finished, then what's the point of pretending he's famous? As for what charities he's established or what good works he's accomplished, I have no idea... I haven't extensively stalked him online, unlike some... all I've done is read your version of his life and looked at the 'proof' you think you've compiled.Carnifax 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just have a few things to say because this is a discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted. One, Micah never mentioned Somilia or Iraq, but specified that he was in Central and South America when he was "invading countries". Two, you claim that I have too much of a POV, but your use of the term "American Imperalism" is hardly non-POV and I think it clouds your judgement on my entries in the article. Three, the line about the "fuzzy photograph" is not something I made up on a whim; it is a quote from Dan Simon, publisher of Wright's book, that can be found in an article by Publishers Weekly, a credible source methinks, with a link provided to that article. Four, if you think too much is being made of his story about being a ranger, please give a more rounded biography on him. Five, if Kathy Change and Martin Hewitt meets the criteria of having a article on Wikipedia, surely a nationally published author and artist with credits attached to comic books, cartoons and videogames who falsely claimed to be an army ranger while speaking out against a war meets the criteria. Sure, he's no Jack Kirby or Wally Wood or Jack Vance or Dalton Trumbo or Alan Moore or Sam Rolfe (which reminds me, I need to start an article on him), but ask the average person who any of those guys are and you get blank stares too. Does this negate the fact that any of these people should have articles because they are not well known (aka famous or infamous) enough? Lokifer 01:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omnial

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 19:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable pretender to be an international auxiliary language. — Carlos Th (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. — Carlos Th (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator. --IJzeren Jan 08:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. "Omnial language" gets 50 Ghits but only about half are for this language, most of those are mere mentions in lists, or Wikipedia pages and mirrors. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Minor Hogwarts teachers. -Splash 23:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilkie Twycross

Wholly unimportant character in the Harry Potter series. It is very unlikely that this article could ever be expanded. Lachatdelarue (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, no great need to expand, but could go into his teaching technique and general demeanor. Kappa 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Minor Hogwarts teachers. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, per Angr. -- llywrch 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or stick on some list of minor characters. Gamaliel 10:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with and redirect to Minor Hogwarts teachers. --Icarus 17:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Minor Hogwarts teachers per WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not much useful debate, but no point in relisting because it's obvious that it'll be soundly deleted, probably with an infestation of socks. -Splash 23:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vortendum

As far as I can tell, this is just a personal website. Joyous (talk) 16:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• One google hit and zero incoming links says you're right. Alexa data isn't useful, since this is a subdomain. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well, I admit, this looks somewhat like a personal website. What do you think that we keep it here for a while? Maybe someone would stumble across it. I searched for this in Google, and yeah, it seems very much like a personal site, and yet it doesn't quite seems so. It's a bit more serious than others I've seen. I say keep it. Keep User:Théone
  • Théone has no edits. The above comment was actually by 24.57.101.248, the creator of the article. —Cryptic (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Website vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing much I can say... keep. User:Nobody
  • The above comment was actually by 209.202.75.14. —Cryptic (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Walton

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 20:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is not often that I put things up for deletion, but, looking through the recent changes, this article caught my eye. Does this referee deserve an article? I have checked the internet, and, despite being in refereeing for such a long time, he has only ever officiated over very few top-flight games; the BBC lists 16 Premiership games, but perhaps that was only from one season. Nonetheless, I can find nothing remarkable about his life, or any controversial or important decision that he has made; so, I do not really see why this guy deserves an article above any other run-of-the-mill FA referee. If there are compelling reasons, I would love to know (although I am not much of a football fan;) but I cannot see what is notable about him, other than his being a select referee. That should take up a line, not a whole page. IINAG 23:33, 24th August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--referees aren't inherently notable (indeed, if they do their jobs well, they don't get noticed at all). Meelar (talk) 23:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to convince that he was worth an article, & only 1 link to this article. (I guess Meelar is wrong: look at all of those famous referees at Referee (football)!) -- llywrch 00:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piasetzki & Nenniger LLP

