Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 4 August 6 >

August 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 --Allen3 talk 16:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Chupa-mos.com

Article about a non-notable Portugese language forum. Seems borderline speedy from a cursory reading, but the anon users working the page don't seem to like the tag I added, so we'll try VfD instead.. Delete. Ken 00:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

My vote is not to delete this. Chupa-mos.Com is more than a forum. Is a way of life. Chupa-mos is a totally brand all known between Portuguese Internet users and the way this forum is reflected on real life is notorious. (Preceding unsigned comment originally by 194.65.16.130 18:10, August 9, 2005 UTC, then altered by L0rd Rayd3n 18:14, August 9, 2005UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 15:53, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Barse

'cos it's bollocks --

(?) 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

now see the Vfd on
(?) 15:20, 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 REDIRECT to La Hire. Although I voted here, I do not think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. -Splash 19:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

La Here

Quick googling on "La Here" "giant" gives a couple of hundred hits about Los Angeles. Hoax? DS 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to La Hire, which appears to be what this article is talking about. Nothing to merge, since I think "giant" is mistranslation from "great" or something. -Splash 00:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per splash. Hamster Sandwich 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and if I'd just marked this as speedy, I'd never have known that. I agree, redirect to La Hire. DS 02:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per above. Briangotts (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect, per DS. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Splash. MicahMN | Talk 00:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 15:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural health

This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment .


Hetep and Respect Bgeer and Good Spirits

Thanks for you interest in this article and your advise and council. I just came back from rewriting the cultural poisoning article (I hope you can find time to take a look). I have read all your comments and reread what I wrote and I am shocked.

My bad, as the young people say. I made a number of errors contextual and otherwise. If I had to vote again (I know I can't do that) I would "vote keep but rewrite" myself. Give me a minute to get my rewrite pen out and fix some of the errors you have pointed out.

I wrote this early version of the article when I first came to wikipedia. I am up here, on and off, for less then two weeks. Most of my time has been spent learning wiki and the rules. I think I am starting to get the hang of it and would like to thank everyone for your help.

--Aunk 11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets about 54000 Gooogles, but it is readily apparent that few of them apply. Since this and the following VfD are closely related, it is germane to observe that "Cultural poisoning" -aunk -wikipedia gets only 150 unique Google hits. "star model" "Cultural poisoning" gets a single hit. "Cultural health" "Cultural literacy" -aunk -wikipedia gets gets 59 hits. "Cultural poisoning" "Cultural health" -aunk -wikipedia gets 13 Googles. Since all these terms must be related from this article's perspective, I am concerned that the usages here may well be original research. Further, looking through the Google hits, at least some of them are from non-authoritative web fora and in some cases links to the apparently personal site(s) of the author. Looking through the first few pages of Google hits, and judging by their summaries, I found this which is unconvincing. By way of reference to Cultural poisoning, listed below, Amazon has this which is, as the nominator implies, by Aunk. The question is then, does an article about an author's theory qualify as original research when the same author has a published text containing that theory? It is published by "Writers Club Press", which "publishes on demand" [1] so in this case, there is no independent publication. By way of defence, I see some references at the bottom of the article. However, and this is important, they are not referenced in the text and carry little weight with me as a result since they are not used to support the text. The "See Also" section can be as long as it likes, without mitigating original research. All of which leads me to a delete. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research, of the "Here's what I thought after reading these books" variety. Gazpacho 03:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. The author's view is very un-encyclopediac, but the term "Cultural health" is an accepted one in modern Human Geography studies. Instead of flat-out deleting the article, let's get some good writers in there to tidy it up a bit. --Frag 15:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice, if someone wants to come back and re-write the article. It may be a viable term to have an article on. However, I can't see that there is anything here that wouldn't have to be completely re-written. Alternatively, it could be pared down to a tiny stub, and re-written from that. So I'll put "heavy cleanup" as a secondary vote if some sort of consensus needs to be made. --Icelight 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup per Frag. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The phrase cultural health is not something new. Putting it in google gets 45,000,000 hits. Millions of people in America are talking about this topic. The article stub needs work to be encyclopedic but the topic is encyclopedic. Someone from the Asian American community at some point in time, will reflect their communities understanding of cultural health. The medical community will do the same. This is a big discussion with many "experts" and the article will grow.

--Aunk 18:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 19:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with Aunk's assessment of the
    Google test results regarding Cultural health. The 45m figure is for the words seperately, not as a quoted phrase. The search "cultural health" -"health care" -"health club" -nurses -diseases -medical -aunk , gives 17,900 hits, none of which (that I could find) are using the term in the sense this article uses it. Bgeer 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. Although I am not familiar with this term and the author seems to have written it from a POV, sources are cited although not neccessarily reliable ie Pat Buchanan. I would vote to keep even a decent stub given the currency of the term but would vote to delete this. Capitalistroadster 00:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "original" research (which isn't even original. See eugenics) from a pathetic pseudo-intellectual that can barely even spell (Is english even your first language?) and claims ideas that are decades, even centuries old, as his own. --TheDoober 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Tearlach 16:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this term may be used, its certainly not in this context. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. From the discussion above, it is clear that this subject has the potential to have a good, unbiased, article written about it, but the current article is so not that article. I suppose you could do a massive cleanup on it, but that would probably amount to a complete re-write. Might as well just nuke it now, and if somebody wants to write the real article, they can go ahead and do that at some point in the future. The alternative would be to Reduce this to a stub, which I wouldn't object to, but don't really think it's the right strategy. --RoySmith 00:37, 9 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 --Allen3 talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cultural poisoning

This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term. Bgeer 00:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hetep and Respect Bgeer


Bgeer in his Vfd said:"…This article is a neologism describing user Aunk's original research. User has not provided evidence that anyone other than him/herself uses this term…"

There are three claims in Bgeer's two-sentence comment.

1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism

2. The article describes Aunk's original research

3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term

First let me say I appreciate Bgeer's interest in cultural literacy. For those who do not know Hetep (sometimes pronounced Hotep, means peace). Bgeer I think you jumped the gun. I was having a similar discussion on the discussion page with individuals interested in the article. I am new but was getting ready to make adjustments to the stub. But let me respond directly to your concerns.


1. Cultural Poisoning is a neologism

This is a debatable assertion. See info from wiki below. The difference between debatable and deleteable is considerable. "…When a word or phrase is no longer "new," it is no longer a neologism…. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to no longer be considered a neologism; cultural acceptance probably plays a more important role than time in this regard…" [2]

Cultural acceptance is important. This phrase is accepted in the African American community. I have not run across an African American in cyberspace or on the ground that asserts cultural poisoning does not exist in the African American community. In addition many other ethnic groups use this phrase as a google test verifies. [3]

"Yesterday's neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." – Academic Instincts, 2001[1]

The phrase cultural poisoning is essential vocabulary in the cultural literacy discussion of today. See quote from wikipedian below.

"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.


2. The article describes Aunk's original research


The article has been rewritten as source-based research. See wiki policy below.

"…Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia…"

All information listed under references , in the article comply with following wiki policy.

"… it is essential that any primary-source material used in an article has been published or otherwise made available to people who do not rely on Wikipedia…"


The other reason that "original research" should not apply to this article is as follows.

Aunk is writing as and expert on the terms Cultural Health, Cultural literacy and cultural poisoning as they related to the African American community. See the applicable wiki rule below.

"…No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV)…"

3. Aunk has not provided evidence that some one other then he, uses the term

See google test [4] cultural poisoning -aunk -wikipedia 500,000 googles

See quote from page 3 not by Aunk

The Virginian Pilot Ledger-Star, May 4, 1986: Note: Straight ASCII ... In so doing, boomer comedians have become the antidote to a severe case of cultural poisoning,people to whom the baby boom generation probably owes what ... www.richmonder.com/charbeneau/editorial/boomhum.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

See quote from google page 3 not by aunk

Jihad Watch: Terror group threatens Dutch with 'Islamic earthquake' We are starting to experience the first stage of cultural poisoning, the noxious effects are just starting to manifest themselves in truly frightening ways ... www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002866.php - Similar pages


See quote from wikipedian below.


"…used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences…" user: Jareth.:. see his vote and comment below:.


--Aunk 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. See my long comment in the VfD for Cultural health for reasons. -Splash 01:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However if someone finds an antidote, keep --Cool Cat My Talk 01:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Gazpacho 03:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Briangotts (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, original research. --Carnildo 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What the hell is this even about? --TheDoober 08:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite from scratch. Having tried a Google on "cultural poisoning" -"Aunk", I agree with Jareth's comment below. But the current original research needs totally scrapping. Tearlach 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup A real subject enclyclopediatic subject but the article is just badly written. Jimbobsween 05:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can completely NPOV and remove all original research. I'm familiar with this term, and while its used frequently in the cultural literacy cult, I've also seen it in Eastern journalism decrying the poisoning of their culture by Western influences. The article as it stands is little more than spamvertising and would need a total rewrite to be keep-worthy. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup Poorly written, difficult to understand meaning at times.Thraesja 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 6 edits --Allen3 talk 15:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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) 02:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Galloway

VBB Forums-cruft. If we're to delete those - and we should - then this should go too. DS 00:24, 5 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. Although I voted here, I don't think I have a conflict of interest since the nomination was withdrawn and the voting unanimous. -Splash 19:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ipercoop

Not needed, wikipedia isnt a list of little tiny towns 2mcm 00:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article appears to have been rewritten (already!) by Uncle G. Whilst almost a substub the name does get 48000 Googles and I presume is not a real word, so they would appear to be well established. -Splash 01:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Splash. --Alan Au 03:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as notable supermarket chain. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Briangotts (talk)
  • Keep -- appears to be a notable chain of supermarkets. Longhair | Talk 08:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what Longhair said. When i posted the VFD i wasnt aware of this --2mcm 10:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Longhair. Aecis 22:21, 10 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 merge and redirect to infantilism. – malathion talk 06:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Baby

Following

brenneman(t)(c) 01:24, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 15:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wundle

Neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:42, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 15:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Erick Harris

Eighteen-year-old wanna-be politician, entering Tuskogee this fall. Good luck on that political career (especially as a Democrat in Oklahoma), but he shouldn't get an article until he wins at least ONE election. Calton | Talk 01:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Though I haven't seen a page, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not a self-help guide. RasputinAXP 01:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've said this before, there is a high bar needed before one's high school achievements can be considered notable. This doesn't meet that bar. Sirmob 21:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I hope the rest of his political career goes better than his VfD. --RoySmith 00:44, 9 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 (no consensus). A very slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia

"Sacred Heart School" gets ~85,000 google hits. It's gonna take an amazing disambiguation page to straighten them all out some day. Not notable. Delete. Or at least rename to something more specific. Or maybe this could be made into a list of all schools named Sacred Heart. -- Mwanner 02:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

"William John Hagan"

Vanity Page Lcuff 02:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: NN/Vanity. --Ragib 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Also, appears to be a cut and paste from his blog, for which copyright status is unknown. I assume that subject is the author, which brings up questions about notability. --Alan Au 04:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Same old same old. --Misterwindupbird 10:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN/Vanity. Tearlach 10:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy vanity/cvcruft. --Etacar11 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: CV vanity, barbarously named (showing that the contributor didn't bother to read any articles). Geogre 18:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN/vanity/formatting yadda yadda. JDoorjam 19:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page. --jonasaurus 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- vanity - Longhair | Talk 08:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity page. --Apyule 07:28, 8 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. -Splash 19:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ogdru_Jahad

Comic book fancruft. Lazyhound 02:12, 5 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 Geogre. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:50, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kellan fabjance

Vanity. --malathion talk 02:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. I was going to tag it as a speedy under
    WP:CSD A7. This is an elementary school ([8]) "novelist" vanity article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy per TenOfAllTrades. Ken 02:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy: as above. --Ragib 02:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 Speedy. While the subject is claimed to be a famous novellist and web designer, no evidence is presented for either statement. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy As per above. --jonasaurus 21:24, 5 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. -Splash 19:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kidron

Completing nomination begun by

talk
02:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • As I meant to say before I wound up napping at the computer, perhaps we could use an article on Kidron, but this isn't it. And are those photos copyvio?DS 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Photos are copyvios and have been tagged as such. Thanks for the heads up. --Alan Au 04:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kidron Valley (or Qidron) is unquestionably a real place, near Jerusalem and featuring significantly in the Bible. Astonished that there isn't an article already. Keep but rewrite significantly. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rewritten as a stub. Probably deserves a rename at some stage. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "This isn't it". This, on the other hand, is. Keep as rewritten.DS 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Make sure rewrite stands. --jonasaurus 21:25, 5 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 COPYVIO. Already listed. -Splash 20:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Softscout

Advertising,nn-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BMIComp. --Alan Au 04:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's a copyvio. -- Mwanner 22:27, August 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 speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asmariational

Not notable neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:38, 5 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 because of ongoing copyvio investigation and lack of valid votes in this discussion. The only vote that I see here that I can count is Capitalistroadster's.

If not for the copyvio, I would have extended discussion. If it survives

WP:CP, I will probably relist. Somebody remind me should I forget. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Cass_V._Cibelli

vanity, definite copyvio, not notable (win the election first) 128.112.24.137 03:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, high-profile race in Westchester. Voters have a right to find out information about the candidates. This makes it easier for them to do so.

  • Above unsigned comment is by the same person who created the article [10]. 128.112.24.137 04:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, I wrote the biography, posted it on the website and hold the exclusive right to use it. There is no copyright violation here. By posting the biography on this page I authorized it's use on this page.

  • Hi, 68.161.66.112 (again.) First of all, there is no such thing as "speedy keep." Secondly, please sign your remarks by putting 4 ~s afterwards. Thirdly, you claim that this is a "high-profile race" in Westchester. The only mention of "Cass Cibelli" that I could find in the news was a two sentence, second-paragraph mention in an online-only newspaper [11]. Finally, if you are the person who wrote the promotional biography on Cibelli's website, then it is inappropriate for you to copy and paste this to create the page on Wikipedia. (The content you posted, whether you own it or not, is not "neutral" ("NPOV" in the parlance.) It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If the article is not deleted, that content will be, by me or someone else.) 128.112.24.137 05:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep is a common vote on VfD. It is essentially equivalent to voting to de-list, because the nomination is brazenly inappropriate. -- Visviva 12:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyvio on non-notable candidate. A search for that name achieved nil results on Google News [12] or Topix.net [13] suggesting he is not that high profile in terms of newsworthiness. BTW, the VfD notice was missing but I restored it. Capitalistroadster 06:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We already have a process for resolving copyvio. VfD is not it.
    • Comment. The argument for VfD is that the person is not-notable. There is an additional copyvio issue, which in part arises from the fact that the subject is sufficiently non-notable that there is no other source of information on him. Sdedeo 23:34, 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 (no consensus). This one is very difficult, because there are a number of votes from users with very low edit counts. In particular the nomination is by an anonymous user, and the two last keep votes are both from users whos' votes are among their earliest edits. Nonetheless, all these users appear to have been making legitimate edits as well, and all were created before this VFD started. Because of this, and also with the "when in doubt, don't delete"-rule in mind, I will accept all the votes. The main concern here has been verifiability, I will therefore add a {{verify}}-tag on the article. If no verification is provided, the article may well be listed on VFD again in the near future. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting_the_Cow

probable hoax; google returns only a few mentions (less than a page) all of which are dubious touristic sites. 128.112.24.137 03:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twisting the Cow is not a hoax. I actually first read about it in a reliable, factual, book which I trust (Bloody Scotland, Horrible Histories series). In fact, I think most of the webpages are almost directly plagiaristic copies of the book. Hey, it's not my fault the Scots like such strange things (haggis) ;) ! If you don't believe the book, I guess the only way to prove it not a hoax is to find the results from the Invergarry Games of 1820. I also just realized that I need to change it from "Twisting the Cow" to "Twisting the cow". How do I rename a wikipedia page?Confusius 03:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an actual event that existed in the 19th Century. See [14]. You don't need pages of Google hits for something to be legitimate. This does need expansion and a proper stub tag, however. 23skidoo 04:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well... okaaay. Your HTML reference also refers as its source back to the same book that Confusius remembers seeing it in, a book which also tells you how to "how to terrify a tourist with gory Scottish ghost". I guess I'm just not convinced it's anything other than an urban legend that happened to appear in a children's book (ages 8 and up!) 128.112.24.137 04:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Would have voted to Keep and expand, except that I'm unable to verify beyond the same Google reference to the tourism book cited above. --Alan Au 04:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm delete unless there is independant proof (piossibly from a resident of Invergarry) that anything like this ever happend -- which I take leave to doubt. --Simon Cursitor 07:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independantly verified. --Carnildo 19:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe this is the stuff of urban legend (see snopes.com). --jonasaurus 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main thing that we're trying to decide here isn't whether to delete it or not, but whether it's an urban legend or not. If it's not, then keep the page. If it is, keep the page but categorize it as an urban legend. Confusius 22:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have heard several accounts in my time of such an event taking place in the past in Scotland. It's not one of the more common traditions, but if you look beyond google there's enough evidence to say that, urban legand or real event, it's just about worthy of a mention Zaw061 14:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- It's interesting enough. Hujjat 09:11, 15 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. If someone would like to merge it, feel free to be bold. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reffy

I hate spammers too, but to be kept the article should be encyclopedic, not ranty. 128.112.24.137 03:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Improve the article if it's not good enough, don't delete it. KeithD 07:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. I have no problem listing
    Eldereft 08:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to
    scumware, reluctantly. -Splash 23:13, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 15:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blondphilia

Neologism. 0 google hits.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 5 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Voice Wireless

NN, possibly advertising-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'll go so far as to propose this as a spam speedy delete. Fire Star 03:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete <drini ☎> 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear advertising. Tobycat 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an advertisment. --jonasaurus 21:29, 5 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 agree with speedy. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah_W._Brannon

actually, Sarah Weatherly Brannon did not win the Nobel Prize at 29. (Fake article) 128.112.24.137 03:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An astrophysicist winning the Nobel Prize for medicine would be interesting cross-pollination but it is an obvious hoax. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It talks about a speech in December 2005...obviously it's hard to take any of this seriously. Can it be speedied? --Etacar11 16:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reasons why it shouldn't be a sure candidate for speedy delete because of patent nonsense, but I am not absolutely sure. If I am making a mistake in adding the db, would a more experienced Wikipedian please tell me? --DrTorstenHenning 17:50, 5 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 the article was speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly_N._Hay

By definition, not more notable than the average college professor. 128.112.24.137 03:53, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 15:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Happy_Turtle

Happy Turtle was an ad for a computer game that apparently does not exist 128.112.24.137 03:56, 5 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 MERGE to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Already done, so just applying redirect. -Splash 20:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thracia_Cho-Leem

Tremendously obscure Star Wars trivia. 128.112.24.137 03:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I left the VfD tag up since that's only supposed to be removed by an admin after the closing of a vote.Tobycat 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. --
    Maru 02:58, 9 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 A7. Essjay · Talk 10:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Shane_Mcmullen

Shane McMullen is being picked on by his friends in Oz. 128.112.24.137 03:58, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 15:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

EDK

The company appears to be real, but unencyclopedic. Probably just advertising. CJCurrie 04:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising, and not notable. -- Egil 14:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this entity lacks notability and qualifies for deletion. Tobycat 20:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. --jonasaurus 21:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, Advert. -- Mwanner 22:47, August 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. Already has cleanup tag. I added some stub-sorts. -Splash 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher_Rush

not notable 128.112.24.137 04:18, 5 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 merge and redirect to

Big Brother. – malathion talk 06:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Eric_Ouellette

Is there going to be a page for every single contestant in every single "Big Brother" sequel or spin-off? 128.112.24.137 04:18, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 14:54, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Harvard Crimson Summer Interns

Harvard Crimson Headline: Yalies Make Spoof Page 128.112.24.137 04:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. Funny, but cruel (and unencyclopedic). Much like this site[16]. As a Cambridge resident, I probably shouldn't say this, but that's pretty good. Hey annonymous, you look like you've made some nice edits/noms for VfD. Consider registering? -Sunglasses at night 05:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I finally did. Sdedeo 05:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODNS. Hatred of Harvard equals love of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --Salleman 11:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity, do you mean "copy to BJAODN and keep", or "copy to BJAODN and delete"? -Splash 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter. Isn't that standard for "Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense"? --Salleman 01:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does, but we had a bit of a storm about this particular way of voting a couple of days ago; there is at least one admin who sometime interprets BJAODN as a possible keep. -Splash 02:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Delete. Does not rise to the standard of BJAODNS. -- Mwanner 22:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously. -Splash 23:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke but not that funny. --Etacar11 00:52, 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 Keep --Allen3 talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nick_Koudis

vanity, creator of article shares name with subject; no case for notability. 128.112.24.137 04:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. Nateji77 05:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. The fact that it's created by a user named "Koudis" makes it a pretty obvious case. As for notability, "Nick Koudis" gets 163 unique Google hits and the website referenced has no Alexa rank at all! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.
    • Alexa rank is, as usual, no use for determining whether an individual is notable; we're not about to delete Marvin Minsky's entry just because only a few AI geeks ever visit his website.
    • We also don't delete biographical entries as vanity solely because they're created by the subject.
    • Nick Koudis is verifiable as a charter photographer for the stock library Getty Images, and his photographs are widely used. I see photo credits for Nick Koudis online at the following sites, and I didn't have to look hard:
    • Could I find more? Easily, but that is enough to establish notability. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Keep. Notable, but messy. I recognize most of those ads. RasputinAXP 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have too much trouble on the notability score, but the article reeks of vanity. And is anyone besides me worried about the fair use claim on those images? In any case, some of the Keep voters ought to take on a major cleanup of this piece. -- Mwanner 23:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • As author and copyright holder of all the images, I can vouch for the fair use claim. I also would like to point out, that although I did post the article about my own work, it is unbiased and factual. --Nick 23:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cleaned up the picture section a bit. Is vanity grounds for deletion if it is notable and the info is factual? I don't think it should be. Henny Clugman 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voter has 2 edits, both to this VfD --Allen3 talk 14:50, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • You're right-- although vanity is often cited in VfD discussions, it really shouldn't, of itself, be grounds for deletion: it's the notability that matters. "Vanity" is really a not very apt shorthand for a problem with the style of writing-- it feels like a puff piece, not an encyclopedia entry. I'll make a stab at a re-write. I'm still worried about the copyright issues, though. The AMEX and Wrigley images are no problem? -- Mwanner 13:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - awards and Getty association speak to notability. Barnabypage 13:31, 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 --Allen3 talk 14:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Steven Vote

Delete non-notable photographer vanity. Gets 130 unique Googles and not all are him (and some are ads). He "...captures what is inside the subject, almost making their aura visible." -Splash 05:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless these "worldwide" magazines are identified (and they don't consist of such titles as Non-notable Photographer Weekly); looks like bog-standard vanity. Flowerparty talk 18:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would not object to a speedy. His pictures aren't anything special, either. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From his website bio it looks like he has been moderately successful in his profession, but that does not equate to notability. Tobycat 20:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. Unless he was written ABOUT in those magazines for being a photographer. --Etacar11 01:01, 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 --Allen3 talk 14:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Transmutalism

NN nonsense, or just something highly notable that I have never heard of? If the former then delete JeremyA (talk) 05:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All the relevant terms only get a single Google hit, or maybe two. -Splash 05:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely nonsense. No evidence that this is a well-known pseudoscience. ManoaChild 05:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense, almost patent, might even be speedied. --DrTorstenHenning 11:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds a bit like transhumanist spirituality with quasi-magical-religious overtones.[17] Delete as original research. — RJH 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just random academic terms strung together in the manner of the Isis hoax. Collabi 21:12, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 14:11, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Liquivores

"Liquivore" got me 8 unique google hits. Maybe something from fiction, but if so, a pretty minor thing. Any sci-fi themed thing that only gets 8 hits is miniscule (hell, typing "darth" and then 4 random letters would probably yield more hits). I guess it has something to do with Alien Planet? Maybe a merge somewhere, but I think deletion is probably preferable. -R. fiend 05:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The description almost makes sense, but a legitimate term would have a lot more Google hits. ManoaChild 05:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The google hits themselves are obscure. Not a real word and not widely used in fiction. Tobycat 06:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete There really should be a term for that method of feeding, (in which case it would make sense as a redirect) but I can't seem to find it.
note: above vote was by Icelight
  • Delete. BTW, you're right: I typed darth skie into google and got 10,000 hits...:) humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neat. And darth plog got me 584, though I'm not sure these count as "random" exactly. And both drop down to 1 if quotes are used (but even 1 real hit is a bit surprising). -R. fiend 02:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure there's a technical term for this feeding method, but this isn't it. --Carnildo 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Fire Star 21:13, 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 --Allen3 talk 14:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sideling

Delete. I am unclear on whether copyvio extends to album summaries from Amazon. In any case, this article is mere promotional blurb and is not an article. We should start over. -Splash 05:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if the content is a copyvio, otherwise Move to Slideling which was the title originally intended by the author, as noted in the article. Tobycat 06:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't move: when someone deigns to write a proper article on the album they might as well start from scratch. This is just a Rolling Stone excerpt that's been copied on to Amazon and cut+pasted here, and thus presumably does constitute copyvio. Flowerparty talk 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless unless rewritten. --Etacar11 01:02, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:56, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Awesomeness

non-notable, just silly

Sean Black 05:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete, per nom K1Bond007 05:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A drinking game that was invented in "the summer of 2005". Article written by "a charter member". Vanity. ManoaChild 05:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets several criteria for deletion: nonencyclopedic, not notable, vanity. Tobycat 06:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry Guys, I mean no Offence. I thought this might be a touchy subject. I honestly am not just placing this on the web for myself. My group of friends LOVES this game. It is actually quite fun. You should try it. Before I posted this article, I looked at Wikipedia's drinking games article. I thought our game would be a good contribution to the listing but I am not the expert, this is my first addition to Wikipedia. I do not want to do anything to compromise the integrity of the best open-source website on the internet. When I wrote the article, I considered the way it should be presented. Since it is a drinking game, I thought humor would be a good way to render the subject matter into an enjoyable article. I am open to suggestions and am willing to remove names since you guys main complaint about the page is believe that it exist just because I am a vain person. Which I really am not. :Buphoff 07:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please understand that "vanity" is not accusing you of being vain. It's just a comment that several elements of the article seem to be self promoting, if not of yourself, then of your group. In any case, even if written in a more neutral fashion, the article would still fail the notability test and would probably qualify as original research, which is not permitted. Don't feel bad, and don't let this chase you away. If you look around, I guarantee that you will find something that you contribute to. ManoaChild 09:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Userfy everything (esp. the T-shirts) except the rules, clean those up a little, and I would say that it is a valid game. A little silly and a little dangerous, but valid nonetheless.
    Eldereft 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete; nn, vanity, ne; perhaps {{
    userfy}}? Lectonar 10:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete vanity, not notable. Fun to read, but not Wikipedia-material. KevinGovaerts 11:25:28, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. -R. fiend 12:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article and images: vanity, non-notable, neologism, original research, unverifiable, etc. --Carnildo 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though the article is fun to read. But Wikipedia is NOT advertizing space. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --jonasaurus 21:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -Splash 23:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - It's a drinking game.
    Drinking games links to the rules of other drinking games, so keep it, after removing all the vanity stuff, pointless graphics and attempts to sell T-shirts Tonywalton 23:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete Interesting article, but is original reasearch and not notable. Maybe it could be transwikied somewhere? --Apyule 07:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the precedent set by keeping this would be a poor one. Paul 17:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XXXXX pointless
    Saiyan Plough 06:49, 12 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 shower with speedy deletion. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jizmism

Patent Nonsense User:XD 04:41, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 13:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

NBOT

Vanity article, non-notable group EdwinHJ | Talk 05:59, 5 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

Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Kathy Bartol

non-notable high school band conductor, vanity Sdedeo 06:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then why does the school have an entry? it is not famous in anywayAndrew D White 06:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • good question. There is a debate on wikipedia as to whether or not high schools should have entries without being otherwise "notable." But please don't go creating pages for all your high school teachers and friends -- there's no debate on that. Sdedeo 06:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not I simply was noting one of the more famious people from my town I included more of her bio so you can see why I attempted to add this and thought it would be a good additionAndrew D White 06:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I could argue that most of the living people here do not fall in all these categories and that wouldnt make me any more right or wrong than the people who included them maby i should mave a call to delete 30% of the bios here because they are not famous in my part of the world. In defense of this articel though, I would say that she qualifies for: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" Andrew D White 07:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I also added another reason for the "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" point (these can all be verfied throught the Newspaper"The Daily Item" which is published in Sunbury, PA Andrew D White 07:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ok I am in a more civil mood now an I am open to discuessing this. It may have at first looked like a vanity page but that is due to how I write (I save a lot to ensure that hardware failrure at my end will not end up with the loss of hours of work which cannot be recovered. Andrew D White 07:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

How mutch more notibalit do you want? I am not sure how many more of her notiable events I can publish without it being orrigional research like training some of the members of Breaking Benjamin.(not sure if that even made into a newspaper) Andrew D White 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Speedy a high-school chorus conductor? Come on. Note to author: I assume your intentions are good, but please, please pick more realistic article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I had a really good high school chorus director, too (we did Christmas programs with the Philadelphia Orchestra). But no, sorry. Get some perspective, Andrew: it just isn't encyclopedic. -- Mwanner 23:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I will agree to this Only if you all stop the character assiniation. I dont like it when people make personal attacks on me. Andrew D White 23:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC) 

(I am refering mostly to the last two comments)Andrew D White 23:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. NN. --Etacar11 01:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that is qualifies for speedy deletion due to it having a remote plasuablity. "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Andrew D White 01:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- as above. nn-bio applies, surely? Tonywalton 23:43, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Subtle touches of red

vanity, refers to a self-published book of poems Sdedeo 06:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 23 Google hits for "Subtle touches of red", none of which refer to poetry. Delete. ral315 20:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to scarce google hits, neither the book nor the author show up on Amazon. A book/author of any notability would surely show up on at least one. Good nomination.Tobycat 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tobycat. -Splash 23:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn poet vanity. --Etacar11 01:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments Punkmorten 08:17, 13 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 speedily deleted per WP:NOT a how-to guide for would-be experimenters in things that blow your head off if you're not careful.

FCYTravis 08:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

PICRIC ACID

PICRIC ACID IS VERY SCARY and also Wikipedia is not a textbook/cookbook Sdedeo 06:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete : Article
    Picric Acid
    already exists. Much more informative and constructive than this one.
  • Delete Dupe of
    Picric Acid, only less intelligible. Collabi 06:52, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 13:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Omega seamaster

advertisement Sdedeo 06:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • An article on James Bond's watch? Now I've seen everything. Delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ral315 20:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Brands that appear in film/television are part of a marketing strategy called product placement. In other words: advertising. Articles asserting notabilility for a product due to their appearance in a film are only propagating the advertising. In my view there need to be other notable factors to justify an article like this. Tobycat 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Omega Watches. This is a real watch, not just one found in a James Bond movie. Hell you can buy one from Amazon [18] if you have the money. Maybe not enough information for it's own article, but notable to mention somewhere. K1Bond007
    21:50, August 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. -Splash 20:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

W.W._Smith

lengthy article about the founder of a rural Canadian insurance firm, which currently has a staff of nine: [19]. Not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 06:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. If he really was a driving force behind the establishment of a Provincial Park, that should establish some kind of notability. The article needs cleanup to become truly encyclopedic, though. --DrTorstenHenning 11:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saskatchewan MLAs are notable. --YUL89YYZ 12:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. According to the article he served as a member of the Saskatchewan legislature, which makes him worthy of inclusion. Of greater concern is that parts of it seem to be based on an interview with his grandson, which is original research. - SimonP 12:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • K, but rename and remove POV. Fawcett5 13:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article indicates he was much more than a businessman.--NormanEinstein 15:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. MLA and of some interest in the early history of Swift Current. Also, the article does not seems to rely on an OR interview with grandson but rather this insurance industry magazine article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability appears to be established within the article. Hall Monitor 21:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to William Wensley Smith and Clean it up. Zhatt 23:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per
    WP:BIO as a member of a provincial legislature. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, as per above. CJCurrie 01:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there has been fairly wide consensus that MLAs are notable. - Jord 18:23, 10 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 --Allen3 talk 13:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ewok4000

Tagged for speedy, but I don't see it. Looks like vanity, but I'll submit it to the community; there seeems to be a strong assertion of notability. No vote.

t
06:45, August 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. -Splash 20:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Eekelaar

Tagged for speedy as vanity, but I see a real assertion of notability in the list of honors and publications. No vote. --

t
06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep Real prominence in specific field (Family Law) unlikely to be vanity per se (individual known to be not a web person!) and significant in academic circles stated. Honours and publications are notable.--Silver149 07:10, 5 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. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Macy

Minor automotive photographer, with gushy bio. Delete. Calton | Talk 06:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 07:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, legitimate journalist/photographer.
    Kappa 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The article sucks, but appearing on Fifth Gear is enough to warrant a keep IMHO. Nandesuka 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random appearance on a poor spinoff TV programme (especially on five) isn't enough. Hell, he's so non-notable we have to go all the way back to the age of 4 to try to invent some. -Splash 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we corrected the gushy/vanity tone of the article, there wouldn't be anything to write. Nothing notable enough (yet). -JJLeahy 00:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this one is quite possible to rewrite into NPOV. arj 21:54, 10 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 --Allen3 talk 13:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Phillip Sumner

Minor-league digital-video filmmaker & wannabe professional photographer. Calton | Talk 06:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. EvilPhoenix talk 07:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He might become notable someday, but he's not there yet. