Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 2

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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) 05:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of planets council

Doesn't make sense and isn't linked to anywhere.

• Delete
  Thunderbrand
  00:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy if possible. This looks like patent nonsense.
  AlbertR 00:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - looks like rubbish to me. Rob Church 02:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy looks like someone's RPG or maybe a fanfic at best. The IG33 part suggest something Star Wars flavoured. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• After some investigative googling, I am pretty sure that it is from the 1950's radio show, The Planet Man. However, there isn't even a wiki article on The Planet Man, so this needs to go the way of the Deleted. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it around--eventually someone will come along and do an article on the radio show, at which point this article can be merged and redirected; in the meantime, we can list the radio show on
  WP:RA
  .
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, I will change my vote to Delete if it can be demonstrated that the information on the page (it's currently just a list of members of this council) is easily available elsewhere online. Kurt Weber 14:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete (so tagged) as lacking context; you shouldn't have to google to be "pretty sure" what the article is talking about. --Scimitar ^parley 14:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't meant to archive shows that nobody has ever heard of. --jonasaurus 17:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Turbo Delete as per AlbertR. JDoorjam 19:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy nonsense, "no content" at best. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Linnwood 22:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy no context. Karmafist 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. ComCat 04:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Aco Town

Google reveals no results for "Aco Town Gang", which this misnamed article is actually about. Cnwb 00:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unverifiable, possible hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete though I did find one reference here by googling "Aco Town" gang. I'm not sure that a gang shout-out -- "scream out your gang (aco town) my bitches bounce to the beats. and do yo thang" qualifies as a very solid online footprint.
• Delete hoax. --jonasaurus 17:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Linnwood 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn/unverified. --Etacar11 23:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Zzyzx11. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dylan Hall

Vanity Cnwb 00:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Standard teen vanity....
  AlbertR 01:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - he's not notable as far as I can tell. Rob Church 02:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy no notability presented in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The mountaineering feats are a claim of notability but not enough for me as he is a school student at Blue Mountains Grammar. His dad Lincoln Hall a mountain climber and author has some claims to fame but doesn't have an article. Capitalistroadster 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete The mountaineering claims aren't enough to be an attempt at notability. --Scimitar ^parley 14:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 d. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Protests concerning the last temptation of christ and the satanic verses

A rant, filled with SHOUTING and unverifiable information, about how Salman Rushdie's book has caused all major terrorist attacks since it was published. (It also talks about 'The Last Temptation of Christ', but makes no connection between the two.) - ulayiti (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - you beat me to it. I can't see how an encyclopedic, neutral article could be written here; drawing the connection is original research at best. CDC (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - the user is attempting to compare protests in the US at one to the lack of protests in the US at the other, thus drawing the conclusion that the one that hasn't had protests has caused worldwide terrorism. Original research, supposition at best, complete guesswork otherwise, just get rid of it. --
  Francs2000 | Talk 00:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Grandstanding and POV. Cnwb 01:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, hopelessly POV, intermingles two wholly seperate issues, CAPSLOCK-licious.
  T/C 01:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Soapbox rant. --
  ^talk
  01:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I really don't see how this could be cleaned up. If it could, couldn't it go on the book's page, if it has one? Rob Church 02:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Stone to death. Gazpacho 03:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete MicahMN | Talk 03:29, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete POV rant. CanadianCaesar 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete : A malicious rant.
  Manik Raina 04:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Okay ... Salman Rushdie went to London, so terrorists attacked America, England, and Spain? Even if there were a logic to it, it would still be totally meaningless. Speedy delete as patent nonsense. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Chuck Norris Fury

A band who claim to be 'very popular on the internet', but get no Google hits at all. - ulayiti (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Standard garage band vanity. Delete.
  AlbertR 01:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Right, if we change it to "have a small but growing following", can it be kept? - CNF (unsigned comment by User:Chucknorrisfury)
  • How exactly do you expect that following to grow? Through having an article on Wikipedia? - ulayiti (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not particularly, but I am a huge fan of Wikipedia and often find myself, in times of extreme boredom, randomly searching whatever comes into my head. Thus, if one of the few (but dedicated, I may add) CNF fans is the same, they may think to themselves "Hmmm, let's search Chuck Norris Fury." and come across our page. It would be a nice surprise for them (possibly). Do you want to take that nice surprise from them? - CNF (unsigned comment by User:Chucknorrisfury)
  • I suggest you read
    AlbertR 01:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well in that case I guess resistance is futile? - CNF (unsigned comment by User:Chucknorrisfury)
      • It probably is, based on what I've seen happen on VFD.
        AlbertR 01:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete. Vanity for non-notable group. Sorry to take your surprise away, Timmy. I'll make it up next birthday.
  T/C 01:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. WP:VAIN. Explodicle 01:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. -- Hoary 07:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not encyclopedic yet. When you're well known, someone will most likely make an article about you, and you won't even have to maintain it! You may want to check into making your own website by the way... And a few people who voted here should see
  talk) 15:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, the usual band vanity. Punkmorten 15:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete band vanity. --jonasaurus 17:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity. EdwinHJ | Talk 18:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity — Linnwood (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Vanity. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Opps. Must've missed my previous vote! EdwinHJ | Talk 22:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was spee-d d. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Muslim extremists

Was originally marked for speedy deletion, but I can't think under which criteria it can be successfully speedied. Anyway it's highly POV and source material to boot, just not quite a speedy. Delete