VfD not previously listed - no vote--Doc (?) 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is a boutique firm of only 5 lawyers and does not seem to have done anything particularly notable. It advertises its work in the case of FWS Joint Sports Claimants v. Border Broadcasters Inc. which isn't a very notable case in and of itself. Moreover, their website misleadingly refer to it as a Supreme Court case when in fact it was denied leave to appeal, so I'm very suspicious. --PullUpYourSocks 21:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Expand on FWS Joint Sports Claimants Not vanity focuses more on FWS Joint Sports Claimants
  • Shouldn't be judged on size only whether they are of encyclopidic value
  • Don't see misleadingly refers to it as a supreme court case, only where they appeared as Counsel(Google).
  • Expand on the FWS Joint Sports Claimants and how they relate to Bill C-60

--J2000ca 06:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn law firm. Zoe 23:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - does not appear to be notable. -- DS1953 01:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete generic law firm. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Axis Pub

Forum with 6 members, 21 posts, but a whopping 53 subforums. Delete nn forum vanity from the people who brought you the above Third rebellion. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:36:10, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

• Delete Article even admits it "currently only has a few members, but it grows at a slight rate". -- llywrch 00:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable webforum. 6 members and 21 posts says it all. Quale 18:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey technique

Non-verifiable. I think. I didn't have any luck googling for it, and no other citations have been forthcoming. Bunchofgrapes 20:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a hoax and nn anyway Dlyons493 23:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I watched your questioning of the users who created this page and their defence basically boiled down to "it's not nonsense because it's original research about a neologism". Yeesss... -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax, non-notable at best. Quale 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Preferred provider organization. -Splash 23:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prudent buyer

(listing orphan VfD) but I'll vote delete too - substub for a generic term for a health insurance product - I can't see any useful redirect. --Doc (?) 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like Preferred provider organization would be a good redirect. Meelar (talk) 23:48, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Meelar, assuming the article is correct. One sentence in Preferred provider organization looks like all this article needs. -- DS1953 01:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Meelar and DS1953. Edwardian 03:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Toll House Inn. There is next to none consensus here, but one thing everyone agrees on is that the current contents shouldn't be kept. Therefore a "no consensus - default to keep" result would be out of place. — JIP | Talk 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Toll House

Not notable and not an article Irmgard 21:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or maybe redirect to Toll road (which is where Toll house redirects to). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Chocolate chip cookie. Mmm, Toll House cookies! Zoe 23:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC) On second thought, redirect to Toll House Inn. Zoe 23:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Make into a disambig between Toll House Inn and toll road. The current content, of course, should go. Meelar (talk) 23:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Somebody's first effort at a Wikipedia article, perhaps. Not worth bothering over, he'll improve. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT. -Splash 23:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death Chamber

(Completing non) Sonic-cruft and near nonsense delete --Doc (?) 21:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Execution chamber. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Should have though of that - delete and redirect --Doc (?) 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not really nonsense, and I can verify that it exists. But levels are not notable, so you may as well do the redirect above. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trollsonly

NN, advertisement Hurricane111 21:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appropriately for a horde of trolls, they are condemned to be so nn as to have no Alexa rank at all. -Splash 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 07:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blah forum

Non-notable website. This link is Broken 21:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per BrokenSegue. Alexa rank of intermediate redirect is about 28,500, for link in article there is no traffic data at all. Their actual forum is hosted along with many others: any notable forum would look after itself. -Splash 22:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor forum of a school is eminently non-notable. --Icelight 20:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete good grief, nn. Is this some awful revenge of the "all the schools of the world project"?---CH (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I don't see the value in relisting this one. -Splash 23:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Glentract

Non-notable fan fiction, Google hits point to nothing except a fan's user name on a forum. Nufy8 21:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator Dlyons493 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jews Free School

It's a secondary ("high") school, albiet a very old and fairly successful one (golden beacon, etc). No vote. r3m0t ^talk 21:36, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Why nominate it if you don't intend to vote? Pburka 21:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this one ably demonstrates the dfference between a school that is notable and one that is not. Lots of history several notable alumni, and I think it's independent. Dunc|☺ 21:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although when I saw it I thought it was some sort of neo-nazi high school. Ambiguous name ;) Meelar (talk) 23:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Schools are notable. UniReb 23:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems important to me. -- DS1953 01:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Jews' Free School as official name (per Meelar). Among other claims to notability, it claims to have once (around 1900) been the largest school in the world by enrollment (it's smaller now). --Metropolitan90 01:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. (Although it says it is famous...) - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs expansion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This stub will surely grow over a period of time. I feel moving to Jews' Free School as official name (per Meelar) may be in order. Then, a redirection link may be created from the current name to Jews' Free School. --Bhadani 07:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete it's hardly the Brompton Oratory, Eton or Harrow, they are "famous" --TimPope 12:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why it should be deleted. Can be informative. But, the link that someone added to JFS has nothing to do there (just, if we add our schools to wikipedia and their informal names to everywhere, what will this become ?). —Claunia 12:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, great name. —RaD Man (talk 17:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Needs expansion. CalJW 19:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle for the usual reasons. --Nicodemus75 08:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep appears to have notable traits and per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 19:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest that people continue to nominate any article they genuinely feel should be deleted. Discussion is ongoing and,
    as long as everyone is civil, an AfD aids that discussion. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's very interesting. Unfocused 05:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's been in the news in a big country. That's good enough for me. --Idont Havaname 14:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable school in the UK, newsworthy and more than 100 years old... passes all my keep requirements.  ALKIVAR™ 05:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latent Pending Theory

Possible hoax. Google gets no hits. Article lists Cristiano Paes as the theory's creator, but when this person is put in Google, only a Canadian athlete appears to come up. Cristiano Paes is also up for deletion. GinaDana 21:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Google Scholar doesn't find him either. Looks content-free. Dlyons493 23:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be a hoax Salsb 15:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I already speedied this and Cristiano Paes once. Zoe 20:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense (if this is a hoax article, the author didn't try very hard to make it pass even the most casual inspection.)---CH (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cristiano Paes

Non-notable, or a hoax. When this person is put in Google, only a Canadian athlete appears to come up. The theory the article lists him as creating, Latent Pending Theory, has no hits on Google and is also up for deletion. GinaDana 22:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Google Scholar doesn't find him either. Looks content-free. Dlyons493 23:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I already speedied this guy once. Zoe 05:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the citation index Web of science doesn't seem to know him either, seems non-notable. Salsb 15:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete calling it a hoax is almost too nice a term. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The Institute of Physics in Sao Paulo does exist, but there is no "complexity fluids group" (although "turbulence" is listed as one area of research pursued at this institute) and I can find no mention of Paes in their faculty list.---CH (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep, with possible merge with pseudoscience moink 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial science

Delete as I am unwilling to redirect this anywhere, and it's current content and likely any future content is rather mystical stuff between OR and POV. Obviously no redirect to science, and it doesn't claim to be protoscience or pseudoscience either, so no redirect to those nor to any of the hoaxes. I'm not sure the term has been "traditionally" used for anything. -Splash 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Expand As the first contributor of this article I find it odd that within minutes of beginning to sketch out it scope someone "helps" the process by suggesting the page be deleted. There is a certain body of writing on the construction of the term "controversial science," and the term itself is used a great deal by people with and without an overt POV. But that does in no way make the term itself controversial. I suggest to allow the article to develop and after a time come to a determination of whether or not it needs a redirect, and if so, to what other article. People familiar with this topic are likely to deem it anything BUT "mystical." Haiduc 22:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Expand Tend to agree with Splash re traditional use, but there's an article there I feel. Reich is one of many possible examples. Kuhnian revolutions might balso be relevant. Dlyons493 23:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any useful content into pseudoscience (all of the examples discussed in the article are actually pseudoscience), then redirect. There is no particular reason to have an entry to describe the concept of science that is merely controversial, anymore than we should have an entry to describe that concept of a, e.g., "controversial legal decision" or "controversial book". (The article does talk a little bit at the end about how science is labelled "controversial" when it is not, for political reasons, but this is just a rhetorical device.) Sdedeo 23:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not an article about "examples of controversial science," which may or may not belong under pseudoscience, but about the term "Controversial science" itself, and its evolution and dynamics.Haiduc 00:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As it stands, the article doesn't really persuade me that the term exists in the sense that it is discussed in, say, academic circles. Rather, it's just a somewhat blanket phrase dealing with any kind of science that someone disagreed with — and that's just about the entire field! -Splash 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • This is an exploratory article in a still-embryonic stage. I think that an argument can be made that this term has a life of its own, aside from what it describes, and that it is per se a worthy object of analysis. I may be proven wrong in the end but I do not think that a preemptory challenge to its exitence is either timely or useful at this moment. As it stands the argument may not persuade me either, but as material accumulates, and as others hopefuly contribute, a viable discourse may take shape. What's your rush? You tagged it literally minutes after I began to write.Haiduc 00:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. An "exploratory" article sounds a lot to me like original research. It reads like a slightly-POV first draft of pseudoscience.--Prosfilaes 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what the article describes is more properly called pseudoscience. -- Kjkolb 07:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this article seem to cover pseudoscience, but with less neutrality, which is already covered well 15:29, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Would normally relist, but this is good enough for an A1 speedy to me. -Splash 23:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ké

Substub gives far too little context or information; not notable as per WP:MUSIC as far as I can determine through Google. Has advertising appearance. NicholasTurnbull 22:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete — No notablility established. I couldn't find anything on this artist. — RJH 19:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, has been validly transwikied. -Splash 23:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calabash noodle soup (hulu mian)

Completing nomination unfinished since April. Meantime it's been transwikied to Wikibooks. Since that's happened, delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catharton electronica

Non-notable webforums with 400+ members. DS 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Speedy delete", please. I'm the webmaster of the Catharton Electronica site and I was shocked to see it submitted to Wikipedia. One of our members was a little over-zealous and created the article without my knowledge. Small sites shouldn't be articles on Wikipedia because otherwise Wikipedia would be overrun by spam. You can confirm my webmaster status on CE's off-topic forum, I've posted saying I want this article removed. --Krisse 04:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom wasn't added to a main VfD page; adding it now. Oh, and keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I trust Krisse's claims to site non-notability. Sdedeo 23:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Central Presbyterian Church (Hamilton)

Nothing notable that I can see. --Hooperbloob 06:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination was malformatted and not added to a main VfD page until now. Keep (a merge with Hamilton, Ontario or something is okay with me too). JYolkowski // talk 22:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the directory entry. Pilatus 00:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, individual churches are not notable. Zoe 05:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, run-on sentence. --maclean25 06:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. HappyCamper 00:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maths worksheets

Delete - barely even a dictionary definition. The article appears to be primarily promoting a web site. Ben Finn 22:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. - Mailer Diablo 23:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam, preferably speedily. —Cryptic (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 07:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bushido DVD

Delete just a website what rents DVDs. Alexa rank is about 1,900,000th. -Splash 22:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn ad. And those late fees... Karmafist 23:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What more needs to be said. -- llywrch 00:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do NOT Delete. Netflix has a page and so do many other online DVD rental websites. There is even a page dedicated to online DVD rental! What about the Technical Video Rental entry. How is that any different from this? What more needs to be said? -- unsigned comment by Mydas. -- Kjkolb 08:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (?) - While this entry was likely commercially motivated and probably could be deleted, the question of when a company (of whatever type) qualifies for an article is interesting. Netflix as a large public company and the originator of a business model is a given. I created a entry for Zip.ca as the largest equivalent in the Canadian market. There are a range of smaller companies down to the Bushidos of the world - are there any general Wikipedia recommendations for cases like this? Perhaps a small company like Technical Video Rental is more deserving of an entry because of its specialty inventory than a "regular" movie rental company of the same size? I've just recently separated out the actual list of companies from Online DVD rental into a list article of their own (List of online DVD rental companies) - perhaps Bushido's mention there could be considered sufficient? David Oberst 23:57:35, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
• delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Car accident moink 07:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fender bender

Tagged speedy as "Dicdef", but there's not a speedy for those without a AFD-and-transwiki first. This is such a well known term, surely it can go somewhere? -Splash 22:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

By the time I did this, someone had either speedied it or an irate vandal moved it to its current location. -Splash 22:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• redirect to Car accident --Doc (?) 22:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment Sorry, that was my fault. I put speedy tag on it, (I was a bit to hasty), but I changed it to a a "move to wiktionary." --Shanel 23:11, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• redirect as per Doc. --fuddlemark (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chapel Street, New Haven

Delete restaurant-not mentioned in New Haven G Clark 11:21, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability --Cje 17:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was malformatted and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Conditional keep if this article is edited to actually add content related to its title. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't the Yellow Pages. Pilatus 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn --TimPope 12:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Single sentence substub, subject is non-notable. Quale 18:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETED PER Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface). -Splash 23:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chi-Chi (Scarface)

• Delete This user has now created a Scarface-related stub. If anything, combine it with the Scarface article. WATCH THIS USER -- he is deleting VfD tags, and posting a lot of nonsense.
• This nom was never posted to a main VfD page; completing nomination. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hasn't this been deleted previously? -- Kjkolb 08:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Not this exact article, no. JYolkowski // talk 15:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's already an open VFD page for this article at Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Chi-Chi (Scarface). Pburka 16:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher_Lee_Meng_Soon

• Delete No google match, looks like self promotion
• This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Weak Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for google search use "Christopher Lee MediaCorp" query (12,700 english hits for a chinese actor). -Vsion 08:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Would relist, only it's verging on patent nonsense and if it isn't that it's plainly a joke. -Splash 23:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rausonid

Completing nomination - no vote --Doc (?) 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rausonid (Dinosuar spelled backwards) seems to have been wholly invented for this article, I suspect by a friend of Lisa Huff. At best it's new fiction. 68.20.140.7 1 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

• Delete - since no-one has voted patent nonsense. Almost funny, but not. --Doc (?) 22:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Club SpongeBob

• Delete: An episode of a cartoon show is too trivial for a proper enclopedia article. Rintrah 06:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't agree with the statement above. Hugh Jass 02:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - When deleted Re-direct to the main SpongeBob page. The Time Killer
• This nomination was malformatted and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Keep or merge somewhere, episodes of TV shows are suitable. JYolkowski // talk 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--there's precedent for individual TV show episodes. Meelar (talk) 23:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but only because it makes no sense to delete one episode without deleting all episodes and completely rewriting the main article. Personally, it makes no sense to me to include this detail about a single episode of a cartoon in an encyclopedia, even one that is not paper. -- DS1953 01:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sinner

Alexa rank of 3,616,089, non-notable. Delete--Shanel 23:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Since it "originally it started life as an advertisement service", they should know better than to mistake Wikipedia for one. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- DS1953 00:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 23:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gag on my Cock

(Completing nom) nn pornsite (it has an alexa rating of 4,100 - but since 90% of those above it will be porn that does not say much - I din't even bother using Google) --Doc (?) 23:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Now if it had been an article on silencing domestic fowl, maybe... but as it is delete, non-notable porn site. Sliggy 00:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- DS1953 00:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand Doc's argument. A high Alexa rating for an entertainment website is a good thing, and 4100 is very high indeed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My argument is this. If a double glazing company got this Alexa rating, they'd be notable - because few double glazing companies would get a higher rating - thus it would probably be one of the most notable businesses in its field . But the nature of the internet is that at least 2,000 of the 4,000 sites rated above this porn site will be other porn sites - thus this is not a high rating for a pornsite - thus nn. If every business with as little impact, turnover and staff as this one is likely to have were mentioned, then my local butcher (or glazier, to keep the analogy) would be worth an article. --Doc (?) 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh I think I understand your argument, now. However I cannot find any support for it. Looking at Alexa's top 500 list, for instance, you'd think that if your assumption were correct about half of those on the list would be porn sites. Well actually that turns out to be completely untrue. There are some porn sites there, but they're pretty sparse. I think the main reason people will want to delete this is that it's a porn site. Well I disagree with that reason, too. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see talk for why DG is correct that a porn Alexa rank of over 4000 does not indicate notability.
      brenneman^(t)(c) 15:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I have no objection to articles on porn sites, but this one doesn't seem notable enough. -- Kjkolb 08:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn --TimPope 12:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Doc. Radiant_>|< 15:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. CalJW 19:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only claim to notability is high Alexa ranking and that's not enough for an otherwise non-notable porn site. Quale 05:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Proto t c 13:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think Tony is probbaly the same cat who posted this, or a friend of such. This content is crap. McA 19:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what you are implying about Tony here, but I think it is uncalled for --Doc (?) 21:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  For the record, no I didn't post that on Wikipedia. I think the article belongs on Wikipedia because it's encyclopedic and neutral and it's about a fairly popular pornographic website. I would not be ashamed about having posted neutral and verifiable information about any subject, whether pornographic or not, but I didn't post that content. Glad you asked. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep please tony is right again even though this one seems hopeless to me Yuckfoo 19:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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