Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 4

< September 3	September 5 >

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 12:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RiotPix

Not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 00:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of "RiotPix", and even my site has a higher Alexa rank. --Snafuu 29 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to be a vanity page created by a friend of the RiotPix's creator ([1] -- notice the similar IPs?). Eurleif 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
Delete. Link ad. hydnjo talk 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity or ad. --Oppolo 00:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the only non-VfD link to it is in a "see also" section of Friendster. Breathstealer 09:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Delete vanity spam. Jobe 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:40, 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 keep. No consensus. I count Kusenose's, Steve Eifert's and Journalist's votes as deletes, Grutness and 23skidoo want merge and redirect, while Denni did what I consider to be the most sensible thing and redirected. There is nothing else that needs to be done. By the way, Journalist, please get that garish signature fixed. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Foster (actor)

VfD never listed - no vote --Doc (?) 00:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Article is for actor Robert Forster, not Foster. Since page already exisits, the Page is redundent. (unsigned nom by User:Steve Eifert)

This is what merge and redirect is made for. Common misspelling. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Robert Forster. 23skidoo 15:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Steve Eifert.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
Redirected. Denni ☯ 22:27, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Delete not useful redirect par Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. This article is copy-and-pasted from Robert Forster, there are no siginificant edit history, nothing was marged to Robert Forster, a mis-spelt article title with parenthesis for disambiguation is not a useful redirect. (Unsigned comment by Kusunose 08:08, 2005 September 5 (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 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Payne-Smith

Completing VfD - no vote --Doc (?) 00:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Userfy Good start but don't publish it until you get some good information. Espcially why this person is notable.Tucats 17:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Attempted communication, original research, genealogy or local history project. Note also that the article's title is one person, and the subject is another person entirely. The contributor seems to have thought this was a way to enter a subject of inquiry, rather than an encyclopedia article. Possible speedy delete as direct address, mistaken Help Desk query, and/or user test. Geogre 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia:Requested_articles is possibly the place for this. Nateji77 05:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is about the daughter, and is clearly an attempt to communicate, so could probably be speedied on those grounds. -Splash 22:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Splash. Denni ☯ 22:29, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Delete per Splash Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:33, 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 on what to do here. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roboticizer

Tagged by RickK and sort of added to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sonic the Hedgehog The Movie: The Doomsday Project but never deleted, relisting for clarity, no vote. --Doc (?) 00:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Cruft: a subject of interest and, in fact, searchable only by those already possessing knowledge of it. All contexts refer solely to the internalities of a fiction. Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 03:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cartooncruft. Peter ^Isotalo 22:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete soniccruft. Suppose this could be merged somewhere, but I'm not a fan of so doing and wouldn't know where to. -Splash 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series), the Roboticizer is the major plot device of that series and where it originiated in the Sonicverse. Caerwine 05:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep these video game items. Could perhaps be merged somewhere, but I don't know where, merging this with the suggestion of Caerwine is possible but it seems a little clumsy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series) and redirect.--Matteh (talk) 05:33, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane relief in Pensacola

Not encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 00:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and everything else by 141.213.240.102 (talk · contribs)

Delete. He ermoved my speedy tags too.--Shanel 00:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
slow-y delete. I saw these on NP patrol but didn't have the heart to AfD them while this disaster still rages on. They obviously don't belong in wikipedia, though, and hopefully by the time the AfD process is over they won't be of use to anyone any more (if they are currently useful)! Brighterorange 01:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: In-the-news. Wikipedia is not a news portal, nor a handbook of advice. The person who needs hurricane relief and decides to look in an encyclopedia for it needs more help than food, water, and shelter. Geogre 03:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nicely as possible. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. Nateji77 05:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Slowly Delete per Brighterorange, or better yet, move to WikiNews. Crypticfirefly 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Geogre. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-encyclopedic. I imagine the CSD was as "an attempt to correspond" (CSD A4) and, although I can kind of see that, I'm not sure it's there. -Splash 22:21, 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 SPEEDIED, by Geogre. -Splash 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billy hackett

unverifiable, and non-notable. Delete--Shanel 00:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by me. The "subject" falls under A7 -- a person with no assertion of notability (the article says he was just some dude) -- but the subject is really the author. He tells us a story about his mother. Whee! Geogre 03:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The original article seems to still be there with a redirect. -- Kjkolb 05:11, 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 --Aranda56 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rose George

VfD not previously listed - no vote --Doc (?) 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Reads like a vanity page. Exploding Boy 00:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - Perhaps, but she is very notable. One of Britain's biggest journalists (23,000+ hits on Google), who has written for Financial Times (equivalent to Wall Street Journal), Daily Telegraph (biggest broadsheet paper in UK), Independent etc. How many westerners are invited to Saddam Hussein's birthday party??? 62.254.64.14 16:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- This user has been blocked[2] for vandalism. --malathion ^talk 23:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  - That wasn't me! As the talk page clearly says, it is a proxy account used by an entire county of people (apparently 500,000+ people). So get your facts right before making such accusations. 62.254.64.14 09:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    - Unfortunately, there's no way of establishing that particular "fact." As I suggested on your talk page, if you want to contribute regularly and be taken seriously, you should create a user name. Exploding Boy 16:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      - No biting. At least here nothing this anon is saying shouldn't be "taken seriously." I'm keep and have tidied the page slightly. Marskell 17:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is one of the most well-known writers in the country. Shouldn't be deleted, but needs expanding / cleaning up a lot. MorganStanMan 19:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable journalist. Nandesuka 02:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but it still reads like a fan gush. Geogre 03:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable journalist, but the article needs to be cleaned up. Carioca 01:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and delist, obviously notable. —RaD Man (talk 07:26, 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. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roverlisk

Another orphan VfD - no vote--Doc (?) 00:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Should be rolled into main Starcraft article. (Author unknown.)

I can't find the right page for this one, but the subject isn't even in a canon book, so it shouldn't go into the main article. Instead, it should sit in limbo until someone does an article on Shadow of the Xel'Naga. (Honestly, that book was so crappy that almost no one will write one up. If that's the case, delete it.) Kimera757 00:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Extra-fine fancruft. The reference is to a piece of a fiction associated with a fiction that is one unlicensed strand of a fiction. I.e. it is entirely non-encyclopedic. Geogre 03:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Geogre is, as usual, incapable of saying something I disagree with. -Splash 22:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per Geogre. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:26, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:13, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runal

Incomplete Vfd - no vote --Doc (?) 00:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a no go-er Delete

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to repeat Sniglets jokes or repeat episodes of long-dead satirical TV shows. Geogre 03:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nnneologism at the most generous. A term I shall remember next I'm at a party, though. -Splash 22:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per Geogre. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:28, 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 as rewritten by User:Kappa. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chin-up

Not encyclopedic.--Shanel 00:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

npov essay. Should be speedied. Karmafist 00:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Speedy delete~~ (but I won't pull the trigger): First person essay on exercise in general. Too dumb to be funny. Geogre 03:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite, and it's also good that Kappa got the redirect. Geogre 13:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten by myself. Kappa 07:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
As per Kappa, Keep. Uncle G 12:31:34, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Keep, good recovery Kappa. -Splash 22:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well done Kappa for the re-write. Capitalistroadster 00:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Holy sub-stub, Kappa! Does not require it's own article. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:13, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Does not require it's own article" is not a reason for deletion. Kappa 08:29, 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 Speedied by Zscout370. android 79 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baton rouge migration

non encyclopedic, and belongs more on Wikinews. Since we can't put it there, Delete. --Shanel 00:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete collection of links. --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 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 Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Town records

was only founded last year, no notable artists on the label. Delete--Shanel 01:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. And it was made during part of a wild page move spree, so get its redirect too. -Splash 01:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The site's hit counter reads 155, and google can't find any sites linking to it. On the plus side, Willy's page move was completely correct. Delete anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Only marginal existing, not significant as a record company. Borderline advertising. Geogre 03:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:15, 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 speedied by Geogre. —Cryptic (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackstone River Valley/Temp

Article was created when I had made copyright violation in Blackstone River Valley. I've since corrected the violation. So the "…/Temp" article is unnecessary. Markles 01:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted: In cases like that, you can drop a note on the top of it and then tag it for speedy deletion yourself. Author-blanked articles are speedy candidates. Geogre 03:32, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lions In Exile

non-notable band; they formed this summer! Vanity perhaps? Delete.--Shanel 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

delete total bandity. Brighterorange 01:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Bandity. Gig, record, get reviewed, and then get an article written by a dispassionate and disinterested editor. Geogre 03:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete yet more bandity Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Not only does the group not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, but the article contains false information; the band can't have been nominated for Grammys as the article says, because it didn't start until after the last Grammy award ceremony. --Metropolitan90 16:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Part vanity, part random nonsense. No band that just started this summer has 2 chart-topping singles, and curling-irons are totally unrelated to the subject in question. --Icarus 23:10, 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 speedied by Geogre. —Cryptic (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jobbie Nooner

Some party thing. It does have alot of hits on google though.--Shanel 01:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted: Contents were:

"A big gathering on lake St.Clairs Gull island. Beads are involved!!!!!!!! Visit there website for more information. http://www.jobbienooner.com ~tities~"

If anyone wishes to create an article about the gathering, please feel free, but the reasoning for this speedy delete was that the "article" was spam. Less than a line, then a link = spam. Geogre 03:35, 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 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professional victims

Unreferenced personal essay, full of existential fallacy. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: It appears that large portions of the essay are in fact copyvio from [3] and [4]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

delete as OR. Brighterorange 01:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Dyspepsia is not to be confused with encyclopedic content. Dreadful essay. Geogre 03:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep with heavy rewrites. I see a gem or two in the dunghill. Cross-reference with Munchhausen syndrome, perhaps. The_Iconoclast 22:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable social phenominon. Klonimus 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Impressionistic, poorly referenced crap. That includes the title or anything it might contain in a future version. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Impressionism is one of the most beloved artistic movements. Klonimus 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  - It means "writing anecdotally" in this context. This is not late 19th century painting. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Essay. Quale 18:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, insane personal rant without a single citation. Articles about supposed social phenominon need to cite other published studies on their topics; you can't just decide that something is a social phenominon on your own and rush off to write a Wikipedia rant about it. Aquillion 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Aquillion ManoaChild 20:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Do something that isn't delete This is the wrong title and heavy bias in the writing, but as others note, there are gems in here and a real social phenomenon being described. (btw, the opposite article is already written: Victim blaming.) SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Is this a real social phenomenon being described? Not unless it operates as described. Are there people who malinger? Yes. Are there people with factitious disorders? Yes. Do these people "harbor hate for those whom they perceive as 'not victims'"? Why don't you tell me? Because that's what this article is telling the world. Is it actual fact that "the people who are least likely feel like victims are those who have actually been victimized in the past... they refuse to let it happen again"? In short, there is nothing to build an article on here; it's all pure speculation on the author's part, and the fact that it's phrased as if it was objective fact only makes it worse, not better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:54, 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 Speedied as recreated content by Rdsmith4. android 79 03:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Government terrorism

Delete. Conspiracy theory ~~text-dump~~. An article on terrorism carried out by governments may be worthwhile, but this isn't it. The author apparently objects to this being called a text-dump, but that doesn't alter its status as unsalvagable POV. android 79 02:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and recreate as a redirect to State terrorism and pretend this never happened.--nixie 01:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Government terrorism isn't State Terrorism - State Terrorism is unjustified wars - Government terrorism is FEMA- and CIA-committed treason on YOU, the average John Doe. But just John Doe, not JDNo.2 ~ Kandid - 03:36 4th of September 2005

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 20:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selecting a martial art

non-encyclopedic how-to. Probable copyvio, but I can't find a source. Brighterorange 01:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

dunno is there a wikibook on martial arts, maybe it would be better there? The points made are valid in regard to martial arts Bandraoi 02:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Essay. It's true that Wikibooks might or might not have something, but if the target of a transwiki isn't apparent, the most we can do is mention it here in the debate. We have to answer "Does it belong here?" and then "If not, where?" The answer to the first question is "no." Geogre 03:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Peter ^Isotalo 22:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I have selected the ancient art of Delete Fu. Karmafist 21:01, 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 and BJAODN Ral 315 22:38, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bearatross

Delete. Joke article. Pretty funny stuff, though. To the page's author: might I suggest Uncyclopedia as a creative outlet? android 79 01:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am one of the people studing the bearatrosses. I and a number of friends have seen a bearatoss, we where not drunk/stoned/high or anytthing of the like. — (Unsigned comment by B0bvila; user's 1st edit.)
I believe that the article makes perfectly clear that some believe that the bearatross is completely ficticious. This is similar to the situation with Bigfoot or even Mythology. Thus, in my humble opinion I do not believe that the article should be deleted. --Doomtiki 02:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Doomtiki makes a very valid point in that just because something seems rediculous it is not necesarily unencyclopedic. For example, consider the flying spaghetti monster or even the theories of Archimedes Plutonium.--Pyroevanes 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the joke has gone far enough. Nandesuka 03:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: A great big thank you to all those who voted to keep the spaghetti monster: it's now precedent for keeping other hoaxes. (sigh) Hoaxes are hoaxes, and they're not encyclopedic articles. Perhaps Uncyclopedia is for them. Geogre 03:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a hoax. It's a real parody that was invented to make a point with the Kansas State Board of Education. android 79 03:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree on your stated principle, Geogre. Is spontaneous generation not an encyclopedic topic because we now know it to be a false idea? Very well, then; why should a hoax be a less encyclopedic topic just because some people knew the whole time (because they were perpetrating it) that it is was false? However, this particular article isn't even a hoax, IMHO, because a hoax is intended to fool people, and this looks intended just to amuse. To Unencyclopedia with it, and Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unlike bigfoot, this article is a joke (at least it should be to a reasonable person). -- Kjkolb 05:20, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Funny, sweet crackers! --maclean25 05:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- If that's supposed to be a BJAODN vote, I'm way ahead of you. android 79 06:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I saw a Bear-o-dross once, but I was drunk/stoned/high and everything of the like. Alf ^melmac 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or *Keep, whatever--just don't let it near my car. What next, an article on flying purple people eaters? The_Iconoclast 22:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, joke article (which is speediable as Wikipedia:Vandalism in such blatant cases as this: it's way beyond a hoax). It's not in the realm of bigfoot or mythology nor even Hufu. It's just a joke. -Splash 22:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we just speedy this foolishness now? (The photo did crack me up, I have to admit.) Bearcat 04:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Bit rich coming from a Bearcat! :) Splash 13:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  - We bearcats don't fly, though -- we only disguise ourselves as bears at the local leather bar's Sunday afternoon bearbecues. Bearcat 00:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN, and the picture must be kept. Proto t c 13:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - it's already on BJAODN. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable, hoax, an uncyclopedia topic.--Knucmo2 12:01, 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. Not much debate, not much point relisting. -Splash 20:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Doli

Apparently a player-created PC. Anything official about Faerun gets scads of google hits; "General Doli" gets 6. The first is a user on hrwiki. —Cryptic (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: A player persona. Pretty sad. Geogre 03:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's not like anyone else gets to list their made-up characters here. Breathstealer 09:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hugs 4 You! - General Doli

This article needs to be deleted, and banned from creation in some way. Otherwise the nimrod will just keep reposting it until his 5-second attention span kicks in. - Anonymous

I totally agree, Anonymous. This nimrod needs to stop right away. There. Problem solved.

- Totally Not Doli

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. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Useful unix command

How-to article submitted by new user. I've already left him a note on his talk page about contributing this sort of thing to Wikibooks, but I'm not sure if they'll want this particular piece (it doesn't follow WP:NPOV--is that a drawback?). Meelar (talk) 01:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think it can be cleaned up enough to transwiki to Wikibooks. If this wins consensus I'd be happy to help - I use the Unix CLI way too much. ~~ N (t/c) 02:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Move to wikibooks. The article isn't bad for a book (like Dummys for Unix Command), however, might not be suitable for Wikipedia. --Hurricane111 04:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Please note that Wikibooks already has three wikibooks that list useful Unix commands: Guide to UNIX commands, Linux For Newbies, and Linux Guide. Wikibooks is trying to consolidate the command guides in these three into the first (to form a series of such books, including a Guide to Windows commands), and would prefer editors to contribute to the existing wikibook, and finish it, rather than simply begin yet another book on the subject. Uncle G 09:46:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Just delete. We don't really have to keep everything people try to include here. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:ISNOT a FAQ or a how-to. (And, as ever, per Uncle G.) -Splash 22:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with pre-existing Wikibooks as per UncleG's suggestion. Some useful stuff here, but some things listed are specific to certain distros, which should be brought out as more users contribute to the Wikibooks listing linux commands.---CH (talk) 18:12, 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 Speedied by Geogre. android 79 03:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mager.L

Delete. Non-notable video game tournament participant. Originally marked for speedy under A7 by myself and another editor, but I'll take the repeated removal of the speedy notice as disagreement that this article qualifies for speedy deletion. android 79 02:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Definitely non-nontable and uncylopedic. Also, it's the original author who keeps removing the speedy tag.--Shanel 02:12, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Internally nonsensical: Undefeated 2004 player continues this week? Huh? Improper title, reference to an unverifiable individual (screen names aren't real people; they're fictions). Vandalism by the author doesn't help the case. Geogre 03:47, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grandma SquarePants

Despite the name, it actually list all members of the SquarePants family. They all have articles or are listed as minor characters. Delete--Shanel 02:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. ~~ N (t/c) 02:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A page worthy of addition with more work done on it. 139.55.52.221 12:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. If it is kept, then at least rename it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hilarious! Unfortunately also SpongeCruft™. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable G Clark 22:37, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crowns and rebels

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. A minor site of unspecified flash content. Geogre 03:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looks like someones online collection/portfolio. Rx StrangeLove 05:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's a vanity page BillC 06:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or speedy if possible. It's a website with no assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 16:15, 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 20:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gone with the wind (2)

As best I can tell, this is a hoax. The only legitimate GWTW2 reference I found on Google is from a movie critic positing really bad sequels that Hollywood will make anyway (GWTW2 was suggested along the lines of American Pie, FYI). I'm aware of the GWTW parody The Wind Done Gone but this doesn't appear to be it. Gone with the delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:18:23, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Comment: if this can be verified by somebody, then by all means change my vote to keep/cleanup. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:20:06, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Delete: a repeat of a TV joke. I believe this was a bit on a satirical show, and now a fan has decided to paste it in. Geogre 03:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Frankly my dear, I ~~don't~~ give a delete. Alf ^melmac 12:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. The way the title is formatted there's no point in even redirecting to Scarlett. 23skidoo 15:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this a hoax, but an actual stage musical. See [5] for example. Merge any useful content into Gone with the Wind. --Metropolitan90 17:05, 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 speedied by Geogre. —Cryptic (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eastcoastbob

The author of this article is user Eastcoastbob, probably vanity.--Shanel 02:21, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as spam: In 2 lines of text, there were FOUR links to external websites. Great way to boost page rank, getting spam into a sub-400 Alexa site like Wikipedia. Further, there wasn't even a sentence involved in the "article." If the user wishes to boast of himself on his user page, that's fine, but as an article, it's just more instant deletion spam. Geogre 03:52, 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 Speedy Delete by Zoe Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The scum of the Earth

No need for an article about an episode of a TV show.--Shanel 02:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The author of this article, user Cottage Cheese, has been adding the vprotect template to all his articles.