Francs2000 | Talk 01:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

• Delete Agree that this does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Another contributor with an axe to grind. Denni☯ 01:24, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete. Explodicle 01:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. TSO1D 01:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Under G1, patent nonsense. A random slew of quotations with no context.. --Mysidia 02:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as Mysidia. I should have tagged it with {{
  nonsense}} to make it more clear. --malathion ^talk 03:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete nonsense MicahMN | Talk 03:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete It's common knowledge that Islam is not the most accomodating of faiths but wikipedia is hardly the place to settle such matters.
  Manik Raina 04:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The result of the debate was spee-d d. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Right_To_Sing_The_Blues

It's an advertisement, not an article 203.26.16.66 01:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Explodicle 01:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Blatant advertisement. Ironically, more people will see it on VfD that if it was just laid to rest :) . Cnwb 04:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Speedy delete as patent nonsense. David | Talk 14:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad ali

Obvious hoax. - ulayiti (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete- Chairboy 01:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect → Sajjad Ali Shah --Mysidia 02:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if he's that infamous, why haven't we heard of him? Surely that'd be in the national news... Rob Church 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nonsense/hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This is the 4th article I have seen that should have been speedily deleted, obvious stuff like this clogs up VfD. MicahMN | Talk 03:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious hoax. Capitalistroadster 06:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Redirect. Scimitar ^parley 14:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pakman

Another not-so-interesting article from the user who brought us Sajjad ali. 'Has recorded two songs'. :) - ulayiti (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pac-Man - {{R from misspelling}} --Mysidia 02:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Gazpacho 03:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to have listed this one. Obvious redirect.--Scimitar ^parley 14:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 with vote totals of 7 delete, 4 keep.

Politics1.com

Non-notable website, one match on google (and it's the actual website). Wikipedia is not a web directory. Chairboy 02:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above- Chairboy 02:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Punkmorten left an unsigned message on my user talk suggesting I change my vote because there are more matches for a bare 'Politics1' search, but the website still appears to be a non-notable blog. - Chairboy 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Actually, although the site may still be non-notable, a google search for its name gives 27,300 hits, to be specific, and the site has an Alexa ranking of 73,602. --Mysidia 02:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMHO, Wikipedia is not a place where we keep descriptions about websites which exist. If this page explains what this website does, just go to the website and figure it out. Encyclopedic must not be confused with "just about anything at all". Just my two cents.
  Manik Raina 04:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a web directory, but many notable websites have articles in Wikipedia. This one seems notable enough, with more hits than the nominator thought at first. It has been mentioned several times in different media.

• Unsigned vote by Punkmorten

• Keep. There are more matches on google if you run a search on "Politics1" instead of "Politics1.com." The website has been noted by several main stream publications, as well as elected officials in several states. Also, some Wikipedia articles, such as the one for Gene Amondson, include links to the Politics1.com website. --WayneNight (Preceding comment by 68.85.24.141, not by WayneNight as signed)
• Delete--another blog with low alexa rank and relatively few google hits. NN. Meelar (talk) 14:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Carnildo 22:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not perfect for a wikipedia article, but it's a great tool for political information, I volunteered during the New Hampshire Primary in 2004 and used it often.Karmafist 00:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of the more notable political websites. Kaibabsquirrel 09:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok, seeing how this vote appears to be going I have to say something. Not long ago there was a VfD on the
    Internet Movie Database, which everyone rightly noted was a frivolous VfD nomination and the article was speedily kept. Wikipedia is not a web directory, true, but websites that are somehow notable in one way or another rate Wikipedia articles. IMDB has an article because is a standard online reference for film. Politics1 is a standard online reference for state and federal political candidates and has been since the late 1990s, as long as I have been actively on the net. At least *I* have been aware of it and using it that long. The weblog part of the site isn't that high ranked among blogs and in fact is a rather new addition, and I would suspect that Politics1 is no longer as popular as it once was due to the proliferation of other political websites, that and the popularity of the website peaks during election cycles. This is a prime case of where Google hits and Alexa rankings DO NOT establish notability. If this article winds up being deleted it's another sign that the VfD process as it currently exists is broken. I would encourage everyone to rethink your delete votes. Kaibabsquirrel 14:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete wikipedia is not a web directory. JamesBurns 03:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per media coverage [1]
  Kappa 18:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, one of nine trillion not notable political blogs. Lord Bob 00:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Only garners 587 Google results [2], and most of them simply refer to the "Noelrock "websites/mirrors [3],[4]. This so-called genre reminds me of an article called Radioheadesque that was deleted a while ago. EIther delete or redirect to Britpop. Madchester 02:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional delete unless someone provides sources that this term is in common usage. --malathion ^talk 03:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I doubt it. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should be deleted or redirected to Britpop. --Apyule 04:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found two references from New Music Express: http://www.nme.com/reviews/2443.htm and http://www.nme.com/news/295.htm

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Advert, delete. Gazpacho 03:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Can't we speedy delete ads? It comes awfully close to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A3, anyway. DavidConrad 03:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This does look like an ad, so please Speedy Delete MicahMN | Talk 03:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Platform for external link. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- and cleanup. It's very notable, free, helpdesk ticketing software. The article could do with an expansion though. - Longhair | Talk 06:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as platform for an external link/advertising. --Carnildo 22:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertisment — Linnwood ^(talk) 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 09:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Longhair, it's just a stub with no promotional content.
  Kappa 11:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, just an innocent software article. I know severel people who use it, so it is probably notable enough. Thue | talk 19:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ug, depressingly sparse stub, but, from above comments, not non-notable and doesn't seem to advert like to me. Won't one of the people who use it expand it somewhat, please? Things like: features, nasty bugs, people who use it, reviews, related products, links to articles on the general topic, etc... JesseW 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and move post-VFD to Request Tracker). Notable, probably leading the open-source ticketing segment by now and giving Bugzilla a run for its money in the bug-tracking segment. It's a depressingly-short article, yes, but were it an advertisement it would be even more depressing. — mendel ☎ 03:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've fleshed it out a bit more now. It's still stubby but I need to take the time to read a bunch of other software-related articles to figure out how to make it not read like advertising. — mendel ☎ 04:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the current article is fine. In fact, I don't even think the original article looked like an ad, it was just short. Thue | talk 14:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Doesn't look like an advert to me. If it's used by many people it's notable enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears notable. JamesBurns 03:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Bedford Village

• Finally, someone who actually supports the idea that google doesn't know everything.Besides, it isn't in google, because it was bought by Archstone Fairfax, as per the link in the page .Numba1xclusive 15:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You're all being sad bastards again: If it isn't in google, it doesn't belong here, so vote for deletion. When are you sad gits going to learn that there is a large (even mildly interesting) world outside google. 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Besides, even if this article is rejected, are we going to let Wikipedia become what the ivory tower elitists want it to become? This was meant to be an open forum where anybody could add a little bit to the massive encyclopedia that was Wikipedia. If we're going to delineate what is right, and what isnt,without any clear indication, we're reverting back to exactly what we didn't want to become. Numba1xclusive 03:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• My question is, no one here has a warrant to explicitly reject this post. All anybody has said is that its an apartment complex therefore its not significant. However, are you stating that an area of residence and culture is insignificant? Because if you are, thats elitist. Numba1xclusive 03:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK suspicions. - Chairboy 03:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC) -- Numba1 is my neighbor and supports the article, I think more than I do lol. Variance 04:54, 2005 August 3 (UTC)[reply

]

• No, but anom IP's and new user's vote aren't given much weight, due to the possibility of sockpuppetry. See
  WP:SOCK. --Etacar11 02:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Non-notable. It's an apartment complex. Chairboy 03:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What the guy below said is so true. Chairboy has given no reason why this should be deleted. The only argument here is that "Google" doesn't have it. Chairboy has made this entire process entirely undemocratic, because of the way he is treating the other votes.Numba1xclusive 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Your definition of notable is ambiguous and arbitrary. There is no bright line for notable, written anywhere. What I see happening here is people using Google as a method to justify. Besides that, no one else has any negative reason why this should be rejected. Unfortunately, it was in the belief that Wikipedia was an open encyclopedia that this entry was added. By rejecting this entry, you are enforcing a normative mindset, which will lead to impacts such as the destruction or political mindsets, resulting in no way for others to dissent. 12.65.42.195 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Here in Northern Virginia, it's actually quite of reknown and still referred to as Bedford. -- 68.230.181.7 03:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apartment complexes aren't notable. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 03:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above
  Manik Raina 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Given the early colonists unoriginality in picking names, I wouldn't be too surprised if there are hundreds of places called 'Bedford Village' in the US and Canada. I doubt this apartment complex is the most notable of these. Google gives Old Bedford Village in Pennsylvania the top spot. Average Earthman 10:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck out the keep that Variance added. To me this hardly sounds like a keep vote, but Average Earthman might want to clarify. --Etacar11 01:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be an apartment complex but if a large number of people live there and it has its own culture, might it not be like a small village? No vote yet. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still undecided but flooding the page with anons and sockpuppets will do you no good with anyone. It'd be far better time spent on improving the article with
    categories. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Delete without verifiable information about the place. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, as above. — Linnwood ^(talk) 22:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reads like an ad. Is there such a thing as apt. complex vanity? Definitely nn. --Etacar11 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is like a small village. Still referred to as Bedford, even though it hasn't been the official name for five years. If you mention Bedford around here, people will know what you're speaking of. In the early 90s it was known for a large immigrant population along with Woodburn, another area nearby. Variance 01:52, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
• Keep It's a form of culture which is siginificant enough68.100.7.66 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep you know why (Unsigned vote by 70.17.110.72 (talk · contribs))

Vote by an anonymous IP user, VfD reform suggests those should be disregarded for obvious reasons. - Chairboy 02:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What is encylopedic about an apartment complex? Is is a fixed dollar amount? Or the number of doctors that live there? What about the number of lawyers? Vegaswikian 05:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you ask the same of towns? DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one of the millions of apartment blocks, significant only to people who live there. Presumable at least some of the sock- or meatpuppets originate from that block - Skysmith 08:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is giving any concrete reason why this entry is bad. After 3 posts requesting someone for a purely warranted claim, no one gives it. Vegaswikian, you are embracing a ivory tower mindset, and its empirically proven in ur claim. And Skysmith, you are blabbing for the sake of it. Someone give 1 good concrete reason why this should be rejected. And by the way Chairboy, just because i signed up recently doesn't mean i'm incompetent to vote. You're de-democratizing this entire procedure, by effectively taking out any vote that has warrants. Numba1xclusive 15:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, de-democratizing would be more along the lines of deleting votes. Please review

WP:SOCK to see why your new account is being given special attention in this VfD. It's nothing personal, just added information to make the process of coming to consensus easier. Also, nobody is suggesting that the article is 'bad' in a perjorative sense, just that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Please note that while there are hundreds of thousands of apartment complexes in the USA, few of them merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. I look forward to seeing you contribute to other articles, you have an obvious passion about this subject that could be used to better other things as well. Welcome to Wikipedia! - Chairboy 16:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Isn't that what you're doing basically, by disregarding votes, you're de-democratizing. And note, there is absolutely no brightline for notable, written anywhere. Wikipedia is an open source Encyclopedia, and by arbritrarily setting a limit for notable, leaves out an infinite number of articles that could have possible noteworthy aspects. Numba1xclusive 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, It won't be Chairboy or any of us who have voted here who decides the result of the debate. It will be a neutral third-party administrator. However, there is precedence that such clear sockpuppetry and anon votes are discounted heavily in the decision. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "
    de-democratizing" like it's a bad thing. Chuck
    19:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

(to Numba1Exclusive) Hello, nothing I'm doing is 'disregarding votes', as I am not an admin that will be reviewing this article for consensus (as DB notes above). As of this date, there is a single Keep vote from an active wikipedia with edits in other articles (

WP:SOCK, I think it will answer many of your concerns about the notation process being used. That aside, I look forward to seeing your contributions in other articles. - Chairboy 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Clean - A notable local landmark with a history deserves an entry, but as it stands I do not feel edified for having read that article. If it is not redeemed, delete.
  Eldereft 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless someone can produce a specific (preferably verifiable) claim of notability. --Mairi 21:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No one has clearly given a definition of notable. Numba1xclusive 22:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is not the correct place to educate you on WP policy. Please review the help first for answers to your questions whenever possible. In regards to this last question, please see

this. I hope it will clear things up. You still have not edited anything other then this VfD, I continue to look forward to your future contributions in other subjects. - Chairboy 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep It's doing any harm (except for being in the wrong stub-cat). Google is not the beginning and end of everything. Megapixie 01:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an apartment complex, not a public institution. Sections of towns and cities may deserve their separate articles, but apartment complexes are in general no more notable than average hotels. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn apartment complex. JamesBurns 03:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; whatever is happening in Bedford Village that is interesting is a part of what is happening in the rest of the town/suburb. Salvagable information should be merged into the Falls Church, Virginia, but there doesn't seem to be much that would survive NPOV editing. Sdedeo 01:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Borderline. Only the keep voter gave a good argument; the Pew fellowship swung it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Di Fronzo

Delete, looks like nn artist vanity to me. Only 8 unique google hits. --Etacar11 03:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looks like nn artist vanity to me too. No mention of exhibitions, all the quotes are from Di Fronzo himself rather than any kind of media, and very low google. --
  TheMidnighters 10:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep unless nothing more is added. Pretty weak article, but looking in Google turns up that they guy won a Pew Fellowship in 2004 (http://www.pewarts.org/2004/difronzo/index.html) — Linnwood ^(talk) 22:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Kared

The subject of the article is not notable. DavidConrad 04:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an individual who is not notable, and not only does it not make a claim to notability, it makes a claim to non-notability ("a ... station that operates only a few times a year"). However, the creator of the article has made a case for it on its talk page and offered to clean it up; so I have opened this VfD on it. DavidConrad 04:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity. Admittedly not notable. --
  talk) 07:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanity. CKDR is a real radio station in Dryden, Ontario but Kared mistakenly uses the call letters for his "internet radio" broadcast. Only one google for this Kared which is another spamvertisement. The "official website" has no content. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 22:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and goodness is that an unmaintainable list. Delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see no compelling argument for deletion. Seems like prudery to me. What a waste of VfD time.....Momenchance 16:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: With Penis. Wikipedia has an entry on the word
  Manik Raina 04:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • As I said the last time, when that very suggestion was made, that's not a good idea. penis is about the actual thing. This article is all about words. Uncle G 05:22:51, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
    • See also Talk:Penis/Archive 2#Inclusion_of_a_list_of_slang_terms_for_the_penis, where having a list of slang terms in penis was rejected. Uncle G 12:17:44, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • the article on Penis is mostly medical/biological information about a medical/biological subject. the article on Fuck is mostly linguistic info on a linguistic subject. Nateji77 05:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi
      Manik Raina 09:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • This is a discussion, not a vote. If we can discuss and come to a consensus position, then the system is operating in the ideal manner. Uncle G 12:17:44, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
• My rationale from last time remains unchanged. Delete. Uncle G 05:22:51, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
• Delete. having it on wiktionary's enough. can always link to the list on wiktionary from the penis article. Nateji77 05:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same solution as was used by cannabis (drug), in fact. See Talk:Cannabis (drug)#Slang. The main concern is whether the Wiktionary entry and the WikiSaurus entry have all of the words. I haven't double-checked Carnildo. Uncle G 12:17:44, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
    • I've checked the WikiSaurus entry. It (now) has all of the slang words. Uncle G 17:28:08, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide, I believe is how
  WP:NOT Sec. 1.2.3 reads. The Literate Engineer 06:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The few non-slang names are in the penis article, so as above this will be merely a slang guide. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:09, 2005 August 2 (UTC)
• Trouser python not listed, so delete jamesgibbon 12:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sort of information isn't a proper entry for an encyclopedia. Since the information already exists at Wiktionary, a link from the main article would suffice.
• Delete, though perhaps it's worth a sentence or two at penis to talk about the huge volume of slang words for genitalia? (Perhaps, too, it's time somebody started UrbanWiktionary.com ....) JDoorjam 16:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable, prone to vandalism. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per
  Manik Raina. -- BRIAN0918  18:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• merge with penis sure sounds painful Yuckfoo 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fact that on the talk page for penis it is clear that editors have not wanted a list of slang words in that article, and have removed them once already; and despite the fact that penis directs people to WikiSaurus:penis, the fully-fledged thesaurus entry for the word? Uncle G 00:03:37, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
• Improve Put it in another article if you want or else keep it. I'm voting against all the flood of deletes because I hate the anti-sex vandalism that goes on (this list said it was already nomitated--and maybe even kept). Well they don't have the Japanese word at least in any romanized version, which is "chino." Also I vote they keep only the terms that apply to English and move the foreign language ones to foreign language wikis.
  DyslexicEditor 19:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Given that you're the first editor to even mention sex, it would appear that there's no "anti-sex" of any sort here. The nomination is on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, our official policy. The fact that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary is even highlighted by your complaint that its article doesn't have a Japanese word. If you go to the project that is a dictionary, and look at its penis article, you'll discover that it lists five Japanese translations of the word. This reinforces my point that I made in the first VFD discussion about useless duplication. Translations and synonyms are (amongst other things) what Wiktionary does. Uncle G 00:03:37, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to
  Bahasa Melayu? If you want to find out how to say a naughty word in French, for instance, then why not look it up in an English-French dictionary? Flowerparty ^talk 23:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is dictionary (dicktionary?) material and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The link to WikiSaurus is good enough. --BaronLarf 01:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete Just to make sure that the consensus is clearly to delete, and for all the reasons laid out above, Delete. JesseW 02:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I find the Wiktionary argument compelling. --brainpan
• Delete dickdefs. JamesBurns 03:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 with a vote of 6 delete, 4 keep.

FactBites

"Search engine/encyclopedia hybrid" founded in 2005. Alexa rank of 21,000. For comparison, answers.com is ranked 337, Google ranks 3, Yahoo ranks 1, and Altavista ranks 136, and Lycos ranks 103. Result of the previous VfD was 3 delete, 1 keep:

• Delete - Chairboy 04:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. if they specialize in excluding spam, then why are they posting this? Nateji77 05:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, any search engine which gets media coverage is notable in its field, comparing them with Google is unfair. Wikipedia has space for more than 21,000 articles.
  Kappa 10:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's why I included comparisons to answers.com and Lycos. As another comparison, the meta-search-engine dogpile.com ranks 669. --Carnildo 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and if they're ever notable, bring 'em back. But they're not.JDoorjam 16:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advert, not notable - Should have been deleted with first VfD's 75% delete vote. - Tεxτurε 23:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just to make things clear, by nominating, I think this article should be deleted. --Carnildo 00:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't think of any good reasons to delete neutral and verifiable articles. I think BusinessWeek Online's comments trump fripperies like Alexa ,for a search engine that is still in beta. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard Alexa called a fripperie before... - Tεxτurε 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what it is when considered as a judge of the quality of a website. It only judges the popularity. I've seen people seriously argue to delete a website containing unique folk archives simply because, being a library website, it had an extremely low alexa ranking. Here, on the other hand, there is at least arguably a case for looking at Alexa stats. However it's still predicated on the idea, which I reject utterly, that we should only write about high traffic sites. Wikipedia writes about what wikipedia wants to write about, we're all volunteers. The quality of this article is good, it gives verifiable references and it's neutral. It's about a resource that can be of interest and that has been written about. Therefore there is no need to delete it; it isn't damaging Wikipedia, nor is it ever likely to do so. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's an informative article.
  WP:NOT#PAPER, slap the vfd back on if the company goes bust without making an impact. --zippedmartin 17:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this article. JamesBurns 03:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Killing independent George

Dictionary definition, one-time TV joke, non notable. CanadianCaesar 04:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above.
  Manik Raina 04:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in-joke/neologism. --Mysidia 04:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Bronson Pharr

No Google results for BP & BP Associates, and only one genealogical link for Bronson Pharr Cnwb 04:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn. See also
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates. --Etacar11 04:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yahoo search it.(Unsigned comment by 172.148.78.242 (talk · contribs))

• Comment Yahoo yields 4 hits for "Bronson Pharr", one of which is the Wikipedia deletion log. --Etacar11 14:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, no question about that. Punkmorten 15:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, not encyclopedic. Cleduc 16:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Samples of Baltic: Old Prussian, Latvian, Lithuanian compared to Slavic: Polish Language

The results of the

• Transwiki then Delete. Content belongs on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. The Literate Engineer 05:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Lords Prayer and keep the redirect (this article is linked from Baltic languages). No need to VfD just because you didn't like the way the last one was closed. And that is what I vote for. --Tony Sidaway^Talk
  • If I thought merging was appropriate, I would have merged. I have listed the article on VfD because I feel that deletion is the appropriate action. If you feel that this is not the place for it, then please tell me which
    WP:CSD criterion applies to this article. --Carnildo 05:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Then you have abandoned your pretense of only wishing to reinterpret the original VfD results. Fine. I do think you're being a dreadfully sore loser, however. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • When did I say I was reinterpreting the original VfD results here? I feel that this article should be deleted, so I'm listing it on VfD. --Carnildo 06:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote: I'd like to keep this just to encourage an article on Baltic/Slavic language comparison, which seems to be an actual topic of debate and research in linguistics. However, the current article does not contribute anything useful. (In fact there's nothing in English besides what's already in the title.) Peter Grey 05:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comparison of Baltic and Slavic languages would be useful but this article isn't it; the title will never be searched on; the material in the article is original research, and research without any analysis or conclusion at that. Wikisource and delete. -EDM 05:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• Delete or Merge. While the page in itself is interesting, I frankly don't see the point of comparing three Baltic languages with Polish (why not Russian, Belarusian, etc. as well?). A page dedicated to a comparison of the Baltic languages, or a comparison of the Baltic and the Slavic languages, is something I'd support. But this page is not even a beginning. I wouldn't mind transferring the individual Paternoster translations to the corresponding language pages as text samples, though. --IJzeren Jan 12:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone wants to transwiki it somewhere, fine, but just so there's no confusion delete from wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikisource & delete, or move & expand into an encyclopedic article. Just dumping translations on a page without any analysis or explanation of comparative linguistic methods is pointless. --Theodore Kloba 15:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete comparative foreign dicdefs. JamesBurns 03:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Coplanar Triangulation

Unable to verify, probable hoax Peter Grey 05:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete gibberish. New Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences appears not to exist. My bet would be that Professor Abernathy has been manipulocubed quadriplanarly into a gibbs free state of existence as well. -EDM 05:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete patent nonsense. Google returns only 20 hits. The ones that are not references to the Wikipedia article appear to be unrelated. ManoaChild 06:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; it's gibberish. (Though some of wiki's more technical articles read very similarly....)
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverified/probably hoax. --Etacar11 23:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: utter nonsense. Gibbs Free Energy is not even a mathematical construct.
• Delete patent nonsense or schizophrenic ravings Collabi 05:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Alphax ^τεχ 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderdome (communal)

Probably the same person is back with the Thunderdome (communal).Vanity.

To quote User:HorsePunchKid: I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted.

Also, move Thunderdome (arena) back to Thunderdome and I suggest verbally warning User:Rc251, this is the second time that someone has tried this. In addition, the arena is way mroe famous then a communal. --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I believe that I can vote, and vote I am. Vanity, and not notable --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not terribly well-versed with the policies here, but I think that resurrecting a deleted article with the same content it had after the decision was made to delete it is grounds for speedy deletion. As such, I'm going to add the {{db}} tag. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

List of acronyms involving the word "fuck"

• Delete per The Literate Engineer. Friday 06:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, it's a pretty intercoursingly silly article. Delete. -- Hoary 06:57, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per
  talk) 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Article is NFG. Grutness...wha? 09:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  DMTsurel 13:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 13:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmaintainable, prone to vandalism. Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't need to host school boy humour. Osomec 18:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary. This sort of information should be available somewhere. We have forward indexes to profanity and acronyms; why not reverse indexes? Though this reverse index happens to be about a profane word, one could easily imagine similar reverse indexes about perfectly serious and boring words. I say keep it open to all words, on an equal basis. -- Beland 03:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wiktionary. Agreed. --Danielormsby 06:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable unencyclopedic list. JamesBurns 03:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete I don't see anything wrong with this page.

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

MindSin

This looks like advertising to me. Mitchell k dwyer 06:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertising, not notable. The news item on their front page says: "Oh no! MindSin.com may be losing all of it's servers within the next month, we need your help to keep it alive!" --
  talk) 07:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete--Exir Kamalabadi^Contribs 07:24, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - while some websites end up getting articles, these are encyclopedic and contain enough detail to make it worthwhile. The current incarnation of this one does not. Rob Church 14:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for random links, especially for sites on the verge of complete failure. -Soltak 16:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advert — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Charles Uy

Notable among his fellow students, but otherwise/thereafter not notable, it seems. Let's see him make good on his (fairly) youthful promise. -- Hoary 06:54, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I'm still not sure if this person is notable enough--Exir Kamalabadi^Contribs 07:46, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not quite enough. --ArmadniGeneral 09:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are zillions of minor awards out there - these don't make him notable. CDC (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication that these student awars would make one notable. Friday 17:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. His biography does demonstrate some degree of minor notability and promise, and I wish him well in his pursuits. Perhaps his future endeavors will motivate someone to write about him again down the road. Hall Monitor 20:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not Notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not quite notable yet, but on his way. Once he moves out of the realm of student films... --Etacar11 23:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was referred as possible copyright violation. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epixtar

This page should be deleted because I think that this page contanines too much unencyclopedic content, but thats only my opinion Exir Kamalabadi^Contribs 07:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, I could tell just by reading that that it was a copyvio, and after some Google searches, so it is. I will tag as such. CanadianCaesar 07:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Treason In Wartime

Personal essay. --malathion ^talk 08:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:NOR. --ArmadniGeneral 09:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nice piece, but not encyclopaedic jamesgibbon 12:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure the essay got an A in history class, but it gets a Delete here. -Soltak 16:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 18:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Out of context, should be in "vietnam war" section of wickipedia. author, john mccarthy 12:11, 2 August 2005

While it may be out of context, a personal essay shouldn't appear anywhere in Wikipedia -Soltak 19:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:NOR — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this and all other
  original research articles. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m
  ] 08:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

John-michael kuczynski

Possible vanity, Google returns 65, not sure how many related. Nonetheless, I abstain. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Meritorious. Keep. --Philo4logos 11:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Note: user's first edit.

Agentsoo 11:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep A philosopher of surpassing genius, a gentleman to be apotheosized. --Amoramasamat 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another user's first edit. --Etacar11 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally impenetrable. If this guy deserves an article, it would be better to start from scratch. Delete.
  Agentsoo 11:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. He is a real person (see [5]) but appears to be nothing more than a grad student. Has spoken at several conferences but fails the 'more notable than the average professor' test. David | Talk 12:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN and needs extensive revision and cleaning regardless. --Bayyoc 16:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bio page of a Philosophy Grad student? NN — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn grad student vanity. --Etacar11 23:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nn/vanity. --Ragib 00:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! its inspiring to other graduate students in any area. (Unsigned vote by 66.229.193.189 (talk · contribs), first edit)

• Delete. I am a grad student, and was left distinctly uninspired. Sdedeo 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Wankerchops

• Yet another uninteresting dicdef. -- Hoary 10:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above.
  Agentsoo 11:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Read the page to see why. Batmanand 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Normanton Park

I'm afraid I don't see any evidence that this is a notable or encyclopedic condominium complex. CDC (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not even a claim to notability. Delete.
  Agentsoo 11:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not Notable — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more nn apt. complex vanity. --Etacar11 23:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nalona

Wikipedia is not a link repository. Especially when neither of the links work. (Unsigned by

• Delete. Article is nothing but one sentence and two dead links. Whatever the standards for conlang notability will turn out to be, this language definitely won't qualify. The only trace of it can be found on Langmaker.com (in the form of a profile and, yes, a dead link). --IJzeren Jan 11:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. -Soltak 16:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Woohookitty 00:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Kamer

This is a self-promoting article. This person has no true significance, he has been deleted from the Hebrew wikipedia as well. Delete

• Keep: Nimrod/Captain Sudoku is a visual genius. He's the only reason why switzerland should exist. So let's wear left side earing and eat chocolate watches. Chenard Walcker
• Keep: Every article about a living human can be seen as self-promotional. Check out
  Free_Speech is not always a pretty thing, but to quote Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Don't lose sight of the basics. 212.179.235.247 10:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)dormin[reply
  ]
• Keep: this person is important, check the statistics on the amount of times that his name was searched. And also- keep him because he is the frist proffesional teacher for sudoku in the world, as you can see in this report from haaretz newspaper in english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.165.253 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 August 2005
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 12:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• International vanity. Delete thank you.
  Agentsoo 16:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Gilgamesh he 16:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Don't let them assassinate this brilliant creator.Mr.ShemTov 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ches88 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Winning a prize at a student competition in a non-signifcant college does not warrant an article. The writer is seeking on-line publicity, as shown by Ma'ariv NRG's article on the person; gaining his fifteen minutes talking about the deleteion of his Hebrew Wikipedia article. --Jill St. Crux 19:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 20:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN/vanity. --Ragib 00:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He succeeds to parodies the sys so well. Ohad 05:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (No such user, vote actually by 217.132.143.139 (talk · contribs), user's first edit)[reply]
• Delete (I'm a user of the Hebrew Wiki, Not registered to the English one)
• Keep an alternative political director, who got a retrospective this month, articles in Haaretz weekly magazine, won the "Max Stern" Prize. The reasons to erase its name are cultural-political.
• Keep: from what ive read, mr. nimrod is an underground artist trying to uplift his head upground. he is famous in quite a few circles and absolutely deserves to be notable. he is a beginner reactioner who will definetly set the israeli art\film tone in the next years. keep him

"set the tone" LOL. I'm gonna be prime minister of Israel when I grow up, so what? Yonidebest 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: this guy has had plenty of genuine, mainstream media coverage...the fact that he appears to be editing his own article presents special issues for Wikipedia to grapple with, but it is not reason for deleting the article altogether. I think this VfD is very ill-advised. Babajobu 11:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. International vanity, and note above that a claimed "user of the Hebrew Wiki" doesn't seem to think he's notable. Ken 13:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly many users of the Hebrew wiki don't think he's notable, considering his article was deleted from it. Ironically, though, this produced an article in

Ha'aretz and elsewhere on his Sudoku program. Babajobu 13:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to note that most of the voters for keeping this article are clearly sockpuppets.

DMTsurel 13:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

You put that remark after my comment. Am I a sockpuppet? I have over 1500 edits and think this article should be kept. Deal with it. Babajobu 14:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Deal with it"? Excuse me, mr. Babajobu, but it seems to me that you are unaware of this guys' true nature. you come to contradict me and others who have live in Israel all their lives and who know who is important in the Israeli calture and who is a no-good. So this guy had a side article in a main paper in Israel, the almost-most small country in the world. So he's directed a few unknown Israeli movies.. So what? This is an encyclopedia, and only the people who are of some kind of real influence should be in it. Something that seems to be getting out of this English Wiki's control. Soon you'll be editing the history of unknown starving people on Africa. Like I said below, If he's in, I'm in, and probably you can get in too. Yonidebest 20:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you thought I was talking to you. I meant almost all the other votes except you, such as 212.179.235.247, 85.64.165.253, the unsigned ones, etc.

DMTsurel 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete : This is an encyclopedia. not the whitebooks.. Dan, Israel.
• Keep: U should know what he is thinking. Veronika czech rep.
• Delete: A man of no importance SHASHAZ 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This guy, Nimrod Kamer, is, in fact, a no-body in Israel. This guy is only trying to make "his mark" in history. If he get's voted in, we all should be voted in. By the way, this guy opened an artical in the Hebrew Wikipedia, which was deleted at once. Yonidebest 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: nimrod is just great, he'll get in here anyway sooner or later, so dont waste your time trying to keep him out. RubenKruger 23:57, 3. August 2005
• Delete the vote just above this one is a good enough reason for me to vote delete. (Although the other reasons help.) JesseW 02:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel that this VfD is a mistake. All these folks from the Hebrew Vikipedia have descended on this Vfd to oust the Nimrod Kamer article. I don't know why they dislike him so strongly, but clearly they think he is a nogoodnik. The Hebrew wikipedia must have different standards for notability than the English wikipedia. Somebody who has been profiled in multiple mainstream media newspapers and who is the world's very first professional Sudoku teacher should really be a shoo-in for a Wikipedia entry. It looks like Kamer is going to lose this VfD, and I think that's a shame and a mistake. Babajobu 08:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: he did an amazingly great work in an international art exhibition in Tel Aviv last november (georg). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.17.186 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 August 2005

People voting here may also be interested in

• Delete As stated he's not significant and its a vanity article. In fact its a somewhat borderline case, but I think especially the fact that he's unrelated to any larger context in a meaningful way is important. If his film style fits into a given school, put his name and a link on that page. Likewise one the sudoku page, if the editors there think its warranted. 149.217.50.205 10:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vanity indeed. Omer Enbar 18:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks (game)

This already exists in Wikipedia: space (

• Keep. It's notable among Wikipedians; we have articles on every single Pokemon ever created, every minor planet in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes, etc.--and those are only notable among their respective fan communities. What's the difference? Kurt Weber 14:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - oh, the irony. Rob Church 15:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wiki vanity. Dunc|☺ 16:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First, this is not any encyclodaedic article, it is simply instructions on how to play a game. Second, as noted, it already has an article. And finally, it should be noted that the best of the fan pages group large numbers of what would otherwise be very minor stubs into single pages, such as
  List of Star Wars planets. Unless someone wants to create a "List of games that can be played with Wikipedia" and make this page a redirect, it should go. --Icelight
  18:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the content of the article is inappropriate, then it should be altered--but as long as the topic itself is appropriate, the article itself should remain. The topic itself IS appropriate--Wikipedia is a substantial online community, and Wikilinks is well-known to members of that community. Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think we should
  avoid self-references unless it's clearly demonstrated that it is notable outside of Wikimedia community. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It's not a self-reference. A self-reference would be like saying "Certain encyclopedias (such as the one you are reading now) do X, Y, and Z". That is inappropriate. Saying "Certain encyclopedias (such as Wikipedia) do X, Y, and Z" is not a self-reference and is perfectly appropriate. An article simply about Wikipedia or a part of it is not a self-reference--which is why there can be an article on Wikipedia itself. See the difference?

A good rule of thumb is, if it mentions Wikipedia in the first person, it's a self-reference; if it mentions it in the third person, it's not. And just because an article may contain a self-reference in the content (which the one in question does not) does not mean that the TOPIC of the article is a self-reference--again, fix the content, don't delete the article.Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose we fix the content by deleting. The Wikipedia article in question is about playing a game on Wikipedia. It's therefore impossible (or at least useless) to remove the references to Wikipedia. Unless it's notable outside the Wikimedia community, I don't believe Wikimedia articles belong in article namespace. I understand and appreciate other views on this. This is just my opinion which I offer to other voters and the closer of the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the point is, it's perfectly OK for an article to mention Wikipedia, as long as it does so in a manner that does not assume that the reader is viewing the article through en.wikipedia.org. I suggest you take some time and actually read the page you linked to--specifically the paragraph that reads:

Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. If you read about Shakespeare's works, you are not interested in reading about Wikipedia's policies or conventions. If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia. If, in this framework, you link from an article to a Wikipedia page outside the main namespace, use external link style to allow the link to work also in a site with a copy of the main namespace content.

• I would ask you to
  WP:ASR and only linked to it as a courtesy to others to read what the policy actually says. My point is of another topic entirely than what it looks like on mirrors and my point was in the words I chose above twice not in the link. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• keep please somethings are notable enough dont we have articles on wikisource and other wikimedia stuff anyways Yuckfoo 18:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is exactly the kind of thing that belongs in the Wikipedia article space, and– oh, look! It already is! -- Plutor 18:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of the article itself belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, yes. But the topic of the article is perfectly appropriate, as it is a significant part of a major online community. Change the content; don't delete the article. Kurt Weber 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and a note: this game is actually the same as Wikipedia:Wiki-Link Game, not quite the same as N-degrees. -- Plutor 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nont notable outside of the context of Wikipedia. And we're not post-modern enough to start self-referencing ;).
  T/C 21:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This does not belong in article space, and it's already covered in Wikipedia-space. --Carnildo 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Flowerparty ^talk 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete to make sure of consensus JesseW 04:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. -Splash 23:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Charity aAlliance Online

Advertising. Delete --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 12:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Advertising, though it doesn't provide any details. Odd. --
  Several Times 13:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. It's advertising though a very poor example of it with no link or contact information being provided. -Soltak 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Misspelled too. - choster 21:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

This pages appears to be an advertisment for a product. Delete. --216.15.124.196 14:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.--Knife Knut 14:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the advertisement. Punkmorten 15:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete a popular chain in my area, but it's too hard to justify a keep vote for this article as is. Brighterorange 18:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Mr Phor Hoay Guan

More Singaporeschoolcruft from Tdxiang (talk · contribs) (WP must be one of the, er, finest resources anywhere if you want to know about primary school education in a random third world country). Dunc|☺ 14:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, delete. Not notable. But I strongly disagree that Singapore is a "random third world country"! --203.101.1.97 15:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• As do I. But still delete.
  Agentsoo 16:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all non-notable vice principals, especially those that aren't correctly named (if you must star an article with "Mr", at least make it "Mr."). Still, this is schoolcruft taken to it's logical conclusion. --Scimitar ^parley 16:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFAIK, "Mr" and "Prof." are both correct, "Mr." is wrong Dunc|☺ 17:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity, no need to redirect. Hall Monitor 16:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A vice-principal? Are you kidding me? Gamaliel 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet
  WP:BIO. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as stated above — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn schoolcruft. --Etacar11 00:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OK,you can delete!Tdxiang 08:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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.

Maxbats

Delete. Spamvertising. Wikibofh 14:42, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Maple bats already get a passing mention under
  Agentsoo 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. -Soltak 16:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Baseball bat. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. feydey 21:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirecting to
  T/C 21:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Could you please explain. I don't follow your logic. If someone actually searches for "Maxbats" they can either get nothing from wikipedia or they can get directed to a page about baseball bats in general. From my perspective, it seems helpful to have the redirect. People will not even know the redirect exists unless they particularly look for it so I don't see how we are advertising for them. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's advertising. --Carnildo 22:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising — Linnwood ^(talk) 23:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 under