Delete, nonnotable. Nandesuka 03:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing wrong with individual episode pages, but this series doesn't exist, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Carlow Crab. Flower party 03:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Irrelevant and possible speedy delete as a substub (very short articles with little to no content). A fact is not an article. Geogre 03:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't invent new speedy deletion criteria. Kappa 09:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedied. If The Carlow Crab has been deleted, creation of articles about "episodes" should be speedied. Zoe 05:10, 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 speedy deleted (vfd tag added by article's original creator and only editor) --cesarb 03:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of characters from John Michael Kamer's adventures

I didn't originally add the afd template to this article. Loking at the history, it look like user Cottage Cheese did it (??). Confusing, but delete.--Shanel 02:36, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheep Go to Heaven

Cake is a notable band, but this song isn't. Also, this seems to be an interpretation of it.--Shanel 02:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

The song is cited in the CAKE article as one of "Their biggest hits" and it's a fan favorite. The song made the billboard charts. The album Prolonging_the_Magic, that contains the song, has its own article. I thought this article would be an interesting contribution to that subject. I attempted to stay away from mere interpretation of the song by citing the more interesting references contained within without drawing conclusions or violating the lyrics copyright.

Any advice on how to make it more relevent?

--Extradog 04:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect or else keep and expand, but this info should go somewhere--to me, these seem like encyclopedic things about the song. Thanks, Extradog, for being exceptionally reasonable about this. I've seen many people not take this sort of thing very well--hope you stick around. As for suggestions, this material might go better in the album article--there could be little mini-paragraphs about each track on the album. Unless it was released as a single or something like that? Hope this helps. Meelar (talk) 04:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, charting single. Cultural references are encyclopedic. Kappa 07:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa. --TM ^(talk) 08:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- They are indeed, Kappa, but not in separate articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm with Kappa. Ppe42 13:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as it made the Billboard charts. I'd like to see the article mention where it was on the charts, and how long, though. There are precedents for music, BTW. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 14:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need to keep articles on seriously non-notable songs. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as charting single with good article. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 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 Delete. Author request. All edits by single author with the exception of those who added vfd or speedy tags. --HappyCamper 23:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia widow

(And although it should go to RfD, WP:WID too.) Not notable, Delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, self-referential wanking is not encyclopedic. Nandesuka 03:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article admits to being original research/speculation (and it's silly). Eric119 03:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete (or userfy). Neologism. Flower party 03:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll admit it's rather funny. I might copy-and-paste the text, change it to "Webwidow", and distribute it to my e-mail buddies as a joke, but delete it from here. Think I could sell it to George Carlin or David Cross and make a few bucks? The_Iconoclast 22:27, 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. -Splash 20:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Organ recital

Joke article that previous editor should have done VfD vs. deleting text. JLaTondre 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Based upon rewrite, change my nomination to a Keep. JLaTondre 22:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Organ (music) —Wahoofive (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cleaner than a redirect. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled "cello recital", "piano recital" or "violin recital" so why start with Organ? Cje 07:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why not start with the organ? It seems a good place to start, given that whilst people generally don't spend $1,000,000 on purpose-built violin recital halls, they definitely do for purpose-built organ recital halls. Uncle G 11:35:20, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
JLaTondre is wrong. 48v was quite right to tag the article for rewriting, rather than deletion, because it was rewriting, and not deletion, that it required. The only thing that xe didn't do right was use the {{cleanup-rewrite}} tag that is there for this very purpose. Xe could also have simply begun the rewrite xyrself, putting a stub in place. Keep. Uncle G 11:35:20, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
- If there was any content to rewrite, I would agree with you. However, 48v simply deleted what was there and left no content at all. Isn't cleanup supposed to be used for improving existing content? It doesn't seem like it should be used with a plea for someone to add content. Instead of cleanup, deleting and putting on the requested articles list seems to me what originally should have happened. However, I'm glad to see you and Alf put useful content in. I consider this VfD more of a success then if the article had been deleted. JLaTondre 22:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Cleanup can include a complete rewrite. Read the very wording of {{cleanup-rewrite}}. That's its explicitly stated purpose. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox, by a long chalk. Uncle G 02:03:49, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
KEEP (note admins I think that's the first time I've 'shouted' keep) Will do some on this myself. Alf ^melmac 12:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep, could someone please explain why this is on VfD and not a bad faith? Sdedeo 18:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's on AFD, and please read the article's edit history. There's no evidence of bad faith here. All editors involved so far (subsequent to the article creation) have wanted to get rid of bad content and to make our encyclopaedia better. Uncle G 18:55:35, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
  - Ah, I see, it was nominated, and then improved. Well done. Sdedeo 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge the damn thing! It belongs in organ (music). It doesn't need it's own article. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- As per the plan laid out at Talk:pipe organ/refactor it does not belong in that article, as that article contains "non-specialist material about organs in general". Since "organs in general" includes electronic organs, and since (a few electronic church organs aside) organ recitals involve pipe organs not electronic ones, the content is inappropriate there. Uncle G 02:03:49, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
  - If it doesn't fit in the main article, then it doesn't belong here. Never mind the merging. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    - It doesn't belong there because that article is about organs in general. Please read Talk:pipe organ/refactor and the explanation that I just gave, again. Uncle G 23:47:23, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
Keep. Good topic, reasonable article, lots of room for expansion. Merge and delete would of course cause GFDL problems, please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion, and seems completely unnecessary to me. Andrewa 00:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I added a picture of a poster for a 1924 organ recital, now I re-read the usage description the tag for event poster makes, I'm not sure it can stay, unless fair-old is valid. Alf ^melmac 22:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep since it is a style of music in itself. --MacRusgail 14:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- No it's not. It's just another name for an organ concert. The article definition is too narrow. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, it is. It's practically a genre by itself, try playing "Bicycle made for Two", "The Entertainer", "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", "Pack up your Troubles", "If I were a Rich Man", "Colonel Bogey March", "Papa Loves Mambo" and the like on a cathedral Organ (I could go on, if you like). Are Carlo Curly and Ji-yoen Choi world famous, major label record artists because they are "people who play at organ concerts" or because they are "organ recitalists" with a major following of the type witnessed at the last night of the proms? I would further argue that that description is so encompassing that it can be seen as a whole genre in itself. Further to which the article on concerts is in need of attention itself, it would not be helped by the inclusion of this there Alf ^melmac 10:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    - PS In case anyone was wondering all the 'tunes' I list have been arranged specifically for either Wurlitzer or theatre organ, specifically requiring the use of 'effect stops' - cathedral organs tend to have either none or only one - a "cymbalstern".Alf ^melmac 22:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  - If it isn't a distinct genre, I take it you'll propose merging "Symphony" with "Orchestra" as this is what they're normally played by. :) --MacRusgail 18:57, 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. -Splash 20:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yabb se

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per brenneman. Nandesuka 03:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Low-impact forum. Joyous (talk) 13:31, September 11, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deez Nutz

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per brenneman. Nandesuka 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Deez nuts (but not a recreation). Gazpacho 04:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is now apparently the third creation of this with different spellings. Zoe 05:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete deez, doze, and any future nutz, nuts, nuttz and nutsolas. Alf ^melmac 13:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Deleete. As per Alf. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Deezletz. Someone had to say it! -Splash 22:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP. DEEZ NUTS ARE RELEVANT. Seriously, though, "deez nuts" as a punchline is roughly as common as "your mom" as a punchline. -HX 02:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC).
- I think we need a serious, centralized discussion about the merit of keeping all these pure slang articles. We're not only obviously violating Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but rather knowingly mocking it by keeping stuff like your mom. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Oh how I hate black english vernacular. Klonimus 09:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could rephrase? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, you're a tool. -HX 14:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
'COMMENT': I just rewrote the entire thing to make it a little more acceptable, and listed some sufficiently notable uses (if it's on The Chronic, it's notable, IMHO) -HX 16:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete, doesn't seem that much encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 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. -Splash 20:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random insanity

A GameFAQs message board, with little impact outside its core group. Joyous (talk) 03:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator.--nixie 03:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 03:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think its mention in GameFAQs message boards is enough. Ergbert 21:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

non-vote spewage deleted Zoe 05:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I find this RI article to be useful. I even discovered some events that occured in RI from this article. I urge you not to delete this... Mewtwo_X

Obvious delete. Worst sockpuppetry I have ever seen and the anon who wrote it was on a vandalism spree, including making death threats. He be gone. - Lucky 6.9 04:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, retoring my vote which was lost in the vandalism, as per nom.--nixie 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

- I reverted the vandalism, so I struck this out...Is that okay? I'm new to VFDs. Ergbert 05:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I would love to see this article on a Internet Forums Wikicity, but it doesn't belong here. Ashibaka (tock) 00:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-delete. Although the article isn't an extreme seperation from the whole, it does give some information about what goes on in a large cut of GameFAQs. (Also, Lucky, you can't just say that because of some vandalization, this should be deleted. The article is known about by many less-than-rational RIers. The authors cannot, and should not be blamed for the vandalism.)- Koneko-hi 21:57 CST, Monday, September 5, 2005

Uh...yes I can and yes I will. You should also know that sockpuppet votes are heavily discounted. - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly does the sockpuppet votes have to do with me? If you're making accusations, they're fruitless without ground.- Koneko-hi 15:27 CST, Tuesday, September 6,2005.

Actually, you should have typed that as "they're fruitless without ground." :) That said, your very first edit was to the article in question not three days ago. All of your subsequent edits have been to this discussion. You have no user page, no talk page. You have the right to defend the article, but as I said, coming seemingly out of nowhere and making your first set of votes to a page that no new user would even think of coming to, well, I hope you get my point. Nothing personal. - Lucky 6.9 22:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You have a logical point. Why would a new user care about a page? Truth be told, I don't know why, but one obviously does. But, if you see it illogical that a user would want to defend an article he contributed to, I suppose I've no right to dispute this. I see your point, but you seem to underestimate that small percent. Most new users wouldn't, but obviously one did. Illogical, due to my lack of contribution and having no name here... I suppose what's done is done, though. I've stated my opinions, and although there's little logic behind my random appearence and voting, I have right to do so. Until you can prove your accusations with something more than your opinion about newer users being silent and falling in line, you still have no grounds. Thank you, and have a nice day. - Koneko-hi 22:54 CST, Wednesday, September 7, 2005.

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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_U.S._Marshals

1) Providing a list of names of all US Marshals is probably a futile effort.

2) More importantly, it seems a possible risk to listed agents.

3) As there is only one name on the list at the moment, the page as it exists provides minimal, if any, value

24.166.36.183 03:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, US Marshals are nn as a group. Zoe 05:15, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, create an appropriate catagory, and put William F. Wheeler in it. Based on article about the one person listed, I think the creator of this page intended it as a list of historical U.S. Marshals. Crypticfirefly 05:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Following the articles that link to U.S. Marshal turns up plenty of existing articles to the list, including Joseph O. Shelby, Elfego Baca, Meredith Miles Marmaduke, and, of course, Bat Masterson. The list of fictional marshals is pretty long, too. --Calton | Talk 08:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Calton. No need to list every single Marshall who ever lived. Kappa 09:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, make it into a category Pilatus 10:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and cat: There are some places and times when a category is far better than a List of... article, and this is one of them. A List of... article is indiscriminate and encourages listing the names of all marshalls in the US currently. The category tag, on the other hand, allows users to see who, among extant articles, belongs to the group and still to write new ones. The category solves the legal issues and preserves the usability. Geogre 13:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and make into a category as per Geogre. --Metropolitan90 17:16, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, list implies that they will be notable, otherwise they wouldn't have articles here. Categories are alright but I think this is preferable. gren グレン 21:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The list merely implies that we have too many lists. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and categorify. Having entries in the category implies they're notable (subject to possible an AfD debate) — having an article created by following a redlink on a list does not. -Splash 22:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This should be a category. We'll never have even close to complete list, not should we have one. Any notable marshals should have an article and be categorized. Carbonite | Talk 22:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre, who once again provides precise and convincing analysis. Quale 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and categorize, obviously. Proto t c 13:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre Cmadler 15:10, 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 KEEP. -Splash 20:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution

No allmusic.com entry. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Gamaliel 03:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep It meets point 5 of the guidelines. Ian Moody 11:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: You have to meet all of them. Suspiciously like logrolling and boosting of a particular musician and every project he was ever in. Let's confine ourselves to bands that have verifiability in the form of a distributed record (not one sold at the gig by the drummer's girlfriend). Besides, what good comes of advertising on Wikipedia? Geogre 13:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:"

What guidelines are you reading? In addition, their CD was distributed—and not just in America. They have also never played a gig so your senario is meaningless. Ian Moody 16:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the CD wasn't mass released, strictly speaking, but I would say it would qualify as being influentiaal to third-wave ska in general, as well as being the side project for members of SM/C22MPerdomo 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Bandits of The Acoustic Revolution doesn't exactly fit under the guidelines, but that is because it is a unique concept band, and IMO, the rules weren't able to fortell some mussical project like this. In addition, BOTAR is pretty much the "link" between Catch 22 and Streetlight Manifesto, and I feel it is an essential part of the stories of both the bands. BOTAR shares people and music with Catch 22 and Streetlight Manifesto, and they did release a record, even if it wasnt a mass distributed one (they hand made every copy, which prevents that sort of release). They can't tour because the people in the band are all over the world, and there are a lot of people in the band. I feel they deserve a mention because of the influence on Catch 22/Streetlight manifesto, and for that matter, third-wave ska as a genre.MPerdomo 14:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep I quote, rule number 5. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable." Streetlight Manifesto is pretty notable in the case of ska, so I'd say BOTAR is fair to keep. Also, if there is a page on Gimp, then why not BOTAR?Psynpase 19:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Ian Moody and Mperdomo. Meelar (talk) 17:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as this group is sufficiently notable. Punkmorten 19:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per Geogre. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep under WP:Music. You only have to meet one criterion. Otherwise, we would have to do a lot of deleting as a lot of notable acts wouldn't meet all of the criteria. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- If they don't meet the (very generous) criteria, they're obviously not notable. They're kept because they're notable, not notable because they're kept. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable under category 5. Tomas Kalnoky is/was a member of Catch 22 AND Streetlight Manifesto, both extremely well known bands within their particular genre. -HX 02:03, 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: 9 delete votes and 7 keep votes. — JIP | Talk 06:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Nipp

Mayor of a town of 17,000. There are more people than that at my school. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Does not meet WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Gamaliel 03:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete and add to List of mayors of New Castle, Indiana. Crypticfirefly 05:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, mayor of a real town. More keep-worthy than any individual Pokemon. Zoe 07:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, 17,000 is more than the 5,000 typically demanded by WP:BIO. Kappa 09:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:BIO applies the 5000 threshold to entertainment figures and not to politicians, for which it states "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office". Gamaliel 10:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep It seems very odd, and unjustifiable, to me to make the bar for notability for TV/movie producers, directors, writers, actors, authors, editors, photographers and musicians to be 5000, while setting the bar for poltician's notability at hundred's of thousands or millions. Dsmdgold 11:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Karol 12:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Worth being mentioned in New Castle, Indiana, but not as the subject of a biography. Fails WP:BIO. Geogre 13:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~; merge and redirect to the parent town, some content here that might as well be kept. Kappa seems confused about WP:BIO. Sdedeo 18:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- See Dsmdgold's comment above. Kappa 15:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Pilatus 18:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per Gameliel. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Denni ☯ 22:50, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Delete. Add a brief mention to the town's article, but we don't need a whole separate text on him, nor a redirect. He'll be gone in a few years, never searched for, but still findable in the article so we get our level of prominence about right. -Splash 22:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All of the claims in the article except for holding the position of mayor are unreferenced and possibly unverifiable. Fails WP:BIO. A single line mention in New Castle, Indiana is sufficient. Quale 04:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mayors are notable local politicians. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep the mayor. Klonimus 09:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Err, since when did being a mayor for a small town become notable in itself? Please try to respect consensus guidelines. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Why should he do that if he disagrees with the current consensus? Dsmdgold 15:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    - Because I don't feel this is the place to deviate from them by such wide margins. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      - Where does one go to try to change the current consensus, if not here? This is after all, for good or ill, the place where consensus is reached on what stays or goes. Dsmdgold 01:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      - Where is this consensus documented? Zoe 06:33, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete If there is a list of mayors at New Castle, and he is a mayor, then that should be where he is listed. Unless, in addition to being a mayor, he is notable for some other reason. For myself, I can't believe a list of mayors for New Castle, Indiana is encyclopedic. But there you go. Evidently it is and so that's where he should be... Marcus22 13:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep for many reasons already said. Mayor of 17,000? Sounds notable to 17,000 people then. SchmuckyTheCat 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- 17,0000 is a terribly small amount of people all things considered... / Peter ^Isotalo 09:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Simply being the mayor of some small city does not make one notable.---CH (talk) 08:46, 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. -Splash 20:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disneytown

No citation, no answer when citations requested, no reason to believe this is true. Jmabel | Talk 03:30, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. While the story is plausible, there doesn't seem to be anything to back it up. On the other hand, there does seem to have been a plan in the works for a Disney business named Disney Town but it does not fit the description in the article. Crypticfirefly 05:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: this makes the Hong Kong theory seem really unlikely. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless good evidence is presented before expiration of AfD discussion. It is inconceivable that such a project currently under construction would not be easily verifiable; in fact you'd expect the Disney site to have promotional material and press releases about it. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:23, 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 already deleted. android 79 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane relief in Mobile

Highly perishable news item. Denni ☯ 03:43, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Delete. This is another in a whole series of these. Though good-faith they have no encyclopedic content. -Splash 22:59, 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 No Consensus. However, since there are no outright keep votes, half the voters expressed a preference to redirect, and redirects are cheap, I've been bold and redirected this article to Evil laugh. Since the only binding results from AfD are Keep and Delete, this action is, of course, reversible. android 79 16:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kakaka

Subcruft. Denni ☯ 03:48, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Perhaps a redirect to kekeke? (Please don't interpret this as a keep.) —Cryptic (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This situation has come up before, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mwahahahaha. Redirect to evil laugh. Uncle G 09:22:18, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
Redirect per Uncle G. Alf ^melmac 13:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We did ourselves the disservice of keeping the laugh, and we shouldn't do it again. -Splash 23:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've nominated kekeke as well. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:05, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Chase Girls

NN band vanity Denni ☯ 03:51, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Delete. Standard band vanity. Flower party 04:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete bandity. No girls either :( Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, to get the numbers up. Proto t c 13:15, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To-ku

Not notable. Micro-Google, zero alexa, but beware systematic bias on alexa. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"We have 10 registered users." Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable forum. Flower party 04:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete forumcruft. There are billions of forum, and so they need to jump a very high bar to get a keep-notable vote from me. -Splash 23:01, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tobias Franz

non-notable.Delete--Shanel 04:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I concur, the subject is NN. --Hurricane111 04:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Wolfling 10:55, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nippleitis

Someone's funnin' us. Denni ☯ 03:58, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Delete. The real term for this is mastitis, but do not redirect this neologism. 88 google hits. —Cryptic (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- (Actually, I suspect the contributor is referring to nipple erections, but that may just be my dirty mind).
Nipple. I mean, delete. ♥purplefeltangel 08:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Give contributor a t*ttytwister. (Mastitis can be the whole breast, in men or women, but that probably is the real name.) Yet another hoax/joke. Geogre 13:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Diagnosis: severe lack of funnyitis. Treatment: immediate articlectomy recommended. Dr. Alf von de l'Boobjes. 13:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I think it's almost a borderline speedy as newbie test. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:19, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's that Girl (soundtrack)

We already have a page for Who's That Girl(album). Do we need another duplicate just for the sound track alone?? Hurricane111 04:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete And include the information on the "album" page that it is the movie soundtrack, not a regular Madonna album. It is likely that the page was created by someone who either didn't know the other page already existed, or didn't know how to do a redirect. Crypticfirefly 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge any non-duplicated information and redirect. 23skidoo 15:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as per 23skidoo. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anita Andrea van der Sloot

It's debatabe if her son being a murder suspect makes her notable. Plus, she already has mention in Joran van der Sloot.--Shanel 04:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. Zoe 04:48, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In the asbence of her having had some high-profile involvement in the case (e.g. protests with media coverage, a campaign about something, etc etc), she's nn. -Splash 23:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Enough information is already in the Joran van der Sloot article. The additional information provided by a formal merge would be too much attention paid to this not particularly significant person. Branflakes 03:04, 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 meat here, but The Literate Engineer doesn't really sound very impressed by the article either, so there's enough to delete. -Splash 20:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Peter Kopittke

nn scientist. Zoe 05:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator
- The above is by User:Pilatus. Zoe 20:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. A Google search verifies that he exists, and I'm willing to give the article the benefit of doubt. Should be sourced and named better (Doctor Peter Kopittke or Peter Kopittke), though. --Apostrophe 20:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Verification that someone exists is not a keep criterion. Zoe 20:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm aware of that; I was trying to dispel any belief that it was a hoax article. --Apostrophe 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment At the moment, I'm feeling suspicious that someone who received their PhD in 2003 and died in 2005 had time to acquire notability through their work. I realize it's possible, but I am skeptical. May have to go to the journals on this one. The Literate Engineer 23:57, 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 speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philllip bailey

I didn't know if this met the CSD. But it's obviously a misspelling of Philip Bailey, on who an artcle alredy exists.--Shanel 05:04, 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. android 79 17:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate Comment, the

non-notable website. Delete--Shanel 05:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity hoax. Sdedeo 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has an article on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Why don't you go VFD that. And it's not vanity; that website is totally unaffiliated with me. I don't care if you delete it, really. --Atlantima 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
As someone associated with this group (I photocopy leaflets for it), I can say we never put this up, and it's certainly a lot more than a website. As for notability or whether you delete this I don't think I could objectively say. --stoipéad 00:15, 8 September 2005 (GMT)
Delete this is verging on a joke article that oughtn't to exist a moment longer than it absolutely must. -Splash 20:32, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLens

Perilously close to advertisement. Plus, I'd say it was a copyvio if I didn't suspect it was put up by the guy who runs the site. 148.78.243.50 05:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. Sdedeo 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete basically an ad per the nominator, and an nn one per Sdedeo. -Splash 20:31, 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. android 79 17:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Holiday

neologism. Delete.--Shanel 05:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as neologism, dictdef at best. Karol 12:15, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clymer:_noun

neologism, possible attack page BrainyBroad 05:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I agree it sounds like an attack page. Zoe 05:58, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. this has do with Clymer the NYT journalist, whom Dick Cheney called a major league asshole. Klonimus 09:03, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Facts about india and indian americans

POV and 1st paragraph proclaims the "facts" are unverified rumors BrainyBroad 05:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unencyclopedic as it stands. Wikipedia is not a list of facts, even verified ones. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments: The subject is really important one and deserves an encyclopedic treatment. But, do we need any new article when we already have one Indian American? The verifiable contents of the present article may be integrated with the existing article. In case, this is not done / possible, my vote is Delete. --Bhadani 08:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete A collection of random factoids. --Lee Hunter 15:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete since WP:ISNOT a random collection of information. -Splash 23:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Spam mail masquerading as an article. There are many errors and many are arbitrary/non verifiable things. Tintin 11:48, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Souk Park

French-language flash cartoon that has been moribund since May of 2004. Most google hits are from Wikipedia or other online encyclopedias using Wikipedia content, Alexa rank is nonexistent. If it turns out that there's some massive underground Quebecois movement surrounding this, I'm willing to change my mind, but based on what I see this is a dead non-English webcomic with less reach than many non-notable weblogs. Interestingly, French Wikipedia has no article on them. So I vote delete. Nandesuka 05:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 08:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree, unless there's a great community watching this webcomic, I vote to have it gone. --SoothingR 11:41, September 2004 (GMT)
Delete. It only has 85 useful Googles, and as the nom says many of those are wikimirrors. Nn. -Splash 23:19, 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 20:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Handley

Non Notable Delete --Aranda56 06:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Reasonably notable. Has had speaking parts in television shows and films as well as his work as a stuntman. See IMDb. Here's his info page on the website for his business: even taken with a grain of salt he appears to be notable. Page should be expanded, however. Crypticfirefly 07:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. But he ain't a patch on ol' Nosher. Alf ^melmac 13:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see why a minor actor (much less a stuntman) would automatically be notable.---CH (talk) 03:24, 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. Would normally relist, but the content is indeed substantially identical to that previously deleted, so it's speediable G4. -Splash 20:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Donohoe

Recurated Content was deleted see Votes for Deletion April 14 but it returned in July quietly and unnoticed until Now. Possible Copyvio Also Delete --Aranda56 06:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, plus copyvio, plus this is merely an obituary and Wikipedia is not a memorial.---CH (talk) 05:42, 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. I'll tag it for expansion, though! -Splash 20:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pg. 99

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep despite the incredibly bare article they do have an allmusic page which has a bio and lists 4 releases for the band. There are lots of reviews on google for their latest album, which was selected as an album pick by allmusic, but I'm not sure if they meet WP:MUSIC yet. Anyway, this isn't just another standard band vanity page so I'm more inclined to vote a keep, with a rewrite though. --TM ^(talk) 08:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think that's a pretty good indication that they do meet WP:MUSIC. It needs more work, though. Punkmorten 20:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand as per WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 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 20:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Top sites programs

Sneaky attempt at advertising. Zoe 06:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

- There are no ads present. This is a valuable topic with some important examples.

- The above is from 24.205.87.60 (talk · contribs), the author of the article. Zoe 06:55, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Link spam attempt. Even if topic is worth mentioning, it could fit as part of one or more existing articles. No need to create another target for link spam. --rob 06:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NOT. Nandesuka 12:03, 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 -- grm_wnr Esc 20:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SuperShadow

Article was previously nominated for deletion on 2005-03-28. The result was keep. For discussion see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/SuperShadow

nn forum poster/owner. "all information regarding SuperShadow is above top secret (classified at the highest level). Currently, nothing is known about SuperShadow except that SS is very close, personal friends with George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars" says it all. --Zoe 06:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Zoe. --Nandesuka 12:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He has shown to be quite significant in the online community. He has maintained a site for six years that contiues to fool star wars fans. He has kept it from being shut down by anybody, and lies all the time on his site. He is just short of being an internet phenomenon. --139.55.52.221 12:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The claim that "nothing is known" is false. --elvenscout742 18:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The majority of all vandalism to Star Wars articles are SuperShadow spawned. This article is utterly invaluable for explaining why all edits adding information derived from SS are reverted on sight. --Maru 19:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: SS derived-vandalism is not minor at all; check the edit histories of Yoda and Darth Maul for especially hard-hit articles, and see how many reverts are for SS data. (In fact, such a search would undercount the severity significantly, since it isn't always mentioned in the edit summaries (I myself am very lax in this area).) --Maru 02:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing's changed since the last time we agreed to keep it. --Phil Welch 21:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Phil and Maru. --Nufy8 01:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Maru. --Jon Hart 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable website. --LtNOWIS 07:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, well known fraud, repeated SS data vandalism on Yoda and other pages, recreated SS crap such as 'Darth Rage', and notable pop culture figure. --Lord Patrick 09:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --Rich Farmbrough
Keep, as User:LtNOWIS said, "notable website." --The Wookieepedian 17:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
keep Please, is there a reason zoe and nandesuka keep trying to erase everything that seems strange? --Yuckfoo 22:22, 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 Ral 315 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Queenstown Baptist Church

Individual churches are not notable. Being in first person and probably a copyvio are also strikes against it. I would have listed it for copyvio but I was hoping to get consensus to delete instead of getting it rewritten. The categories it's in are bothersome, as well. Zoe 07:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

We do have plenty of pages for individual churches if they are notable enough. The main grouse I have with this page is how it was compied word for word from the official site. Re-writing it may save the article.--Huaiwei 07:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that some churches are notable, but this one isn't. Zoe 07:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

You didnt mention why thou.--Huaiwei 07:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's just "generic church number 475". Nothing special about it. Zoe 07:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Would you mind being more specific? What 475?--Huaiwei 08:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

475 was just a number I pulled out of the air, indicating the lack of notablity of the subject matter. Zoe 08:09, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Erm...I would expect stronger commentary from the proposer of this deletion. Besides claiming it was not notable due to your believe that individual churches have no place in wikipedia, do you have anything else notable to say?--Huaiwei 08:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what more you want. The church is not notable, it does not deserve an article in Wikipedia any more than the church next door to where I live does. Nor any more than any other church. I do agree there are exceptions -- noted cathedrals, the Crystal Cathedral, Notre Dame, St. Patrick's, etc. Zoe 08:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

What I want is pretty clear. You claim it is just your typical church next door. Now show us if that is true. Singapore is not some Christian country where churches are as common as grocery stores. Sure, we arent exactly adding the smallest churches here, but mind telling if this is completely non-notable other then basing it on your own personal ignorance?--Huaiwei 08:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This recent attack indicates that you are not interested in discussion on the subject but are more intrested in scoring points. I will not discuss this with you any further. Zoe 09:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I dont know how this can be an attack? If you want to nominate something, its basic courtesy to provide your justifications for it, and not just dismiss it as not notable just because you know next to nothing about it. Did you do any research on this before nominating it? From the above, I doubt so, and I hence I strongly question the validity of this nomination. I dont see how I would be "scoring points" in the above exercise?--Huaiwei 09:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Copyviol, and honestly, when it comes down to it, it's a Church, it's of the Baptist denomination, and it's in Queenstown, Singapore. What else really is there? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally I am still undecided on this one. I am wondering if the church has any significance at all in local religious history, or whether the building itself is notable in the architectural realm.--Huaiwei 08:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is a clear indication, I'd delete it. If you uncover significant information later, it can always be recreated. As it stands, the whole article is a mission statement - so it's not just copyviol, it's NPOV as well. I don't see anything really salvageable, even stub-wise. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. Since the entire contents were copied from the church site, we can all expect it to have NPOV problems. I am not too enthusiastic about keeping this article until we find more information about it as well.--Huaiwei 09:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's a Baptist church, one of many. Pilatus 10:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
delete as per zoe and khaosworks. --TimPope 11:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable church. Nandesuka 12:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. The burden is on the article to prove it's notability (or at least claim it). In this case, <100 Google hits and Alexa of homepage 5,311,151. Beware systemic bias, etc. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self-promotion. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Nothing notable about the church is stated. In any case, the peacock words and the unsupported POV ("God protecting QBC in its infancy stage") need to be removed; once that is done nothing remains. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup (unless copyvio), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean-up (I'll clean it myself if it survives) A 50 year-old Church in Singapore, operating in three languages, and two congregations, is at least as notable as a small school in the midwest US. Where is the systematic bias lying here? --Doc (?) 15:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Good luck. I've added tags "unreferenced", "cleanup-tone" and "cleanup-importance". Sdedeo 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per the Doc and 92 English google hits for a church in Singapore. Kappa 16:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The current content is so far from encyclopedic that it's hard to figure out what might be notable. If the article is cleaned up sufficiently I might change my vote. --Metropolitan90 17:28, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup, or else delete. — Insta ntnood 18:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Individual churches are not notable. The history of our church reflects the testimony of God protecting QBC from its infancy stage to where we are now. We are confident that He will continue to bless our church and use us as His living witnesses in the years to come. Sdedeo 18:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Church, huh? Not many of them around. -Splash 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn Proto t c 13:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 09:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a church directory. Gamaliel 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Singopo 02:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This would divide Singapore's Wikipedia users by religions. Singapore needs religious harmony. Ruennsheng 08:21, 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. -Splash 20:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nguyen Ngoc Phu

nn student activist. Zoe 07:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 08:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sad but wikipedia is not a memorial. Sdedeo 18:30, 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, except that it needs cleaning up. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expectancy violations theory

Not really sure what this is. Somebody's thesis? It has a name attached to it on the first line. Zoe 07:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep but rewrite. It's a theory from 1978 and seems legit. It looks a bit cut and paste but I can't find it. CambridgeBayWeather 07:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it's still being edited right now. As it's not clear to me at the moment whether this is a personal thesis or a Wikipedia article, I've put a note on user's talk page asking for clarification. --Finbarr Saunders 08:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Since when is "it's still being edited" a valid keep criterion? All articles are "still being edited." Zoe 08:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - ...and you're right, of course. Actually, I had meant to echo CambridgeBayWeather's reason for a "keep", but then I noticed it was being actively rewritten so I wanted us to wait a bit. But I should have stated that my criterion for a keep is that it does appear to be legitimate basis for an article. --Finbarr Saunders 08:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Moderate delete, the theory gets 385 Google hits, the author gets 28; no results for either on JSTOR. Paul 16:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
Yes, I'm editing right now. I'm a complete noob and don't know how to message you back Finbar, but I figured this bit out now.
I've never contributed anything before, but turn to Wikipedia for info all the time.
I'm doing a University assignment on Expectancy Violations Theory (and Interpersonal Deception Theory) and so searched for this topic. Unfortunately my assignment is a Powerpoint presentation so it isn't presented all that nicely, but since I looked here I thought maybe others would too.
Any advice?
Please do not bite the newcomers! :-)

Hi, whoever you are (the author of the article under discussion?), you can and should sign your comments on talk pages and a VfD page (this page is an example of a VfD page) using four tildes. Are you saying that you are a student at the University of Arizona and that your instructor in a communications class assigned you to create a Wikipedia article? I think that would be rather irresonsible, unless perhaps that instructor is an experienced Wikipedia user and was checking to make sure that any articles created as a result of his assignment are up to standard. Any chance you could ask your instructor to comment? I'd like to hear his/her rationale for this alleged homework assignment.

By the way, the article mentions "communication theory", but appears to concern a nonsense "theory" having nothing whatever to do with communication theory in the sense of Claude Shannon.---CH (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Have added welcome note to 203.45.200.5's talk page. Could "203.45.200.5" please indicate whether this is indeed intended to be a Wikipedia article as well as a personal university assignment? I think there is a Wikipedia rule that says you are not allowed to use Wikipedia for personal things. If this is just a personal university assignment, then I think the current content should be removed. --Finbarr Saunders 08:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what a talk page is. I thought it may be useful to someone to share what I had learned on this theory seeing as I would have found it useful. Why the hell would I post a 'personal university assignment' otherwise? Maybe I have the concept of Wikipedia wrong. Whatever.

A couple of apologies:

A talk page is the same as a discussion page. Most Wikipedia pages have a "Discussion" link at the top. (Don't ask me why there are two names for the same thing!) When I first posted that "You have new messages" alert, that took you to your own talk page.
I wrongly assumed from your earlier reply "I'm doing a University assignment on..." that you were using Wikipedia as a free web storage area (because some people do that, unfortunately). I see now that you actually want to add to this encyclopaedia. Sorry! and I'll let you get on with your first Wikipedia article. --Finbarr Saunders 12:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment seems to be a topic in this book, though its abysmal Amazon sales rank doesn't give confidence. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not-an-article unless it is substantially improved within the lifetime of this AfD. If it is, would some kind sould please prod my talk page? -Splash 23:34, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transitalk.info

nn website, 15 posters, alexa ranking of 805,730. Zoe 07:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nn website among 8 billion other nn websites. How'd they get that Alexa with only 15 posters?? -Splash 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Proto t

[Special:Contributions/Proto|c]] 13:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete The author of this page did not violate any rules that Wikipedia has set up. This page is fair, and does not contain any objectionable material. In addition, this page is necessary for those who wish to research any transportation related material, but don’t know where to go.

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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swearing Bear

nn drunken bear. Zoe 08:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator - a badly spelled article about a mistreated circus animal in ~~England~~ Northern Ireland. --Zetawoof 11:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete the article and the people who gave the bear vodka, keep the bear. Alf ^melmac 14:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. And Northern Ireland is not England. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Whoops. Make that Northern Ireland, yeah. --Zetawoof 20:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete also see the Cookstown article that links to this article - possible vandalism?

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 Emoticon. It's actually already there, and that article doesn't wax lyrical about the individual emoticons, so I'm just going to redirect. -Splash 20:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] XD (emoticon)

An article about an emoticon, not really needed. It's not NPOV, and it doesn't really need to be in here. Is there an article about the more common :)? Taylor 08:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge to emoticon. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to emoticon. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to emoticon. Because some folks have been closing VfD's without acknowledging the merge/redirect vote, the next voter along should do it. Geogre 13:09, 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 20:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lev A. Sviridov

Vanity, the guy is a student doing its M.Sc, the article tells us, what he likes to wear sweaters and similar nonsense abakharev 08:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I put it up for speedy as vanity. --TM ^(talk) 08:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. His notability has not been confirmed. --Ghirlandajo 11:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as nn-bio. Punkmorten 20:04, 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 20:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra Sviridov

Vanity, the person is not notable enough. Also llok onto page Lev A. Sviridov by the same author abakharev 08:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Her notability has not been confirmed. --Ghirlandajo 11:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Her son wasn't notable, but her career/activities in Russia sound notable to me. --rob 13:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. KNewman 22:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - She seems notable enough to me. Morris 03:09, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep In both Russia and my own country (US), there is plainly much to expose, but Russian journalists are notable for trying to expose things at considerable risk to themselves. I hope the author will tell us more about those early news stories.---CH (talk) 00:57, 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. -Splash 20:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Per R Berger

Not notable. I was going to just put this as a speedy delete, but started having doubts as the subject is a mayor. I'm having difficult assessing the notability of this person as I know no Norwegian. As far as I can see, he's simply the mayor of a small town - see [6]. Finbarr Saunders 09:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN-vanity. I could write 5 or 6 like that for various people who you've never heard of. CambridgeBayWeather 09:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Mayors are encyclopedic. This one has served for six years and is on his second term - he's surely notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However, this was certainly a case of extremly bad and unencyclopedic writing, with a lot of irrelevant information, but I've done a complete rewrite of it now. / Alarm 12:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Improperly titled, and mayors are only sometimes in, sometimes not. I wish folks wouldn't extrapolate rules from single debates in the past. It depends on the mayor, the town, and the biography. When a person's name (properly spelled and punctuated) is an article title, what is supposed to follow is a biography. If the person does not have a sufficiently active and meaningful life for people outside of the town to need to know about, then the person should simply be mentioned as "5-time mayor" in the town's article. Break out the biography when the biography is a valid article. In this particular case, the mayor should be mentioned elsewhere, and not done as a biography. Geogre 13:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- "Improperly titled" is not grounds for deletion. Punkmorten 20:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to article on town, redirect. Mayor of a town of 5,000 people is not inherently notable, but someone wrote it down, so we might as well keep it. Sdedeo 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre Denni ☯ 23:08, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Keep. Mayors are inherently notable. Wikipedia is not paper.--Nicodemus75 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mention him in article on town as per Geogre. Wikipedia is not toilet paper. Proto t c 13:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per User:Geogre Pilatus 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Alarm, I demur from your assertion that all mayors are encyclopedic. What about five house villages? C'mon, be serious.---CH (talk) 06:15, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magyar claims

Unsalvageable nationalist rant. Delete. Uppland 10:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wow... that sure is from a NPOV! Not Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Rant? Uppland, you call history rant? btw magyar claims have been requested by Vasile (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon#Separate_article)Ginjeet
- No, I don't call history "rant", just the page under discussion. I don't know who Vasile is, and I don't really care who requested it or why. Uppland 08:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Content is so bias, it can't be fixed. Topic already covered fine in Treaty of Trianon. Also, it's a mistake to fork an article, for the purpose of allowing a POV tirade. It is unacceptable for *any* wiki article to be so one-sided. --rob 12:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One-sided? It is called magyar claims, thats why it is one-sided. The hungarian claims cannot be universal and there will be no concordance. That's logical.Ginjeet

Delete immediately - an incredible chauvinist mess.Juro 16:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete--"Magyar claims" is a terrible title at any rate. Do Magyars claim they can dance well? Do they claim the last piece of pizza? This article isn't useful. Meelar (talk) 17:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete irredemably pov. Almost worth keeping as a case study. -Splash 23:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hungarian (ie. Magyar) votes Delete (ASAP) because the tiny fragments of, so to say, "notable POV" and the even tinier fragments of fact hidden in this article belong to Treaty of Trianon, and are indeed covered there. This "article" is a shame. Kiss L 07:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a newbie rant. It should either be deleted or moved under Ginjeet's user namespace. I noticed "Template:Ns:project" now and moved it to User:Ginjeet/Ns:project. --Joy [shallot] 12:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Treaty of Trianon (if this article has any NPOV content which is not covered there) and delete -- Adam78 16:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don' think it's really that POV, but it's a duplicate of the Treaty of Trianon page, where most of this stuff is covered much better, without the unnecessary nationalist epithets ("almost pure", "irreplacable"). In the unlikely case of this article being kept, delete the "what magyars claim" part or replace it with "what right-wing politicians claim"... – Alensha 14:16, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:35, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roflcopter(game)

roflcopter was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-11. For its deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter.

ROFL Attack was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-22. For its deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ROFL Attack.

Non-notable silliness. Please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again) — Phil Welch 11:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC), 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, popular flash game/internet phenomenon. Possibly merge with Roflcopter. Kappa 12:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Roflcopter no longer exists; it was merged to LOL (Internet slang). — Phil Welch 21:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Note that the merge has been reverted, and the prior article restored. Uncle G 20:08:42, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
    - Well, damn. Listed for deletion yet again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again) — Phil Welch 20:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, maybe leave a sentence at Roflcopter. Martg76 12:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- As above. — Phil Welch 21:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It is no encyclopedia's purpose to document every TV commercial nor every flash work. Wikipedia is not a webguide, and this week's "Osama in a Blender" is sub website level. Geogre 13:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to LOL (Internet slang) (Roflcopter also redirects there), where there is an external link to the game. A funny-once, this fails the ten-year rule. Denni ☯ 23:15, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Delete, This isn't encyclopedic, no matter how often the article is brought to AfD.-Splash 23:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Roflcopter-cruft. Quale 04:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The others were only keeps due to sockpuppetry. Proto t c 13:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not this again. Wikipedia is not a game guide nor a web directory. Not useful as a redirect. android 79 00:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Roflcopter. Superm401 | Talk
- Roflcopter's deletion is imminent. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roflcopter (again) if you don't believe me. — Phil Welch 18:29, 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 --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Andrews

Completing vfd - no vote--Doc (?) 13:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Not notable enough...yet. --Hooperbloob 04:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sound like a nice bloke, good luck to him. Alf ^melmac 14:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN musician. Denni ☯ 23:25, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Speedy A7. I see an explicit claim to non-notability in the first few words. -Splash 23:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unsigned artist who does cover versions at the local pub. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is crap. The "man from Nantucket" was more noteworthy than this. McA 19:29, 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 20:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SWU Roster

Completing vfd- never listed- --Doc (?) 13:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable and non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, such as directories. This article is merely a copy-and-pasted membership directory from the SWU page. Celzrro 23:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice --Doc (?) 13:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete please, quickly and quietly. Alf ^melmac 14:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A list of people's online nicknames in a web forum is not useful except potentially to users of that web forum, meaning that it should be posted on that web forum, not on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 17:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Absolute shiza. McA 19:35, 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 COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 20:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Easynews

Advertising for Usenet hosting site which I do not think is notable. --tranquileye 13:20:42, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

Delete. Ad. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Easynews is one of the largest USEnet providers on the planet. Article needs a rewrite though. Klonimus 09:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- You are quite right it needs a complete rewrite, because the current version is a copyvio, see http://innocl.easynews.com/. Listing this at WP:CP now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 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 debate, but clear scepticism all round and two outright requests for deletion. -Splash 20:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Nechtán: Descendant of the Waters

There is no "saint Nechtan". Nechtan was the name of a Scottish king. No connection with Nîmes whatsoever. This whole article is nonsense. Karl Stas 08:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Saint Nechtán" I believe, "Descendant of the Waters", likewise, but can't see how this Nîmes thing came in. Alf ^melmac 14:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"Nechtan" (Neachdan/Naughton) is a Pictish name. I think there was an actual St. Nechtan, but this article is not related to him. Weak delete (if there is such a thing!)--MacRusgail 14:24, 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 20:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John Anderson Casualty Block

I'll grant that the Calcutta Medical College is a notable institution, sure, but I don't think we need an entry on every building in every university or teaching hospital. DS 13:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

delete or merge with Calcutta Medical College, does not require seperate article. --TimPope 20:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete. For heaven's sake, does the author want us to host an article on every room in every hospital in the world? C'mon, at this rate, we'll have an page for every absurd VfD which has... oh wait, we do have a page like that... ---CH (talk) 07:39, 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 BOTH. -Splash 20:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dsoundzand Sam downie

Relisting - seems to have been blanked by anon and lost process, no vote --Doc (?) 13:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Only comes up with 155 hits on google, mostly self promotion on other websites. Also, see Sam downie for more of the same. Not sure its a speedy so i'm putting both pages up on VfD. Nominator abstains due to lack of information in this subject. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 14:53, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I would have voted speedy under A3, just links to somewhere else. Wikibofh 15:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Frjwoolley 15:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no apparent reason to keep it. Paul 05:37, 14 August 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 20:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scarface: The World is Yours

Completing VfD - never listed - no vote--Doc (?) 13:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One person's view on an unreleased video game. When details come out and an actual article can be produced, then something can be written. Harro5 02:52, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I second that. This videogame is set to release in 2006. By then, a proper article should be written. Jute
Nuke it. This is not a neutral descriptive article, it is a speculative pre-review. yalbik
Nuke it unless someone heavily rewrites it; there are certainly enough articles out there on the game to write a full preview (and don't tell me Wikipedia takes an exception to previews). Bobquest3
More info has surfaced on the game. It just needs a cleanup. This article just has poor quality. Besides, aren't there a bunch of article on games in prodtuction here? Keaton
Delete, as unverifiable and non-notable, unless convincing mainstream references are produced to show that a) something about the preparation for the game's release is notable now, and b) the article is rewritten to include only information that is verifiable now. For example, a properly sourced, verifiable quotation from one of the game designers saying "we are designing the game according to thus-and-such storyline" is a verifiable fact in the present. Currently the article does not present any such facts. Once the unverifiable speculation and unsourced assertions are removed from the article, nothing is left. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Dpbsmith. And no, there aren't "a bunch" of articles on not-yet-released games. There should be none at all. Denni ☯ 23:35, 2005 September 4 (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 21:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Brown

Completing vfd- no vote--Doc (?) 13:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanity --MicroFeet 02:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete Forbsey 05:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep Linarator 05:28, 10 Aug 2005 (PST)
Keep, appears to have a very significant discography. JYolkowski // talk 18:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Allmusic speaks well of him. Denni ☯ 23:41, 2005 September 4 (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 21:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian culture

Completing VfD - no vote--Doc (?) 13:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I wrote "This is apparently a comedy riff." (Wetman 08:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC))... but now I retract that: much work has made this a sensible member of a whole group of "Culture of..." articles --Wetman 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC).

Agree, delete. --Ninam 21:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The change has actually been pleasant. :) (unsigned by User:Milan20

There is no need for deletion of this page anymore. It is just a stub now. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Weakest possible keep and expand, but this material strongly needs to be NPOVed. Strong keep--another great save by Capitalistroadster. Meelar (talk) 17:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This article is utterly devoid of content and would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. Best to give it a red link so as to encourage that. Keep - Capitalistroadster steps up to the plate again. Denni ☯ 23:45, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I am sure more could be done about this article. Major part of Serbian studies. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable slavic culture, source of Nikola Tesla
Comment. I am progressively improving the article. Thus far, I have added sections on Serbian literature, music, art, cinema and theatre with more to come over the next few days. I may or may have this completed by the end of the voting period but wish to flag that I am working on improving the article. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep it up Capitalistroadster --Doc (?) 07:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Credit Capitalistroadster with the save! -- DS1953 14:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I have substantially finished rewriting this page. Capitalistroadster 04:32, 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 REDIRECT to Sexual predator. This is one of those AfDs. There is, numerically at least, a marginal consensus to not retain the article's content as it stands, especially as one of the keeps allows that there may be somewhere else that is more appropriate. One of the deleters also allows for a redirect. -Splash 21:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serial sexual predator

vfd previously unlisted, now fixed - no vote--Doc (?) 13:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Really gives no information or examples, no other articles point to it Sherurcij 06:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The current version does have information, though it needs expansion. Factitious 00:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Unless it can be shown their is another article that specifically covers this specific topic. --rob 22:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment see Sexually violent predator and Sexual predator.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Sexual predator. Proto t c 13:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This doesnt tell me anything I couldn't find under Sexual predator if anything put a note in the Sexual predator article diferentiating a sexual predator from a serial one. Maybe a redirect would be a good idea though? --Shimonnyman 15:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sexual predator without merging. Nothing to keep, really. MCB 23:18, 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. -Splash 21:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cassandra Justins

Hoax patrol! Miss Justins has no non-Wikipedia google hits under her stage name or for "cassandra" + "that's so raven", and no related hits for her real name. DS 14:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Neither IMDb or Allmusic have an entry for this person. Good enough for me. Denni ☯ 23:58, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Strong Delete Clearly an hoax and a not so good one "Sold 3 million CDs"? ? ? ? and being a back-up singer for Aaron Carter Please. --Aranda56 02:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as probable hoax ---CH (talk) 02:55, 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 REDIRECT to Cuisine of Costa Rica. -Splash 21:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Costa Rican cuisine

User:Paul Klenk added a VfD tag to this page but never completed the nomination. Doing so now. ~~Keep and cleanup~~. JYolkowski // talk 14:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC) Actually redirect per Mendel. JYolkowski // talk 18:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete--the article before I got to it was pure spam for a company called "1820 coffee", and had nothing to do with Costa Rican cuisine. After my rewrite, there's a one-sentence dicdef, but it's still better than spam. This material should be removed and a redlink left in its place. Meelar (talk) 17:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Redirect as per Mendel. Thanks for the save. Meelar (talk) 06:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Cuisine of Costa Rica. I'd have boldly done so myself right now, but I'm not sure what needs to be done to not break the AfD post at the same time. — mendel ☎ 17:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Mendel. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 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 Grandaddy. It's already mentioned there with better information than here. -Splash 21:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could This Be Love

Self promotion ? Wanted to crosscheck.. Manik Raina 14:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN A curate's egg 15:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - this is a genuine release (preceding unsigned comment by 81.135.162.149 (talk · contribs) 23:49, 18 July 2005)

KEEP - this bad boy's for real (preceding unsigned comment by 69.193.77.78 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 11 August 2005)

This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Completing now. Keep or merge with Grandaddy. JYolkowski // talk 14:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Given artist is accepted as non-vanity for Wikipedia AND verified by allmusic serach, the CD (subject of article) is not vanity. --Hurricane111 16:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Grandaddy. -- Austrian 00:42, 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 21:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bottlebashers

unverifiable game played briefly at (apparently) a single high school in Sydney, Australia. Delete. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 14:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable, and non-notable even if true. Quale 04:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Do not delete.[Anonymous user] 16:01, September 8 2005 (+10h GMT)

Delete agree with nominator. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's just not notable enough. Jezze 18:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. It's just some entertaining game; why not have it? (11:11, 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 21:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creation evangelism

This stub seems to be an excuse to put in some references to Creationist websites. References to 'the risen Lord' doesn't seem NPOV.

DELETE This is clearly evangelical prose and fails to present Neutral POV. Not facts but faith, which has no place in reference materials.

Delete I see no way this could ever become NPOV. --WCFrancis 01:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Completing nom now. Weak keep but maybe get rid of some of the links. JYolkowski // talk 14:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The number of creationist pages in Wikipedia is getting out of hand. --Ian Pitchford 17:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NPOV version of this information is included elsewhere in the creationism pages. Sdedeo 20:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Creationism. Denni ☯ 00:12, 2005 September 5 (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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:46, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crooked I

DELETE---Hey playa, get a better biography for Crooked I and maybe it should be kept. LILVOKA 10 August 2005 17:13 (EST)

This nomination was malformed and orphaned. Completing nom. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 14:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete "promising" "has not put out an album yet" Please play again. Denni ☯ 00:15, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Delete crystal-ball gazing vanity per Denni. -Splash 21:20, 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. -Splash 21:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban Cheeseburger

This does not have any explanation and sounds unencyclopedic. Delete. Andrew pmk 02:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sounds pretty tasty to me, but doesn't warrant a whole page. Fire the delete cannon at it. Forgotmytea 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
agreed. delete Algebraist 13:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
weak delete. seems like a genuine cuban culture item. unfrotunately, there is nothing of note on the page right now. Sensation002 00:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Merge and/or redirect with Hamburger or Cheeseburger. --SuperDude 17:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism and advertisement for Cuban tourism. Serves no purpose. Amicuspublilius 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus Delete

This has been sitting on the delete page for a long time, with a consensus. Amicuspublilius 18:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This was never added to a main VfD page, so I'm doing that now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 14:42, 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 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cumbo-5

Clearly a hoax band, gets one unique google hit when restricted to sites from Australia (thus excluding wikipedia mirrors) which is their msn group with a massive 25 members [7] is obviously a joke, delete --nixie 15:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, apparent hoax. Kappa 21:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete As per nixie. Cyberjunkie 03:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non non notable. --Woohookitty 06:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable at best. Gblaz June 28, 2005 15:34 (UTC)
Delete-5 Proto t c 30 June 2005 09:59 (UTC)
This VfD nom was orphaned. Completing now. delete unless verified. JYolkowski // talk 14:43, 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 MERGE to CyberArmy. Reading the comments, although nearly all are from redlinked users or are usigned, there is are numerous suggestions that this should be merged (some of the deletes are newbies saying delete write comments that sound like merges). -Splash 21:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CyberArmy University

delete The article is not a relevant article to the community and does not fall into public interrest. --Cybertnt 02:04, 9 Apr 2005 (CET)
delete Not relevant for wikipedia. --Matthias Herzhoff 02:08, 9 Apr 2005 (CET)
keep Article ties in with Cyberarmy granting it a valid place on Wikipedia.*Kat* 02:06, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
delete Any article's relevance in wikipedia could be argued. But i'll vote on deletion; not due to its lack of relevence to wikipedia though. :Purefreak 09:03, 12 Apr 2005 (CMT+2)
delete Article should be tacked onto the Cyberarmy entry in the wikipedia granting it a valid place on Wikipedia. 14:26, Jun 21, 2005 (EDT)
This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Doing so now. Merge and redirect with CyberArmy. JYolkowski // talk 14:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement and absolute crap. McA 19:40, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:18, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

A "theory" derived from a single Penny Arcade comic strip. Seems this was speedied before, but it was independently recreated. 200 or so Google hits. Coffee 14:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Might as well redirect to Penny Arcade so as to prevent recreation, but delete would be fine as well. Meelar (talk) 16:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to PA page. Sdedeo 20:49, 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 21:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D F D

two teenagers that want to start a band. Google turns up nothing.

Keepwhy not have a page about them? its prety detailed. and its 3 guys that have a rap group. theyre pretty popular in portland (preceding unsigned comment by CGrip (talk · contribs) 21:18, 1 September 2005)
- Because we have generally accepted criteria at WP:MUSIC to decide whether a musical artist should have a Wikipedia article, and we can't find evidence that this group meets any of those criteria. Delete. --Metropolitan90 17:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Completing orphaned nomination. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 14:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the article admits to being non-notable: "Their ultimate goal is to become a success story, by receiving national attention and becoming rap legends." Nothing on a Google search, either. Paul 16:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable G Clark 16:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn --rob 02:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep

Keep

Keep

Keep

Keep

Keep

Keep

Keep (preceding unsigned comment by CGrip (talk · contribs) 23:23, 5 September 2005)

Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete! Ashibaka (tock) 00:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete with fire, along with the sockpuppets.--Scimitar ^parley 17:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete --MacRusgail 14:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete – spam through self promo --None-of-the-Above 21:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Simple nn band vanity. MCB 23:20, 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 SPEEDY DELETED by FCYTravis. -Splash 21:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing Elephants

delte this page it is udder nonsense This is utter nonsense this page is actually offensiv to many delte this page it is udder nonsense

This page is utter nonsense and is actually offensive to many, very rude.

Please block those involved

I would recomend blocking of all users involved delete this page now!

Speedy delete, looks like utter nonsense. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Unverifiable, and nominated by author. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs) 09:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)}
Speedy Delete utter nonsense --Apyule 08:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Adding now. Delete. Possible borderline speedy, but it's not patent nonsense and others apart from the author have edited it so it doesn't clearly fall into any criterion. JYolkowski // talk 14:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Source unverifiable. --Hurricane111 15:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Patent nonsense. (If you don't believe me, have a look at some of the past revisions.) For this reason, and since nobody but User:213.249.154.98 added any material into the article, delete - candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 20:51, 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 21:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Britt

Unimaginative vanity. Denni ☯ 00:40, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Delete. Unverifiable. The web knows about Dharma Bombs, and about Muswell Hill, but not about any Daniel Britt in connection with either. It is highly unlikely that a man is so beautiful he wins beauty pageants. Delete as unverifiable/vandalism/vanity, take your pick. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, nn, agree with SWAdiar. MajOrLEaguEsocCeRfReAK777
This nom was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 14:59, 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 NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lamit Company

Self promotion of company by Expertu, ie spam SqueakBox 15:10, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Message from SqueakBox

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks., SqueakBox 15:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now my reply :

I see this page is being marked for deletion :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamit_Company

I made a page for this company , just like others already exist in Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard

I do not see why is this wrong ?

Could you please explain ?

Comment. My message was a spam template, SqueakBox 20:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I had an attempt at trying to convert it from a marketing exercise, but there's not much left. I'll reconsider if somebody can perform a better re-write. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep pending re-write. I'm still not sure the company is notable enough to merit an entry, however the re-write may prove me wrong. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep (formerly Undecided). Lamit has PageRank 5, which is good, except that upon Googling "link:www.lamit.ro", I see that most of the inbound links are from spammy link farms. It's a Romainian company, and its page sponsor may be unfamiliar for Wikipedia corporate page style. I'd like to know: (1) Does the company currently sell a service, or is it just planning to sell something? (2) How many subscribers does it have? (3) What unique benefit does this company provide to society?
- I've changed to keep on the basis that the company appears to be substantial, and the author is making a good faith effort to improve the page. Jehochman 05:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE

upon Googling "link:www.lamit.ro", I see that most of the inbound links are from spammy link farms.

I am very sorry. You do not know the term link farm. Tell me one website that you might deem a link farm. And please do not make inappropiate suggestions, upon this. I am a respected memeber of several big SEO communities, and i do not practice such "false" or "inappropiate link schemes" . If links are to the company websites, these are from friends, other companies, or web directories.

(1) Does the company currently sell a service, or is it just planning to sell something?

You are joking right ?

(2) How many subscribers does it have?

This is not a question which you can ask, and not a question which can be asked in this situation or moment. This is not an interogation.

(3) What unique benefit does this company provide to society?

Again. Are you joking ?

About us and our global partners :

http://www.udcast.com/company/udcast_references.htm

About us in Google :

http://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&q=%22lamit+company%22&btnG=Google+Search

Please try to understand. If I am giving you this info, is so that i can make you understand, that i don;t joke, or make spam in your website.

Plus : please explain this : " It's a Romainian company, and its page sponsor may be unfamiliar for Wikipedia corporate page style"

I really do not understand your point.

Thank you.

Can someone please review what i had to say, and can we please move on ?

Thank you .

I will rewrite and review this article, in 1-2 days, in the way Jehochman, kindly explained in a private message.

Eveyone thank you for your efforts.

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. Claims of wnning the unverified chess trophy remain unverified, and the claims were probably added to the article merely to avoid running into speedy criteron A7. The keep votes from anonymous users and very new users, as well as unsigned votes have been discarded as votes probably made by meatpuppets or sockpuppets, or other types of bad faith. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Fetcho

I believe this article is either flame bait set up by some individuals and/or utter nonsense. I had tag this page for Speedy deletion. However, the tag has been removed by the author BUT not posted for AFD. Please see discussion page for details. Hurricane111 15:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I can affirm that this article is neither flamebait or patent nonsense. The speedy deletion tag was rightly removed, though I do notice that there are some inaccuracies in the article. It could certainly do with a cleanup. I will try and add references and tidy up the article in general over the next few days. 213.114.172.139 15:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete, and be done with it Pilatus 18:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Article needs some work, but is extremely relevant:

http://www.phoneplusmag.com/agent/dfetcho.html

http://www.megapin.com/index.php?id=23&backPid=21&tt_news=5&cHash=8a672ea974

http://www.phoneplusmag.com/articles/0a1agen3.html

http://7mcpe.d62.net/

All show his relevance to the field of telecom engineering.

(preceding unsigned comment by 69.242.34.63 (talk · contribs) 22:17, 4 September 2005)
Delete not notable G Clark 20:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. Attack article -- short article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject. SWAdair | Talk 20:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Has since been restored / stubbified. Keep new stub. SWAdair | Talk 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedily undeleted and removed offending stuff. Still a candidate for AfD though, because importance is asserted. My vote is to delete. Denni☯ 21:04, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
- Throwing "UK National Chess Trophy" at Google gives ONE hit, which is Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles. The John Doe listed there won the prize in 1994. So speedy delete it again. Pilatus 22:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  - So google counts as independant research now? Ridiculous! If I put "Dennis Fetcho won the prize in 1984 up on some website and google cached it, that would be enough to suddenly prove it true? I think the original authors of the page know a little bit more than you about the subject, sir. A simple google - original research does not make! --Bouquet 23:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Working Google is not much in the way of research but FAPP sufficient here. Pilatus 12:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the attacks have returned, this page is of a nobody who somebody doesn't like. Zoe 23:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --fvw * 00:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Great article that needs some tidying up (preceding unsigned comment by 69.242.34.63 (talk · contribs) )1:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
keep. it belongs.,
Keep. People need to be educated about known anti-Semite Dennis Fetcho. --Weev G N A A™ 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please note that the above User has no edits to articles, but only to votes and discussions. And I think the GNAA logo explains everything we need to know about this article. Zoe 19:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - Why do you discriminate against me for being a black homosexual? This sentiment among Wikipedia administrators is scandalous and is a throwback to pre-Civil Rights movement mentality. You are an embarassment to humanity. --Weev G N A A™ 22:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very informative, an exposé on one of the leading telecommunications minds of our age. The information in this article opened my eyes to just how far the disease of anti-semitism in our society extends, most of which is fueled by the "internet" A must-read. -Fubster 16:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fubster must be some kind of troll, though not a very good one, since this fulsome "endorsement" is over the top.---CH (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

- The above is in reality User:67.8.109.96. Zoe 19:26, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you go, then.---CH (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

- - Please do not post my IP address on a public page. I made no attempt to mask it, and there was no reason to post it. The only thing you could accomplish by posting my IP would be to subject me to portscans and malicious packets. Thanks, -User:Fubster. 22:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
    - - Your IP address is published every single time you edit. Look at the Recent Changes page and the edit history of the article. Every single person in the world sees your ID when you edit. And modifying other Users' discussion page comments is vandalism, and is treated as such. Zoe 04:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
        
        If my IP address is published every time I edit a page, was it neccicary to publish it on the comments page? After commenting, I have since created a user account and I would prefer that my comments are attributed to my username rather than to my IP address. After you posted my IP address, I noticed I had been subjected to two portscans. I understand that something like that is of very little consequence, but it does help to illustrate my security concerns. I am not a vandal and I am not a troll, but when a choice needs to be made regarding my own personal security, the choice is clear. Now rather than edit out my IP myself (which is 'vandalism' in your eyes), I am asking you to please remove it. Now that I have a user page, maybe a link to that would help people learn more about me, and help to deter security nuisances. Fubster 01:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

- - - I love how User:Zoe encourages racial hatred, gay-bashing and denial of service attacks. --Weev G N A A™ 22:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
      - My only hatred is towards trolls. Zoe 04:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This article has potential and simply because someone hasn't gone through and perfected it does not mean it should be deleted! All articles are a work in progress, the newer they are the more they will be edited until a consensus is reached. Please, let's try to focus on wiki-principles and not our own personal bias. I promise to take the edit-pen to this article as soon as a get a chance. Until then the current skeleton is enough to work with --Bouquet 22:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is a new account and this user has made only one edit, to this article. Denni☯ 23:09, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
  - How is that relevent? You're against new users participating? Isn't that very much against the spirit of wikipedia and encouraging new perspecitives. In fact, I would say it's HIGHLY POV for you to discourage new users due to the fact that they may disagree with your views. Are your views the only ones that should be heard on wikipedia? If so, I think it would be prudent for you to remove yourself from the site, as that is the antithesis of its purpose. --Bouquet 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Unfortunately, the number of sockpuppets, trolls, and vandals Wikipedia attracts means we cannot assume all new users come with pure hearts. We therefore set some minimum standard of participation to ensure that those who are voting are those who have demosnstrated some commitment to Wikipedia and its goals. There is no POV involved. I would discount your vote no matter which side of the argument you were on, and regardless of my suspicions about your post. Denni ☯ 23:51, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Claim about 1994 UK National Chess Trophy seems questionable and needs sourcing, as does in fact the entire article. Quale 04:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I might change my vote if somebody could explain what exactly the UK National Chess Trophy is. -- Austrian 00:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As far as I can tell, this article is adspam by a nn promotional speaker, and it also seems to me that this VfD has been hijacked by a multisock and talentless troll.---CH (talk) 03:53, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay sex rumors about Elvis Presley

Note

I have now provided some additional sources supporting the content of the article. See below and Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone 00:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Rumours not encyclopedic Lee Hunter 15:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: some items in the article are sourced; perhaps they could be merged with Elvis Presley if not already mentioned there? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sourced rumours are still rumours and not encyclopedic. --Lee Hunter 20:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Caution. this article is part of a single issue agenda by User:Onefortyone to seed the Elvis Presley article and Wikipedia with misleading content in order to trigger Google keyword searches pointing readers to books by David Bret. Wyss 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This is what this user constantly claims in order to denigrate my contributions. As everybody can see, I frequently cite my sources. Administrator Ed Poor, who knows that there is an edit war going on, has recommended to create a new article on the ~~gay sex~~ rumors about Elvis Presley. See Talk:Elvis Presley. As it is a fact that these claims exist, I think it is a fair compromise to exclude this material from the main article and put it in this new article. Perhaps an administrator could add a link to this new page in the "Relationships" section of the article on Elvis Presley which is still protected. Thank you. Onefortyone 17:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say gay sex rumors and I didn't say only Elvis Presley. I was thinking primarily of James Dean.

Anyway, I think a collection of Celebrity rumors or Gossip about actors would make a more entertaining and informative article. Uncle Ed 13:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

You said,

Should we take the gay sex rumors to another page? Maybe combine with similar gossip about Elvis Presley and other entertainers who have been "outed" (or slandered). It's not really of general interest. Besides, you guys are alway fighting about it, and I'm getting tired of settling your squabbles. Uncle Ed 02:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Wyss 03:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See [8]

O.K., you are right that you were not primarily thinking of Elvis, and I still think it is a good idea to have Wikipedia articles of this kind. There is one important point. When I explained to gay historian David Ehrenstein the problem that some contributors to Wikipedia try to suppress every reference that some Hollywood stars were gay, as everybody can see from the Talk:Nick Adams page and the related archives, the Talk:James Dean page, etc., he answered,

The problem is cultural. Heterosexuality is regarded as universal and a self-evident truth. Everyone is supposed to be heterosexual, therefore "proof" of same-sexuality is required. Standards of "proof" change constantly. In her memoir of her brief affair with Dean, "Dizzy" Sheridan (Jerry Seinfeld's mother to zillions of TV viewers) spoke quite candidly about the fact that she knew Dean had an affair with producer Rogers Brackett. [I have used this sentence for the James Dean article.] Gavin Lambert has spoken of Sal Mineo's affair with Nicholas Ray (with whom he had had an affair as well) and Gore Vidal made mention of the Ray-Mineo affair too. Gavin Lambert makes mention of Nick Adams' gayness in his biography of Natalie Wood -- who had a great many gay friends. In sort there is nothing unusual about being gay or bisexual particularly in Hollywood. It's the Heterosexual Dictatorship (Christopher Isherwood's useful term) that can't handle the truth.

These are wise words indeed. Query: do you really have problems with the fact that there are some authors who say that some Hollywood stars were gay or may have had homosexual leanings? You may think about this, instead of condemning my article and rashly saying "delete". Onefortyone 20:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This is somewhat off-topic, but I'm not sure that the idea of Celebrity rumours, or Gossip about actors articles, as mentioned above are a particularly good idea. Firstly, I imagine libel laws would be an issue. Secondly, rumours can be indiscriminate, baseless, unsourced, and all the things which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Perhaps this argument is best saved for when those articles come to AfD themselves though, as this debate is already fairly convoluted as it is! KeithD (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that my remarks are off-topic, as the suppression of different opinions which are not in line with the opinion of some fans is a real Wikipedia problem. Perhaps "rumors" is not the right word, as the claims are supported by several independent sources, among them books and articles. Onefortyone 01:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I meant what I was about to say was somewhat off-topic. Sorry for the confusion. KeithD (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Move to something like Elvis Presely and homosexuality, but keep, seems well sourced. Sdedeo 20:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Reluctant keep, reluctant because I'm opposed to the continual assumption that every famous male is gay. However as noted above this does appear to be well-sourced although I personally would delete the Guardian quote as being taken out of context since it, in turn, references a scandal mag and therefore weakens the thesis. Also the last paragraph, despite the sourcing, needs to be recast for NPOV. I agree it needs a better title. 23skidoo 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree that there should be a better title. Onefortyone 20:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Most of the articles seems to be innuendo with little in the way of fact. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is important to discourage people like Onefortyone from using Wikipedia for financial gain by improving Google results. (129.241.134.241 01:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

You have repeatedly accused me of using Wikipedia for financial gain. I do not understand what you mean by that. Perhaps it is a strategy to disparage opinions which are not in line with your personal view. Onefortyone 20:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia should not be used to spread rumors. --rob 02:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per rob abakharev 05:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The 'sources' for this are a scandal mag, an unpublished manuscript, the National Enquirer, and a book by an author who is "widely criticised for being careless and even inventive with basic facts". Given the National Enquirer being a source can we expect an article on Living on the moon rumours about Elvis Presley? If the article is being used, as alleged above, to promote a book, then it skirts dangerously close to being personal research. The article is inherently POV, and would most likely remain so even with a name change. Given that the article cites its very weak sources at length, I see nothing to suggest that it could be expanded further with the addition of new information. I see nothing to suggest it could ever be an encylopaedic article. KeithD (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some contributors dominating the Elvis Presley article who try to suppress every critical voice. They even deleted a critical paragraph based on essays by Professor David S. Wall, who discusses the fact that Elvis fan groups denigrate the content of the manuscript by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. See Talk:Elvis Presley and related archives. Onefortyone 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I read the archives prior to casting my vote (or whatever we call it now that VfD has become AfD). I didn't 'rashly' vote delete. I'm not part of a 'heterosexual dictatorship'. I'm not a rabid Elvis Presley fan, or a rabid homophobe, or a rabid rabbit. As far as I remember, I came across the article via AfD, rather than searching for it. I have no agenda here with regards either sexuality, Elvis Presley, Hollywood, or anything. My only agenda here is to contribute to an encyclopaedia to make it as good as it can be, which is what I feel I did with my vote and stating my reasoning. KeithD (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that you are part of the contributors dominating the Elvis article. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. As you are an unbiased Wikipedia user, you may have a look at the Talk:Elvis Presley page and help to rewrite the critical paragraph concerning the world-wide Elvis industry. Thanks in anticipation. Onefortyone 20:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - There are multitude of various rumors about all the famous people there is. Elvis is hardly the only one. I doubt we want similar, separate articles about all that are even marginally famous. Or does somebody want to create, for example, categories like "homosexuality rumors about celebrities", "alien rumors about celebrities", "conspiracy theories about celebrities" or "hate group allegations about celebrities" Skysmith 12:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Trim greatly, then Merge into Elvis Presley. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:04, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
Delete. I must be a masochist for getting involved with this s***storm again. 141 was unable to establish credibility for the Bret book on Talk:Elvis Presley, and this article is his way around it. Unless he can convince a consensus here or on Talk:Elvis Presley that the book is notable and abides by the wikipedia policy for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious sources, then this information should remain out of Wikipedia articles. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Verifiability page says,

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth."

"Verifiability is one problem with articles on obscure subjects. If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information."

In the meantime, I have detected two additional sources which prove that there were claims about Elvis's homosexual relationships, one of which is from Elvis's lifetime. Nick Adams himself said that he had an affair with Elvis. There is a positive Dutch review of Bret's book. So I have presented at least half a dozen independent sources (published and unpublished books, reviews, articles, plays) which deal with the topic. The article is a compromise in order to exclude the material from the main article, as many Elvis fans do not like the rumors about the singer's homosexual leanings. Perhaps the title of the article may be changed. It should also be taken into account that there are several critical remarks in my article concering the claims. Onefortyone 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

From a review of David Bret's book:

March 30, 2002

Elvis Presley's Gay Secret

by (RGS/TG/BRC)

ELVIS PRESLEY's HOLLYWOOD YEARS

According to BRET, the legendary rocker's "greedy" manager COLONEL TOM PARKER blackmailed him into virtual slavery by threatening to leak reports of the romance. Bret says, "Parker held secret information about a homosexual affair between Elvis and actor NICK ADAMS over his head like a sword. He made it clear that... if Elvis didn't toe the line, he'd let it get out. At that time, it could well have ruined his career. That's why Parker had so much control over him." Presley's sexual experimentation began with a "teenage crush" on actor JAMES DEAN that grew into an obsession, says the book. The star saw REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE 44 times and eventually became close pals with Dean's Rebel co-star Nick Adams. Bret says, "Adams claimed that he had a brief affair with Elvis after Elvis 'agreed to be his date' for a preview of Nick's 1956 film THE LAST WAGON." Presley, by then a sex symbol sending legions of women swooning, became smitten with Adams and even tried unsuccessfully to get him a part in his first movie LOVE ME TENDER, says Bret. In 1958, "Nick Adams and Elvis stayed in the same room of the same hotel in New Orleans while Elvis was filming KING CREOLE there," the author reveals. Many journalists' attempts to 'out' the star in the past were thwarted by his manager.

(World Entertainment News Network) (Unsigned comment by User:Onefortyone).

It's not a review. It doesn't either praise or criticise the book. It just reports what David Bret says. It does nothing to prove or disprove the credibility of the author. KeithD (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

an additional source

I found an interesting discussion concerning Elvis's sex life and his homosexual leanings. The author says,

The excitement about rumors about Prince Charles opened up in Europe the discussion about the sex-lives of other prominent personalities. To them belongs the unforgettable Elvis Presley, who was stationed as a young soldier in Germany. Up to now it has been a tabu to publicly speculate about the sexual predisposition of Elvis Presley. While the "King of Rock" has been spared by the media, other prominent personalities were forced to come out of the closet. ...

In order to bring light on the private secrets of deceased Hollywood stars, a team of experts in Europe is collecting information also about Elvis Presley. One source are eyewitnesses, who have been privately associated as friends and acquaintances with Elvis Presley.

One of the sources they present is this personal photograph, presumably taken by a gay friend, from the beginning of Presley's military service showing Elvis half naked with one of his male friends: [9] The author adds,

The question is already now: how will the Elvis fans take the possible bisexuality of their idol? Will it bring protests and denials, or rather tolerance and understanding for the great singers? A sensitive side of Presley could even increase people's affection for him, according to the opinion of some Presley fans.

I think this is another independent source supporting the view that Elvis had homosexual leanings. Onefortyone 10:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Onefortyone has submitted the exact same thoughts about this source at Talk:Elvis_Presley#A_personal_photograph_supporting_the_view_that_Elvis_had_homosexual_leanings. I've explained there why I feel it's yet another very weak source. It seems more sensible to provide a link to my reply, rather than just copy and paste what I said. KeithD (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Another published book claiming that Elvis had a homosexual affair

In his book, The Boy who would be King: An Intimate Portrait of Elvis Presley by his Cousin (1990), Earl Greenwood, Elvis's second cousin who paled around with Elvis for many years before and after his success, says that Elvis had an affair with Nick Adams.

From the review in the Library Journal (by David M. Turkalo, Social Law Lib., Boston):

Having literally grown up with Elvis Presley in Tupelo and Memphis, Greenwood also served his cousin for some years as his press agent, claiming a front-row seat for the best and the worst of rock music's late king. As with so much written about him, this book is simultaneously interesting and lurid and often the former because it is the latter. But its saving grace, in addition to being well written, is Greenwood's closeness to Presley, rendering this an eyewitness account (the first ever by a blood relative) to the formative childhood years and the inner workings of the Presley family that played such a large part in the musician's personality development. Revelatory and credible in these and other areas, but never descending to either blathering idolatry or merciless crucifixion (a la Albert Goldman), this fast-paced, no-white-wash look at the rock icon will surely find an audience among the millions for whom Elvis Presley still holds fascination. Previewed in Prepub Alert, LJ 5/15/90.

Onefortyone 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You haven't provided the relevant passage from Earl Greenwood's book. KeithD (talk) 07:06, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flaming Milka

Google returned about a dozen results for either Flaming Milka or Amelia Milka Sablich. If other sources can be found-i.e., contemporary newspaper articles-this might be notable and verifiable, but as it stands, it doesn't appear to be either. Paul 15:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:48, 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 keep (no consensus). A majority favored deletion, but no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lake Ridge Academy

Minimal content; notability not established. Noisy | Talk 15:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, helps to build comprehensive coverage of schools in Ohio. Kappa 16:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete sufficient coverage could be done in one article — Schools in Ohio. --TimPope 20:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, there are probably thousands of schools in Ohio; we couldn't possibly cover them in one article. JYolkowski // talk 22:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Pilatus 22:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable G Clark 22:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very stubby right now, but its a rasonable start. -- DS1953 23:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There are probably thousands of schools in Ohio; this article presents no evidence whatever of the notability of this school. (My bad - it has a creek.) Denni ☯ 00:28, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Delete. A creek and a pond. Gasp! Gamaliel 03:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable and not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Kee— No wait. Let me think about this one for a minute. Hmmm, yep, KEEP. —RaD Man (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This one might be close, can't afford the Bicycle.--Nicodemus75 08:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete yawn, not notable. Dunc|☺ 17:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable primary school. Quale 18:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep yawn, notable. 24ip|☺ 21:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:Schools/Delete arguments. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability. Cmadler 15:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Schools are notable Guerberj 16:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can find some reason this elementary school is notable and per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 19:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pardon me, is it an elementary school? It is a K-12 school, isn't it? --Vsion 23:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Promising stub, needs more work. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:16, 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)
  - Afds don't add anything, they just repeat the same old arguments for 5 days and then get archived. Kappa 23:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Please see your talk page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per TimPope. Nandesuka 03:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a fine stub. No need to delete it. Un focused 05:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn school. Dottore So 23:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for the usual reasons. --Idont Havaname 14:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, has good Fine Arts program; btw, the school is having a fundraising event today for Hurricane Katrina Relief. [10] --Vsion 23:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep the sky is blue today... so keep. ALKIVAR™ 05:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
- And yet another fine example of critical thinking. Denni☯ 07:04, 2005 September 11 (UTC)
  - Makes as much sense as 99% of the arguments for deletion do. Consensus will never be reached on schools. ALKIVAR™ 07:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable---CH (talk) 00:13, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jueti

Non-notable (at least within the en: space). Would mark cleanup-verify, but can't locate even superficial information on it. Possibly a vanity page. --Soir (say hi) 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andre (talk) 17:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete One relevant google hit is not enough to provide verification. Denni ☯ 00:41, 2005 September 5 (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!) 11:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beth goldman

Vanity without providing significance of subject --Hurricane111 16:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under criterion A7 of WP:CSD. — Bcat ^{(talk • email)} 16:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

It should be kept on site

speedy delete as nn ---CH (talk) 01:47, 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. Not much debate, but clear scepticism all round and two outright requests for deletion. -Splash 20:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Nechtán: Descendant of the Waters

There is no "saint Nechtan". Nechtan was the name of a Scottish king. No connection with Nîmes whatsoever. This whole article is nonsense. Karl Stas 08:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Saint Nechtán" I believe, "Descendant of the Waters", likewise, but can't see how this Nîmes thing came in. Alf ^melmac 14:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"Nechtan" (Neachdan/Naughton) is a Pictish name. I think there was an actual St. Nechtan, but this article is not related to him. Weak delete (if there is such a thing!)--MacRusgail 14:24, 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, theatrically. -Splash 21:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plum Canary

A disputed close. I closed this with keep because there were 4 valid deletes, 1 valid keep, and 1 provisional keep (subject to conditions which appear to have been satisfied). Radiant has disputed this and, as his fashion, summarily deleted. I restore this and present it for reconsideration. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Previous deletion discussion
No vote. I have no opinion on this and will take no part in the discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
No vote, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk 17:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, legitimate call by Tony, not longer advertising. Kappa 18:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems like a reasonable article now. JYolkowski // talk 18:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable software company founded last year. The only reason it exists is to advertise "Chirp", which I learn is "designed for simplicity". Sdedeo 18:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I find 96 Google hits (a fair bit of which are irrelevant) and no review of the software. Pilatus 18:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Entry contains nothing on why the company is unique or noteworthy. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn company, inappropriate action (as usual) by Tony Sidaway. Zoe 20:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's no assertion of notability in the article. Even after cleanup, it is still simply exploiting Wikipedia to be a linkfarm. It was an appropriate speedy. Nandesuka 21:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Theatrics for extra impact

Delete, advertising, no assertion of notability made in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. advertising. (Memo to myself: remember to ifd Image:PlumCanaryLogo.gif after this is closed.) —Cryptic (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I see no indication that the company is particularly notable, either in the article or in this thread. DES ^(talk) 00:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete No notability described or implied. --Calton | Talk 00:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advert - This could have been done without the theatrics, though. - Tεx τ urε 03:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for a non-notable company. Quale 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Company is not notable, but Tony Sidaway's closing of the original debate as a "no consensus" keep was perfectly sound. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please explain how 80% for deletion is no consensus. Zoe 20:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - I counted 4 delete, 2 keep. (OK, maybe I overlooked the fact that one of the keep votes was "conditional"). Never mind, the article seems to be headed for deletion this time around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  - This is correct. The original close was legitimate, with four votes to delete, one to keep, one conditional keep where the conditions had apparently been met because the article had been trimmed back as requested and only a small minority of voters stated that the company was non-notable. The article was of course immediately undeleted and relisted here after being summarily deleted by a third party after the legitimate close. I don't know where some editors managed to get the figure of 80% from; perhaps they decided to discount one of the keep votes other than the one by the article creator, which could be legitimately discounted. Even if the provisional keep vote isn't counted as a keep vote, it is a vote, so in my opinion shouldn't be discounted when weighing whether a consensus had been attained. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The two votes in favour of keeping were both dubious at best. This existing makes both humanity and Wikipedia slightly worse, and must be expunged from both existence and history. (hurrah for theatrics!) Bad faith undeletion by Tony. Proto t c 13:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who undeleted (or deleted) what, and whether it was before (or after) whom undeleted (or deleted) what, and whether or not it was while which of the first or second deletion discussions or the undeletion discussion had or had not already been closed, by whom, properly or improperly. And I really hope nobody is going to bother to enlighten me. But it may not have been Tony. Whatever, just so long as someone makes the article go away. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- P. S. The rules say "Items sent here usually wait five days or so." It would seem to me that if an article has a relatively small number of votes and a ratio whose relationship to 2/3 isn't obvious, that it would be sensible to let the discussion mellow/simmer/fester a while longer, and see whether a clearer consensus emerges. Is there any reason why such a discussion couldn't be mentioned in RfC in order to draw in more voters? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- It was me. The discussion had been closed eight days after being listed. An article deleted out of process, as this one was, can be undeleted by any sysop (undeletion policy#Exception) and that is my normal practice in disputed closes where a sysop unilaterally deletes after a close. In such circumstances I immediately relist the article for deletion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  - What I meant was that the circumstances are so tangled that fingerpointing is inappropriate. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - qualified. Look folks, I was the creator. I created this in good faith for the people I thought would look for it. I'm a big Wikipedia supporter. I've invested some hours of time (admittedly not tons, but a few hours nonetheless) in helping out with content in places where I know something relevant and hopefully useful. I created the Plum Canary page because I believe the company is attempting to solve a common problem in a novel way. So the page was created to recognize the novelty and provide a landing page that could be used for links in other pages where it is legitimate to talk about the software (e.g. the List of project management software page.). It appears from this second nomination that this page will get deleted. I obviously feel different about this conclusion, but I think in its current cleaned-up form it doesn't make the Wikipedia a worse place (despite the theatrically-condescending comment by Proto). (I won't even take the bait about making humanity a worse place.) I also wanted to go on the record as saying I put this page up in good faith, not to exploit Wikipedia as a link farm. (I *am* amazed at the amount of theatrics about a few bits on disc for a page that only interested parties are going to ever see....) Batsonjay 13:17, 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 REDIRECT to Monotheism. Not deleting outright, clearly no desire to retain the article standalone or to merge its contents. -Splash 21:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One God

Not appropriate encyclopaedic material Hodg 17:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to monotheism. --Metropolitan90 17:51, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete — content covered on Kushiel's Legacy. I don't see a need for a redirect. — RJH 19:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Metro — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to monotheism- redirects are cheap and it's certainly a possible search term. --G Rutter 10:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per RJHall.---CH (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Dab to monotheism but keep the page as disambiguation, as the One God is also the name of Takhisis, Dragonlance goddess, during the War of Souls series. -- ReyBrujo 06:19, 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 ALREADY REDIRECTED. -Splash 21:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Participant observer neé Participant observor

Delete. Mis-spelling; also should be "participant observation". --Ian Pitchford 17:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No need to bring this sort of thing to AFD. Deletion is not required in any way in order to fix this problem. Simply rename the article to participant observer (which I've done) to fix the mis-spelling and then merge it to participant observation. Uncle G 18:03:44, 2005-09-04 (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 Dojo kun. In fact as is indicated by the nominator, all the useful content is already there, so I'll just redirect. -Splash 21:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dojokun

This article, created by an anon, is a duplicate of the better written Dojo kun. - Lucky13pjn 18:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Dojo kun, provided there is anything to merge. Punkmorten 20:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per Punkmorten --Ian Pitchford 17:40, 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 21:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DataSolution Computer Services, Lapu-lapu City, Cebu

Wikipedia is not a means for advertising. Articles about companies should describe companies that are well known, and are notable. This company is definitely not notable. This also looks like some about page. If it is confirmed that this should be deleted, may I please request an admin to delete, thanks.

Delete, for the said reasons. --Noypi380 12:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This nom was previously malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Adding now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN company - article did not establish what is notable about this newly formed company (ie: any notable product???). --Hurricane111 04:40, 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. -Splash 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David_hinze

I don't know if I would call it vanity per se, but I don't know that an article about a high school teacher is worthy of Wikipedia. Is he noteworthy enough? My guess is no. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete tribute. Gazpacho 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Richhil 03:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

keep oh dear lord keep Mr. Hinze is noteabel teacher, historian, tour guide, and blueberry farmer waht more could you ask for keep. User: CrimsonAlchemist 11:03 27 July 2005

David Hinze is well known for his historical books-- that alone is reason enough to have a wikipedia article.

This page was never added to a main VfD page; adding now. Keep and cleanup, seems important enough. JYolkowski // talk 18:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Strong Delete Not Notable --Aranda56 02:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete; this kind of shoddiness should be stricken quickly. Amazon.com sales rank for his book is about 434,000. Bad article in general. Paul 14:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. The only thing potentially notable is that book. According to amazon, the publisher is Savas Publishing, which appears to me to be a vanity press. Gamaliel 07:47, 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. With so little debate, this essentially comes down to numbers and it's below the guidance of two-thirds. However, "Death Mark" is not an also-known-as for Dark Mark and is simply an invented term, all of the content is already at Dark Mark and we do not retain redirects for made-up versions of things. -Splash 21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death Mark

There is no such thing in the Harry Potter books as the Death Mark, there is only the Dark Mark. --Drak2 22:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete I've never heard of it refered to as that either. --bjwebb 18:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete. You're right, it's Dark Mark, not death mark. EvilPhoenix 04:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect Merge with Dark Mark (if anything in here, that is not in Dark Mark) and set up redirect --michael180 19:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned nom; adding it to today's page now. Merge and redirect as above. JYolkowski // talk 18:16, 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. -Splash 21:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devil-Eyebrows

This page is just a lame stab at John Howard's eyebrows, and there's really no need for an article like this. [maestro] 14:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete This page is pointless, not to mention gibberish.
This page was never added to a main VfD log; doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I've got eyebrows like this! There has to be a better name for them, though. Like, say, "M-brows". The_Iconoclast 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete No evidence this is anything more than a neologism. Denni ☯ 00:54, 2005 September 5 (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 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dianshiju

Delete! - "Dianshiju" is merely a Chinese word romanized into Latin alphabets. It is not a widely understood term among the circle of English speakers. There is no need to open a new article for every Chinese term romanized into Latin alphabets. Furthermore, the content of this article can be put into the articles "TV series" or "soap opera". - Alanmak 8 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
Delete - foreign language words are not encyclopedic. --Tysto 00:04, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
This page was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This particular form of romanization is called pinyin, so, for the record, it wasn't just randomly translated. Having said that, a more non-notable article I cannot even imagine. Delete. Marblespire 17:07, 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 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disney's Grand Parisian Resort and Spa

There is no resort named "Disney's Grand Parisian Resort and Spa", nor has any future project been announced with this name. The name is nothing but a guess made by some Disney fans as to what a future Disneyland Paris or Tokyo Disneyland resort might be named. I don't even know where the June 2005 groundbreaking date comes from. - Brian Kendig 23:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This VfD was malformed and never added to a main VfD log. Completing nom. Keep if references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as speculation. According to this Walt Disney World forum it's pretty much just speculation and rumor. 23skidoo 00:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Crystal ball, etc. Thatdog 08:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, currently just rumor and speculation ManoaChild 20:51, 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 22:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dk2ian Chess

This is a vanity article or a bad joke. I didn't find any information about it on the Web or in books on chess varaints. In any case this chess variant is not notable and should be removed. Andreas Kaufmann 15:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andreas Kaufmann 15:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bubbleboys 05:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This nom was never added to a main page. Doing so now. Keep if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 18:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are a number of chess variants which are notable, but this one appears to have been hardly played by anyone. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double team Accu-weather

VFD: either needs significantly more information or is not appropriate. Devanjedi 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'd say it needs significantly more notability. Denni ☯ 00:35, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
Delete. Totally unnotable. - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete unnotable --ThomasK 11:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page until now. Completing nom. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN--inks 22:46, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nigger rich

This article should either be deleted because of dictdef, or, if someone can expand it, it's name should be changed to "ghetto fabulous" which is the term used far more often.

It's a real phrase that real people use, it describes a real and unique cultural phenomenon... it should be included in the encyclopedia. Don't delete.

Changed, I have altered this article and updated to make it more concise. You can take it off VfD. Piecraft 22:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Ghetto fabulous. It's a pathetic but nonetheless real term that people use, but I do agree that the latter is used more than the former.--Mitsukai 04:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

nigger rich is not the same as ghetto fabulous dumbass

Being anonymous to the above post proves to me one thing, that you're a fool. I was merely trying to save this article - otherwords the terms Ghetto fabulous and Nigger rich are as far as I can tell closely related. If you think you can do better then by all means Mr. Anonymous please share your wealth of knowledge. As it is clear you have very little to share in terms of proper language, troglodyte! Piecraft 15:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Found this deformed VFD page, probably got orphaned or blanked somehow and no one noticed. Trying to rectify it by relisting. - Hahnchen 18:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Provisional keep with the requirement that sources be provided. If this really is a term used since the Civil War era, it should be included and not merged with "Ghetto fab", which is much more recent. Sdedeo 20:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep/comment.: Growing up in the Deep South, I heard this phrase, along with plenty of similar ones ("nigger rig" and its more recent child, "afro-engineered", both being the same as "Jury Rigged", etc.) for the greater part of my life. I can verify this as a VERY common turn of phrase that well predates "ghetto fabulous". -HX 13:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This term is in use so it shouldn't be deleted. The only requirement for inclusion in wikipedia SHOULD be that a term is in use, whether it is offensive or not is irrelevant. BTW, here in Texas, this term is very common and simply means someone who comes into some cash that is a large amount for them but in the overall scheme of things is not much money.

Delete/Merge since the wikipedia entry for Nigger already says "Within American culture, following the word "nigger" with a second word connotes an extremely negative conception of that second word, usually playing to racist stereotypes. Thus, to call someone "nigger-rich" is to say that they unwisely spend their entire paycheck upon its receipt." do we really need a whole entry to further expand on this one term? Agree, it's not at all the same as ghetto fabulous. Jessamyn 01:19, 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. -Splash 22:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Legends

Computer game website open since 30th July. Looks non-notable, although I can't find it on Google to confirm this. --Kwekubo 18:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, along with Hall of legends. Completely non-notable. --Lockley 06:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:19, 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. We appear to have imported a small scuffle from another language Wikipedia, and a couple of the userpages state that they are used mainly for interwiki work (i.e. they are not en: established, particularly). Also, there is at least one scok/meat puppet amongst them. -Splash 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiKto

This article, for a non-notable wiki site, originated on the French Wikipedia, where it was deleted a bit more than two months ago. It had then been recreated, and put back on the French AfD, and translated to Italian, German, Portuguese, Spanish and English. The German, French and Spanish articles have already been deleted. Also, a Google search for WikiKto mostly gives a variety of advertisements that are very close to spam, such as this one on a Linux-related forum. Sam Hocevar 07:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Sam Hocevar 19:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
No right to vote because it would be too late... even if I create a login now ; anyway, let me recall Sam Hocevar that the initial French fr:WikiKto was not created by his founder but by a French wikipedia sysop obviously thinking it was notable enough counting 1200 different articles now. 82.224.88.52 19:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- Please read carefully what I wrote. I wrote that the WikiKto founder created the translated articles. And anyway, he also recreated the original article. Sam Hocevar 21:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Davidias 11:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

*sigh*, 9 contributions, 8 minor, and same user as above. Sam Hocevar 15:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: unnotable, vanity page (which I find a disturbing sin for a Catholic :) ) Rama 15:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable website. Korg (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Amusingly, we found here quite the same people already chatting deletion on the French Wikipedia, with the same arguments. So everybody knows mines. I don't repeat them. Gwalarn 18:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Raph 19:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Caton 18:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Jef-Infojef 19:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *sigh* why is there even a link to the english wikiKto in the article ? It has 4 articles (as for now).... Darkoneko 19:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. -- ClementSeveillac 10:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC) (though a Tourangeau like User:Davidias :)

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. Note that Sdedeo actually says to delete. -Splash 22:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of popular music performers

Far too broad of a list of musicians. What determines them as popular? Andros 1337 19:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

See popular music. Delete, however, because such a list is absurdly useless. Future voters, please keep in mind the distinction between pop music (i.e. catchy, mainstream bestselling music) and popular music (i.e. not folk, not classical; does include everything from avant-garde jazz to hardcore punk, death metal and folk-rock). Tuf-Kat 20:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. That article is bound to have a heavy Anglo-American bias. Listcruft. Punkmorten 20:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Move to "List of popular popular music performers in the Anglophone world", then delete for lack of reasonable criteria for inclusion. Sdedeo 20:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Move to List of performers of popular music or List of popular performers of music, whichever is applicable. Kappa 23:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neither is applicable. The first is essentially no change in meaning, and the list would still be absurdly long. The second would be a completely different list. Tuf-Kat 00:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - If the first is no change in meaning, it's applicable, and it should be moved there. Long lists can be divided by country, or era, or sub-genre, or alphabetically. Kappa 17:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unmaintainable and too broad. Anyone who manages to sell a couple hundred CDs could call themselves popular. Needs a much more strict criteria for listing. 23skidoo 00:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per 23skidoo. Quale 18:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Add criteria if you must, but this article does no one any harm, and I'm starting to get tired of editors whose attitude seems to be "If I can't get my way, then I'm listing this on VfD, or calling it a copyvio, or whatever..." Atlant 16:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per 23skidoo. ManoaChild 20:59, 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 22:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Cole

HOAX HOAX HOAX - Google returns no relevant hits for "Sam Cole" + "the Relic", alleged to be his greatest film. DS 19:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a vanity page to me. Jll 22:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity or even hoax ---CH (talk) 07:08, 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 NO CONSENSUS, whichever way I read it, and I'm including all comments. -Splash 22:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad

As a note to VfD voters this book is ranked #9,337 in Books on Amazon.com Klonimus 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable propaganda work and probably a hoax, see Mark A. Gabriel. --Ian Pitchford 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - poorly written, nn, POV --LemonAndLime 21:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unsalvageable. Nandesuka 21:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep it's a notable book by a well known author. Klonimus 23:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep A cleric from Al Azhar University in Cairo, one of the most prestigious Islamic seminaries in the world, definetely is notable and has something relevent to say. Guy Montag 23:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per the above. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Ian Pitchford. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep quite notable, it doesn't matter if you agree or not --Quasipalm 00:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Guy Montag. Carioca 01:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with the author. High ranking book sales, but the article is quite short. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Per Ian Pitchford --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable book, notable subject.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless evidence can be produced that this person was ever a muslim cleric and ever an academic in Egypt. The whole story stinks and frankly I don't believe it. --Zero 12:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- "I was just freshly graduated from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt—the oldest and most prestigious Islamic university in the world. It serves as the spiritual authority for Islam worldwide. I was teaching at the university, and I was an imam on the weekends at this mosque."[11] Klonimus 17:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Gee, the anonymous author repeats his doubtful story. That's real solid proof. --Zero 20:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Guy et al. Briangotts (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Ian Pitchford. He summarized the book in 4 words. --Anonymous editor 16:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable book title. This is silly. There are a lot of stupid books; do we need an article on every one? --csloat 08:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
strong Keep Why would you delete a book , unless you were trying to censor its content?--CltFn 11:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per other users' comments. Babajobu 20:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gabriel who?! Svest 23:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Of course. -- Karl Meier 21:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Refer to The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism on a similar discussion. --JuanMuslim 07:25, September 8, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drollopen

Delete - I'm 99.9999999% sure this is a windup. But I could be wrong, so it's here rather than speedied. If it is a hoax, would a kind admin please do the drollopen?-Splash 22:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This nom never got added to a main VfD page. Doing so now. Delete unless references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, I'm 100% certain. Don't forget to purge Piet Paardenworst too, whose only claim to notability is having invented the drollopen. DS 20:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  - We probably should open up a separate VfD for that to ensure that it doesn't get forgotten about. JYolkowski // talk 22:02, 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. Not because of the nomination, though. I'm not going to userfy as the final editor suggested since it really doesn't seem at all likely that the editor would want it: they asked for its deletion after all. If they do want it, they can let me know of course. -Splash 22:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DuctapeDaredevil

Unimportant figure. *sigh* Ductape Daredevil 01:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment, if she has any published works, or notable and popular e-published works, it might be a good author article, with substantial cleanup. Listed with her realname; and psuedoname listed alternately. Research and rename (currently have to much on my todo list to do myself). <>Who?¿? 21:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not telling you my real name. Ductape Daredevil 23:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity page --Leonsimms 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete it!

This never made it to a main VfD page, apparently. Adding now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Userfy : C'mon, she VfDed her own article. The only way she could have more good faith is if she saved a puppy while doing so. She's definately refreshing compared to the other nonnotatbles on here pushing themselves. Karmafist 21:08, 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 Redirected to DuPont (simple miscapitalization). MCB 23:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dupont Corporation

This page is just a one-liner that should be merged into the "DuPont" article. ;Bear 04:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

So merge and redirect it then; no need to list it here. This nom was also malformed and never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. JYolkowski // talk 19:50, 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 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duro Power Supplies

User:Reinyday put a VfD tag on this article but never completed the nomination. Completing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 19:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Bad article plus only 6 non-duplicate Google hits, only 1 of which isn't a forum post? Delete, nn. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Poorly written, not verified... it sounds like someone just had a bad experience and wanted to rant here. Delete. Alynna 23:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry, it must not have gone through. My appologies. -- Reinyday, 17:27, 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 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle

As a note to VfD voters, this book is ranked #20,069 in Books on Amazon.com Klonimus 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable propaganda work and probably a hoax, see Mark A. Gabriel. --Ian Pitchford 19:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - poorly written, nn, POV --LemonAndLime 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Ian Pitchford. Nandesuka 21:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep verfiable book by a notable author. Klonimus 23:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The notability of the author doesn't matter. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Literature, a book that isn't well-known should be listed under its author. That would seem to be the case here. Aquillion 01:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Once again, a cleric from a prestigious Islamic seminary is both notable and relevent. Guy Montag 23:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per the above. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 23:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Ian Pitchford. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Mark A. Gabriel, as suggested under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Literature for non-notable books. Failing that, Delete. Aquillion 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable --Quasipalm 00:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Guy Montag. Carioca 01:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Christopher Parham (talk) 05:35, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Delete per Ian Pitchford --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: notable. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Meets notability threshhold. Briangotts (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Anonymous editor 20:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV as many other acedemics and historians of contemporary Islam argue that the Israeli occupation is the root of nowadays conflict between Jews and Muslims. Svest 20:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
- There seems to be some confusion here, the issue isn't the quality of Mark Gabriel's idea but an article describing his book and the ideas it contains. That is certainly encyclopedic. Klonimus 00:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Pass — Yes it's more religious agitprop tripe. Not sure if sufficiently notable. — RJH 21:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable claptrap.
strong Keep Why would you delete a book , unless you were trying to censor its content?--CltFn 11:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because it is an entirely non-notable book. Not every book merits an encyclopedia entry. In fact, most do not. Certainly not poorly written books that have received no mainstream attention and have influenced nobody. It should be listed under the author's name, that's it.--csloat 12:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per other users' comments. Babajobu 20:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Karl Meier 21:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Refer to The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism on a similar discussion.--JuanMuslim 07:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It's a real book, and no reason to delete as long as any statements it makes are referred to the book. --DanielCD 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
'Merge to author's page or Keep. Most books only have and only deserve a cite on the author's page, especially ones that are part of pattern of books and aren't notable separtely. But it's far from completely non-notable.--Prosfilaes 22:07, 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 keep. Dan100 (Talk) 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Federated Chinese Republic

Not notable and made up. There are only three hits on google for the term, two of which are geocities pages linked by the article. And the third is a link to one of the first two. Ji ang 20:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, might be a good idea, but the only references are to Geocities pages. Paul 21:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Chinese federalism and/or tiao-kuai. — Insta ntnood 11:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Chinese federalism as a section/subsection. It is one of several/many proposals within the scope of Chinese federalism. Since there is no evidence on it being widely debated, it is not notable enough to exist as an independent article. --Hurricane111 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Here are some more references

[12]
[13]
Yan Jiaqi, Lianbang Zhongguo gouxiang (A conception for a federal China) (Hong Kong: Mingbao chuban she, 1992)
http://www.google.com/search?q=聯邦中國

Working on looking for a Chinese copy. Also some references in scholarly journals but they are inaccessible if you do not have access to Jstor or Muse.

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'll delete the fork, too. -Splash 22:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of gags in Airplane!

Unencyclopedic Airplane! cruft - WP:NOT. Delete. Note that most of the content already exists in Wikiquote. -- Norvy (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

You might also be interested in List of comical gags in Airplane!. I don't know what the policy on this sort of thing is. --BadSeed 19:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be a copy of the existing article, created by BrenDJ. I suppose that rather than listing that as well, if this article is deleted, the other could be deleted per CSD:G4. -- Norvy (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep- --BrenDJ 23:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Very weak delete on the basis that it sets a precedent that would require similar articles for just about every comedy listed in Wikipedia. Suggest instead picking the best or most famous gags and listing them in the main article. 23skidoo 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most of the content is already on Wikiquote. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Zzyzx11 and 23skidoo. --jet57 09:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 13:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. This is what Wikiquote is for. Proto t c 13:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The whole movie is one long string of gags. Might as well just put up the script (which is probably already available on the Web anyway). Shantavira 08:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's no law against an encyclopaedic list of humor. Atlant 14:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's funny how people keep adding stuff to the content even as you encyclo-snobs argue whether it's "worthy" enough to be kept. Wahkeenah 00:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Definately a keeper! 02:31 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 22:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Daily Show guests

Unencyclopedic The Daily Show cruft. WP:NOT. Delete. -- Norvy (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It is a concise way to find out who has been on the show. This list, for some reason, is very difficult to find elsewhere on the Internet.
Keep. What part of "what wikipedia is not" does this list fall under? Also, doesn't this clearly fall under the scope of having lists? If nothing else, I don't see that this article is hurting anything or is detrimental to the overall quality of Wikipedia. It is also significant to note that this is the most complete list of its kind available on the internet, which makes it unique and to an extent irreplaceable. Ario 21:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Much better than a category for Daily Show guests, and it is interesting information (per Ario). We have lists of SNL skits and lists of tall people, for Pete's sake! :) In fact, I'm pretty sure there are lists of SNL guest hosts and maybe even Johnny Carson's guests, so this fits right in. A useful cross-section of celebrity. --Quuxplusone 21:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems nicely maintained, doesn't hurt anyone. Punkmorten 21:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't fit criteria for WP:NOT. 23skidoo 00:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's see: 4 times a week, times -- say -- 44 weeks a year equals an unwieldy, trivial, and pointless list that belongs ona fan page: Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:43, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There's a bunch of other episode guides too. There should be a mass judgment for all of those if one is going to be deleted. Plus this is very well-maintained. Hao2lian 03:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well maintained, what's so bad about it? Of all the lists on the site, you pick this one? If you're not going to have lists, then get rid of them all, not just one or two. Leave this alone for pete's sake. JChamberlin 11:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
(Question): At what point does this discussion end? It appears that the aye's have it... Ario 19:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- How much longer until the discussion is closed? There hasn't been any activity for several days and the consensus seems to be overwhelming. The deletion notice on the main article is unsightly. Ario 23:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's extremely well maintained, and works well for its purpose. --Mcmillin24 01:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep People like it and there's no reason to remove it. I use it all the time!
Keep What "Wikipedia is Not" does this fall under again? Nick Catalano (Talk) 08:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep I helped to put this together, and I don't want it to be destroyed with the press of one button. And everyone else has said it...how does it not belong on Wikipedia? --J L C Leung 05:06, 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 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of films that have been considered the worst ever

Article has no NPOV whatsoever. I can find whatever sources I want to support whether I think a movie is good or not. Should not be in an encyclopedia Wikipedianinthehouse 20:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - it's POV and the list is way too long. There's a perfectly acceptable (IMO) article dealing with infamously bad movies here. --LemonAndLime 21:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Look at the entries: They're actually required by the regular contributors to have cites as to their badness, so that NPOV is preserved. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cite awards and anything else to support that they were considered to be horrible movies. Maybe rename to something that doesn't consider them all to be "worst" but just bad. gren グレン 21:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This has been up for deletion at least twice before and survived. It is regularly policed by a number of editors who enforce a minimum standard of requiring a citation so every drive-by anon can't stick their least favorite movie in. It requires a lot of work before it's as good an article as Films that have been considered the greatest ever but we're working on it. Gamaliel 21:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I could find "sources" about any movie that considered it good or bad. I'm sure I could find a source that said Gone with the Wind or E.T. were the worst movies ever made. It is all subjective. And, just because it has survived two votes before doesn't mean its any good---I know some'thing' else that has survived two votes and isn't any good. Wikipedianinthehouse 21:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Films that have been considered the greatest ever is mentioned above. Titanic is on both lists. How can that be possible if this list is encycolpedic? Wikipedianinthehouse 21:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'd personally say "overrated" would be a more appropriate title, but Robert Altman and the viewers of the BBC said "worst", so there it is. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It is encyclopedic because, just as in Films that have been considered the greatest ever, it cites polls, published books, and the opinions of leading critics. Titanic appears on both lists because it was immensely popular with the public at the time and criticially unpopular. Gamaliel 21:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Titanic was popular with critics, (86% Rotten Tomato rating), a fact that conveniently disappeared from the article after I had added it in. This is the problem: too many editors are dumping films onto the list just to push their own POV. Extraordinary Machine 23:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NPOV Kappa 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, well-sourced. Zoe 23:44, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This list could quite easily be just POV but it's been extensively pruned so that only films seriously referred to as the worst ever are included. It's articles like this that make Wikipedia fun to read. David | Talk 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep as NPOV and encyclopaedic. IIRC this article has been VFD'd once before and I believe I voted to keep then, too. 23skidoo 00:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Citations are in order. I don't especially like the title, but the contents are fine. Denni ☯ 01:17, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Keep. Cites sources, thus NPOV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep I enjoyed reading this, even if I didn't agree with some of the choices! Well referenced, as mentioned above. Sabine's Sunbird 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I actually read this article with great interest over a month ago and it never occurred to me that it did not meet Wikipedia standards. It's been here for over two years now. -- WCFrancis 02:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. LemonAndLime is off base. There is no rule determining whether the "worst films" list is too long or not. And the alternative "perfectly acceptable article dealing with infamously bad movies..." also known as the Golden Raspberry Awards only covers the bad movies made from 1980 to present. Alansaltnpepper 18:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting article and with some website references, it is not original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, one of the few good lists on Wikipedia. Proto t c 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, This list is actually informative and NPOV. However, as other people have stated, it needs a name change. May I suggest List of movies that have been unanimously panned by critics. Hossmann 15:59, September 5 2005
Keep — many of the entries are self-documented as to why they are on the list, so that would seem sufficient. Individual entries still need references. — RJH 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Superfluous keep vote, along with a note on proposals to change this article's name. This article's been through a series of back-and-forth name changes, including "List of movies that are famous for being widely considered extremely bad", which is probably one of the most tortuous titles in the history of Wikipedia. We'll probably never settle on a title that satisfies everyone, but I think the current title is OK. It's not really a POV problem; something like "List of bad films" would be. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 10:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Though User:Wikipedianinthehouse has a good point. I do think that the policies should be tightened up to require a critical or popular consensus, rather than just a single citation. For example: having a movie like Titanic in there is somewhat ridiculous, considering how many awards it's won, how many critics loved it, and how outright popular it was--the people who consider it a bad movie are in the minority, yet the "single citation" policy lets the movie onto this list. - Lifefeed 13:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and don't make querulous nominations like this - David Gerard 11:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep The content is solid enough. L-Zwei 16:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's not subjective - it's movies CONSIDERED to be the worst ever. Whether something is good or bad is POV. Whether something is considered by many to be good or bad is fact. Fantom 17:24, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Entertaining & educational.Raylene Jackson
Delete - It's funny, but is basically an opinion article, and should be deleted. Not encyclopedia worthy. I liked it though. Maybe we need a Wikicriticism site? Roy Brumback
Keep - Some people just get their knickers in a knot because movies they like end up here (or vice-versa). Atlant 00:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - NPOV can be established by only accepting entries that have been nominated by well known media/sources. Note: this article deals with movies that have been considered, not is. --Hurricane111 05:08, 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.

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 delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OffCenter Group

Small company that has existed only since June and is not known to have done anything noteworthy, that for the record scores 26 google hits. Nominated for deletion in september here, where it got only two votes, both to delete. The closer made it a redirect. Then on WP:DRV it was argued that it should be kept. The result was to put it back here. Abstain. R adiant _>|< 23:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as an advertisement. Joyous | Talk 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 07:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the 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 22:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of legends

This article was tagged for wikification, but I think it might need deletion. NN forum started on the 30th of July. Punkmorten 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable web-based discussion forum. One of 37,955 hosted by InvisionFree [14]. Jll 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, along with Hall of Legends. Completely non-notable. --Lockley 06:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:32, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Utopia-Politics

Forum with 786 registered members. Punkmorten 21:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Web forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete a very small, nn forum. -Splash 22:36, 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. Dan100 (Talk) 23:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Primary Route Destinations in Devon

A wrong-headed list, it's just a list of major towns in Devon. TimPope 21:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently, this is a correct heading, and a primary route destination does exist. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I think some merges may be useful, but there are a lot of them, so they need to be dealt with elsewhere. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:49, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - A primary route destination is a place that is signposted on primary routes (major "A" roads) with a green sign. For more information, please see here. Ted Ted 15:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is just a contextless list of towns, probably original source material, and really doesn't belong here. Pilatus 14:02, 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 COPYVIO, no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fashion Royalty

Flat-out advertising. Denni ☯ 21:08, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Comment. Flat-out copyvio. Tagged and bagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:38, 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 22:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernays sauce

This pun seems to have been independently invented twice: once in the title of a parody "cookbook" and once in the title of a section of a screed on media manipulation. It doesn't seem to be a meme, or widely known, or interesting in any way. There are more Google hits for "Coulter .45" than "Bernays sauce." There are even more hits for "Honi soit la vache qui rit," and that was only independently invented once that I know of. Wikipedia is not a repository for non-notable puns, no matter how erudite or obscure. --Quuxplusone 21:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 21:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Bearnaise sauce as a {{R from misspelling}}. —Cryptic (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete so this nonsense is not in the history, then create it fresh as a redirect to Bearnaise sauce. Jonathunder 00:49, 2005 September 5 (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. Note that "hoax" is not really a reason to speedy delete, because even though hoaxes can be construed as "pure vandalism", determining that an article is in fact a hoax is not a process which should be done speedily. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Corners Hole

Hoax. Denni ☯ 21:12, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Hoax, nonsense. Punkmorten 21:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Hoax, nonsense, poorly written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. More specifically than being a hoax, which is not technically speediable, it is clearly a joke article which is defined as Wikipedia:Vandalism and vandalism may be removed on sight. (As backed up in CSD G3.) -Splash 23:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete I agree with everything above.--HistoricalPisces 17:25, 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 keep. Dan100 (Talk) 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Reason

We don't usually do articles for individual songs unless they're notable. As far as I'm aware, this one isn't. Deb 21:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect with Sum 41. I don't think all songs need their own article necessarily, but a redirect to the band shouldn't hurt. JYolkowski // talk 22:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Or a redirect to the album, if that article exists. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:35, 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 MERGE to Herndon, Virginia. On raw numbers, this is below the guidance of two-thirds. Those who would delete it do not really persuade me that I should lower the threshold in this case (apart from the nominator's point about proliferation). They just cite "non-notable" which, being such a common reason does not stand out as a case for deletion at less than two-thirds. However, to simply keep the article would be to defy the intent of every editor's comments, so I will merge it. -Splash 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of shopping centers in Herndon, VA

A comment from the (now removed) speedy tag says "Many of these are not even in Herndon". More to the point, is Wikipedia a place for lists of shopping centres, and is the currency and accuracy of information here maintainable if so? Remember that major urban areas might have thousands of shopping centres and strip malls. Denni ☯ 21:19, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

delete for reasons I gave on the last "mall" nomination. Nandesuka 22:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I think articles like these are useful in that they provide merge targets when people write articles on individual shopping malls. Alternately, a merge and redirect this article to Herndon, Virginia works for me too. JYolkowski // talk 22:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Herndon, Virginia, but don't make them editable links. Zoe 23:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No need to merge to Herndon, Virginia as malls aren't encyclopedically notable. Quale 04:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Quale. A list of things that are not in themselves notable isn't notable. Marskell 17:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Herndon, Virginia. Keep them in list format - but no need to make them links - they aren't important malls like Tysons Corner Center. CrazyC83 04:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Dennis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory!---CH (talk) 00:34, 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. -Splash 22:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donkonio of lengash

Sad attempt at humor. Denni ☯ 21:39, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

Delete Looks like nonsense. Jll 22:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it puzzles me why someone removed the speedy tag. Punkmorten 23:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Punkmorten. Looks to be patent nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- While a user might reasonably think that this article would be a prime candidate for speedy deletion, it isn't. Please see the section which begins "The following, while often regrettable, are not patent nonsense" in WP:CSD. Denni ☯ 18:21, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Gah. This article's creator is consistently creating junk articles in the hopes of having them stuck on BJAODN. See [15], [16] and [17] and click the "next edit" link a few times after that. This is a CSD. I've pointed out to Dockcharlotte that this needs to stop, to no apparent avail. I believe continuously dumping junk onto the pedia is classed as vandalism, and is thus a blockable offence. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is a history of posting this sort of article, then it is vandalism and that is a speedyable offense. Go for it! Denni ☯ 03:12, 2005 September 8 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim G. Shaffer

Not notable. Vanity. (note: article has a redirect from Jim Shaffer) Wikipedianinthehouse 21:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Important archaeologist. The person who placed this vfd is obviously not interested in archaeological topics. Google has over 17,000 hits for Jim Shaffer combined with archaeology. This archaelogist has written important publications on the Indus Valley Civilization (as well as also on the archaeology of the American Southwest and South Asia) and is often cited and referred to in other books/ publications. --Machaon 23:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. See publications. --Pjacobi 01:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Machaon. Five seconds with Google didn't look that promising, but Machaon seems to know the literature, so I'll go with that.---CH (talk) 23:49, 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 and move Go!go!7188 to GO!GO!7188. JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GO!GO!7188

Messed up when editing. As soon as this page is deleted, will move/rename "Go!go!7188" to "GO!GO!7188" thereby retaining the edit history of the original page. Megaversal 21:48, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

I've tagged both GO!GO!7188 and GO!GO!7188 foolishly created (which you had moved out of the way) as speedies. Since you were the only editor of either, there was no need to come to afd. —Cryptic (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- And I've deleted them and moved Go!go!7188 to GO!GO!7188. Problem solved. JYolkowski // talk 22:28, 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. android 79 17:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindilocks

Non-notable band. Formed 1994, split 1996. They only recorded an untitled demo tape. Two google hits, both related to the Wikipedia article. Jll 21:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC excellently. -Splash 00:01, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Kerckhoff

Someone asked me to undo this speedy as in their view being a professor was a claim to notability. Not in mine, but a little VfD never hurt:

Not notable, delete. --fvw * 22:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'll bite. Rewritten. A professor may be notable and this one (not the original, apparently mythical Kerckhoff of Michigan) seems to have gotten himself mixed up in state-level politics. Keep or merge to a suitable article about the California mathematics curriculum controversy. Move there and refactor if there isn't one. Include in Category: Education in California. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, we sure have different world views. If this person is notable, it is surely due to his alleged proof of an important outstanding conjecture in mathematics.---CH (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- No, if I'd known about the proof of Nielsen's conjecture I would have gone with that. The information about that didn't turn up until a good week into the debate--which nominally only lasts five days. When someone passes you the ball, you don't drop it and wait until a less muddy one comes along. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems notable enough for at least a mention, but unless there's something more to say about him, merge or move as above. —Cryptic (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge the present contents per Tony Sidaway. However, the original speedy was ok, I reckon, since being a prof isn't an assertion of notability any more than asserting that you have a job is. Also note the article ended by saying (INCORRECT!!!). -Splash 23:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it was arguably a good speedy. It was about a completely different guy, who doesn't in fact seem to exist. As an assertion of notability, professor (despite it's being the classic example of an assertion of notability in the original CSD A7 example) seems to be pretty weak in the US context. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the examples. We should get around to either removing them or improving them. Bakers?? -Splash 00:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. My interpretation of the 'average professor' rule is that while an average professor isn't notable, they're very close to notable, and it doesn't take very much to push them over the bar. The fact that he helped design state curricula might be enough on its own to take him over, and the contributions being controversial take him further over. Plus, being a professor from a top-5 university means he'd hardly be an average professor even if he did nothing else. He couldn't have achieved that if he hadn't made significant contributions to his field, even though those contributions aren't documented here. (I think that's the point of the 'average professor' rule -- we're trusting the academic community as a proxy to determine who has made a contribution to their field.) --Arcadian 02:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Arcadian; I'd put the bar much higher.---CH (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Arcadian. Note that "more notable than the average professor" means we keep 50% of all articles on college professors. Sdedeo 02:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and that would be absurd. Wikipedia is not a faculty directory or a professional directory. For heaven's sake! I am a mathematician--- trust me, guys, American mathematicians have a professional organization and you can search their database if you need to verify someone's employment status or whatever.---CH (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that would be "more notable than the median professor". —Cryptic (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh! Yes, sorry. I was assuming a Gaussian distribution of professors. Sdedeo 04:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh ---CH (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A (full) professor at Stanford is more notable than the average (or median) professor. More importantly, Kerckhoff solved a 50-year old problem. This resulted in a publication in the Annals of Mathematics, one of the most presitgious journals in pure maths. I expanded the article to include this, though I hardly know the field. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I save my vfd's for poorly written crap. linas 21:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Niesen; the result establishes notability. Septentrionalis 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep I might disagree with Jitse here; I feel that professors at Stanford or wherever are not notable on that ground alone. There are nobodies in every math department in the world, as I am sure we both know. But clearly resolving a decades old named problem is automatically notable.---CH (talk) 07:48, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eastman Chemical Company

This article looks like a vanity page. It's as if their PR group came to Wikipedia and wrote the article by copy/pasting straight from their corporate website.

Original nomination by User:Steffinb Pilatus 10:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: "Eastman Chemical is the largest industrial employer in the state of Tennessee and one its largest employers overall", the prose is not overtly PR, it is significant it is no longer part of the declining Kodak empire. --Gorgonzilla 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This nom was never added to a main VfD page and was malformed nonetheless; fixing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Will people put up Agilent for VfD next? Pilatus 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as significant company. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep; company is listed on New York Stock Exchange and has over $6 billion in annual sales. --Metropolitan90 01:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep; I'll see if I can expand it over the next few days. It's a shame that Eastman smell is unencyclopedic.... — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep current version and expand. Notable company. Thatdog 08:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edwin Ruiz

Delete. I don't see anything notable about this person. Apparently the only thing that he has done is play soccer in college. Shall we have a page for every college athlete? ♠ DanMS 23:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete--unsigned by the team that drafted him, did well in college soccer but no awards or special recognition cited. Some college athletes deserve inclusion, but I can't think of any reason to include this. Meelar (talk) 06:34, 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 NO CONSENSUS, so keep. Although this is plainly an infested AfD, there are only three editors who would delete it. I'd have to be utterly brutal to discount so many of the keeps as to find that a consensus (and I recognise on sight at least 3 of the usernames). -Splash 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egg (person)

Delete Unencyclopedic and neologistic. Obscure term, and not approporiate. Nobody uses this term, and the author is wasting server space with some perverse inside joke. And sorry, the argument that "I hear this on campus all the time" doesn't fly. It's not a mainstream term, 99% don't know what it means. Also there is already a page devoted to listing ethnic slurs, so why make a whole page? Momenchance 10:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment on above vote: user Momenchance had no edits prior to this Vfd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samw (talk • contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2005
Keep - obscure but not invented by Wikipedia. See talk page for quotes; see recently added ext links for citations. Samw 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Either Keep or Merge with Banana (person). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvilBlueberryCouncil (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 July 2005
Keep - content is relevant and does not belong in Banana (person) novacatz 09:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
KEEP, needs rewrite, definitely DO NOT MERGE, opposite terms with banana 132.205.44.131 04:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, stupid slang word, but I have seen it used before. Gold Stur 17:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, have heard and seen the word in this context. Piecraft 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, slang used quite frequently among North American Asian communities. Ruthless4Life 15:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I've witnessed its use by American-born Asians. Taniwha 01:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Fourteen edits before this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I've heard this term used in Canada by immigrant Asians. --207.61.57.35 19:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it is of general interest and is an extant cultural phenomenon. Have heard it in the UK. Matthew Platts 22:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I've heard this used in Ontario, Canada. Wikiwikifast 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete (put it in Wikitionary if needed). It's not a phenomenon, it's a word that describes a phenomenon — and that phenomenon is dealt with elsewhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary (not even a slang dictionary). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Im smelling Socks Stupid Slang Delete --Aranda56 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sometimes the socks are right. —Cryptic (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment is the alleged racial meaning verifiable, other than by user anecdote? -- WCFrancis 02:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 02:37, 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 Speedy delete: Does not really assert this person's importance or significance. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ella Mae Mendez

Delete Non-notable. 141.211.138.85 03:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page in the past five months... doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Makes no claim as to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:47, 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 USERFY. Obviously a mistake. Just because they haven't edited in a long time doesn't mean they won't come back tomorrow, and the comment at the top appears to be from them(?). -Splash 23:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ElvenRaptor

May I ask on what grounds this is happening? I wasn't sure of what to put on my page, so I just typed what came to mind that seemed logical. How can I improve my page to avoid having it deleted?

Another malformed and orphaned VfD nom from April. Adding to today's page now. Userfy to User:ElvenRaptor if he shows up before end of VfD, otherwise delete. JYolkowski // talk 22:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The strongest userfy candidate I have ever seen, but.. Actually I am gonna go with JY here and vote Userfy to User:ElvenRaptor if he shows up before end of VfD, otherwise delete. Punkmorten 23:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete User made a handful of contributions on April 23, has not been in evidence since. Denni ☯ 01:40, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Delete — user page. Suggest a friendly explanation to the user on h{er|is} talk page. :) — RJH 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Userfy Don't bite the newcomers, it looks to be an honest mistake. Karmafist 20:59, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] En101 A Common Language

Ad for small teaching firm that lacks notability. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Google only knows about the official "eng101.com" site, and the article hardly even discusses anything related to the company. This is more vanity about non-notable people and companies than spam. Ciao! --Several Times 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN/Vanity.Paul 21:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising, vanity. Jonathunder 00:45, 2005 September 5 (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. Dan100 (Talk) 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erlack

Slang dictdef. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary, otherwise delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This nom was never added to a main page. Doing so now. Transwiki as above. JYolkowski // talk 22:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictdef. Tempshill 23:05, 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 keep (no consensus). There is no consensus to delete the article, but based on the debate one could argue that this article ought to be merged. I am in a slight predicament here however, because the suggested merge target is List of vehicles from Grand Theft Auto, an article which contains only the names of the vehicles, and no descriptions. Merging content from this article there would disrupt the "flow" of that article, and so merging this would amount to merely turning this article into a redirect. For now, I will let the article stay, and if anyone wants to do anything else with it, such as make a redirect or find a suitable target article which accomodates the car descriptions, they may go ahead and be bold. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Esperanto (car)

Delete - This article has absolutly no information content.
delete not even worth merging Bluemoose 11:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. - An interesting anecdote for those interested in Esperanto. More information should be obtainable, including possibly a screenshot, enough to make for a full (if brief) article. Almafeta 06:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Keep this or make an article called List of automobiles in Grand Theft Auto games. --SuperDude 5 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
- Announcement; an article called List of vehicles from Grand Theft Auto has just been made. --SuperDude 5 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
This nom was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. Merge with the above. JYolkowski // talk 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
merge as above or keep. Kappa 23:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I cannot fathom why a non-notable imaginary vehicle deserves an article. This may rate a passing mention in the article on the video game, but not as a break-out article. Denni ☯ 01:45, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
Delete - but it might have been easier to redirect to Grand Theft Auto to begin with.-- WCFrancis 02:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable gamecruft. No expansion beyond a stub possible. If it's worthy of mention at all it should go in the primary article. Quale 04:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge whatever that is salvageable to List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 19:01, 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 KEEP. -Splash 23:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expediente Negro

Delete. This page should probably be deleted. I found only one Google hit on this, in the nature of a footnote, as follows:

See José Vicente Rangel, Expediente negro. Caracas: Editorial Fuentes, 1969. This is a collection of documents and Rangel's parliamentary speeches on the murder of the PCV leader Alberto Lovera after Lovera's arrest by the DIGEPOL (political police) in 1966. • (see [18])

This is likely a very obscure book, published in Venezuela, in Spanish language. There are no Wikipedia hits on Alberto Lovera nor the DIGEPOL. — DanMS 01:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep it's written by Venezuela's current Vice President. There are MANY Google hits in Spanish. --Revolución (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Very notable. —Sesel wa 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --Tagishsimon (talk)
This nom was never added to a main VfD page; adding now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:13, 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 23:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tokyopia

Delete. I think it's NN, and advertising (in fact, looks like a blog with multiple contributors), plus the article has been mainly lifted from the "About Tokyopia" link.--inks 22:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Inkypaws. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:50, 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 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DavidLee

Possible vanity: one line bio of a not-yet-notable living musician. Delete. Jonathunder 22:35, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
delete nn vanity---CH (talk) 02:52, 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. Normally would relist, but this virtually a substub and, if it's not then it is probably spam. -Splash 23:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biolyn

Advertising (and all the terse for it!) Eddie.willers 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

delete as adspam. Unacceptable, however terse.---CH (talk) 03:22, 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 Dan100 (Talk) 23:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thames sewage

Advocacy essay.

Delete. Gazpacho 22:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete - only because it is advocacy and fails NPOV. There may be some material that should be merged with articles on Combined Sewer Overflow, Water pollution or Wastewater treatment once the POV stuff is filtered out. The Rowers Against Thames Sewage (R.A.T.S) may be a notable organization, fulfilling a similar niche as Riverkeepers organizations in the United States.--WCFrancis 02:06, 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 23:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sodaical Liquid

Completing vfd--Doc (?) 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Apparently a neologism. Sodaical returns no google hits. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 06:29, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Delete agreed --Doc (?) 22:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, cute but crap. Paul 01:36, 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. Dan100 (Talk) 22:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kekeke

We might keep it if we only were an English dictionary, but we're not. Peter ^Isotalo 22:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Since Wiktionary is a dictionary, we transwiki dictionary entries there, we don't just delete them. Redirect to laughter afterward. —Cryptic (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
KEEPKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKE (ZERG RUSH) -HX 02:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
No Vote. A strangely long-lived (or at least persistent) internet meme, as above voter notes, but it seems to be closer to being a part of general geek/gamer slang (for which I can't find a list to merge it into) rather than being a notable internet phenomenon in and of itself. Nifboy 05:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
weak keep; I don't think this is a mere dicdef. —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's relativly non-notable Korean slang. That's what I'd call a dicdef. And it still says that it's onomatopoetic, which it isn't. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikitionary and redirect this to hahaha. Alf ^melmac 19:57, 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 23:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piet Paardenworst

Hoax by/about the creator of "Drollopen", which is going through VfD itself. Kill 'em both. DS 22:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete twice, hoax. ---CH (talk) 06:23, 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. -Splash 23:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continuum calculator

This article was on VfD 2005-05-16 for violating WP:NOR: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Continuum calculator. The result was no consensus. I'll give more reasons and more evidence to delete this article.

Deletion reason 1: Original research, only one publication, no echo in the field.
Deletion reason 2: Neologism, promoted by use of Wikipedia, not found anywhere else.
Deletion reason 3: In order to prevent prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of material on subjects in which you are personally involved, it is often a good idea to wait until others lay the groundwork before creating or heavily expanding such articles. See Wikipedia:Autobiography which actually covers more than only autobiographies.

Evidence:

Ad 1
- In the preceding VfD no one was able to cite a second reference to the topic.
- Google scholar doesn't give hits for "Continuum calculator": [19].
- Google scholar gives only unrealted hits for "Information continuum": [20]
Ad 2
- Google searching for "Continuum calculator"[21] only^* gives results from Wikipedia and mirrors, compare the filtered search, which reduces the list to badly behaving mirrors [22]. ^*The single exception is a forum posting at the "Cannabis Edge" forum [23] about an unrelated subject.
- The term Information continuum, also used and partially occupied by the article author, has an established other meaning.
Ad 3
- At de:Wikipedia:Wiederherstellungswünsche/Archiv/2005/3#Kontinuum-Rechner the author of the articles on de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia clarified, that he is also the author of the single published article in a journal.

Pjacobi 23:08, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I voted delete in the original VfD. This article is still original research and is non-notable. A single published article in a journal of uncertain reputation is not notable. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone in the artificial intelligence field has given this idea even 10 seconds of thought, so it is not deserving of a wikipedia article. Since the entire article is based on a single reference, in addition to original research it also suffers from serious verifiability problems. The entire article is based on a primary source. In general wikipedia prefers secondary sources as we are unable to make any qualitative claims based on primary sources without falling victim to original research. Quale 04:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is still the same diskussion. This AfD yields no new facts and arguments. Surely, the topic is of low interest in the field of AI. We do not know if other fields are interested in the topic. But the low interest is still considered the only reason for deletion. On the other hand there is no question about the neutrality and factual accuracy, because unlike many other articles the topic has been reviewed by a league of authorities in the field of information technology and is , therefore, scientifically proven. Due to Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#No double jeopardy this AfD does not make much sense. -- Karsten88 06:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

See new deletion reasons 2) and 3) and the expanded evidence. --Pjacobi 07:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

All these items are essentially describing "low relevance". Nothing new beyond this. -- Karsten88 08:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - vanity, neologism, non-notable. is , therefore, scientifically proven - the article is about a proposed concept, not about actual facts, so its content can't be proven or falsified. (An exception is the statement a simple singularity model or a body model can be made with charge carriers, moving in electrical and magnetic fields which I, personally, doubt severely.) regards, High on a tree 10:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - honest to gosh, when I first saw this, I was horrified to find that vandals are uploading SCIgen papers!!! Closer examination revealed something which in a way is even more horrifying: this remarkably nonsensical article was written by a human! I see that this is the second time that this particular article has been proposed for deletion, and I agree with PJacobi's reasoning for renominating it: this article appears to be in clear violation of the proscriptions against "original research" [sic], vanity articles, and nonnotable topics. On rare occasions, nonsense does have a place in an encyclopedia (e.g. in a discussion of Claude Shannon's famous illustration of the differences between sentences generated by Markov chains and by humans, or perhaps in a discussion of neurological pathology), but this article appears to me to lack redeeming virtues. The article is also misleading in that it mentions genuine technical jargon, but appears to use these words in nonstandard (and nonsensical) ways.---CH (talk) 17:18, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby worrest

As an 'amateur skateboarder', can he BE any more non-notable?? Eddie.willers 23:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

DELETE not notable G Clark 23:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, substub, no context. Martg76 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Martg76. Quale 03:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per Eddie.---CH (talk) 01:52, 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 NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 23:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Get Well Soon

If there's a context, I can't figure it out NeilN 23:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete looks like qualifies strongly for Speedy as patent nonsense and no context. ==WCFrancis 01:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Special:Whatlinkshere/Get Well Soon tells us that it's either a film starring Vincent Gallo and Tate Donovan, or a mixtape by Kanye West. Uncle G 02:11:59, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
Keep per Uncle G. Kappa 22:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep OmegaWikipedia 19:05, 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 23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kashmira Bulsara

nn sister of a rock star. That potential Category:Family Members of Rock Musicians is problematic, as well. Zoe 23:47, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with above on both counts. Delete. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Freddie Mercury (nothing really to merge), redirects are cheap. JYolkowski // talk 12:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Martg76 22:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I didn't see the name mentioned at Freddie Mercury so the redirect doesn't make sense. Marskell 08:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, being the sister of an obscure musician is no claim to notability.---CH (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Freddie Mercury of Queen is not "obscure", but was one of the most famous musicians in the history of the world. Even after death, his songs are played on radio, tv shows, and heard in movies, more than most wiki-musicians that are still alive. But, I don't know of her personally being notable at all. --rob 05:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'll have to agree. Although I listed this, there's no way I consider Freddie Mercury obscure. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Apathetic,Meh, I added her because I saw her mentioned in the article for Freddie Mercury, so I decided to set up a stub and see if anyone had more info on her. I'd still like to get that info, but as no one is likely to have it, I don't care either way. Also, I agree with rob that Freddie is by no means obscure -- Not a Registered User 03:45 PST, Sept. 12, 2005

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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 4

[edit] RiotPix

[edit] Robert Foster (actor)

[edit] Robert Payne-Smith

[edit] Roboticizer

[edit] Hurricane relief in Pensacola

[edit] Billy hackett

[edit] Rose George

[edit] Roverlisk

[edit] Runal

[edit] Chin-up

[edit] Baton rouge migration

[edit] Town records

[edit] Blackstone River Valley/Temp

[edit] Lions In Exile

[edit] Jobbie Nooner

[edit] Professional victims

[edit] Government terrorism

[edit] Selecting a martial art

[edit] Bearatross

[edit] General Doli

[edit] Useful unix command

[edit] Mager.L

[edit] Grandma SquarePants

[edit] Crowns and rebels

[edit] Gone with the wind (2)

[edit] Eastcoastbob

[edit] The scum of the Earth

[edit] List of characters from John Michael Kamer's adventures

[edit] Sheep Go to Heaven

[edit] Wikipedia widow

[edit] Organ recital

[edit] Yabb se

[edit] Deez Nutz

[edit] Random insanity

[edit] List_of_U.S._Marshals

[edit] Bandits of the Acoustic Revolution

[edit] Tom Nipp

[edit] Disneytown

[edit] Hurricane relief in Mobile

[edit] Kakaka

[edit] Kevin Chase Girls

[edit] To-ku

[edit] Tobias Franz

[edit] Nippleitis

[edit] Who's that Girl (soundtrack)

[edit] Anita Andrea van der Sloot

[edit] Dr Peter Kopittke

[edit] Philllip bailey

[edit] Ultimate Comment, the

[edit] WikiLens

[edit] The Holiday

[edit] Clymer:_noun

[edit] Facts about india and indian americans

[edit] Souk Park

[edit] Colin Handley

[edit] Michael Donohoe

[edit] Pg. 99

[edit] Top sites programs

[edit] SuperShadow

[edit] Queenstown Baptist Church

[edit] Nguyen Ngoc Phu

[edit] Expectancy violations theory

[edit] Transitalk.info

[edit] Swearing Bear

[edit] XD (emoticon)

[edit] Lev A. Sviridov

[edit] Alexandra Sviridov

[edit] Per R Berger

[edit] Magyar claims

[edit] Roflcopter(game)

[edit] Ryan Andrews

[edit] SWU Roster

[edit] Easynews

[edit] Saint Nechtán: Descendant of the Waters

[edit] Sir John Anderson Casualty Block

[edit] Dsoundzand Sam downie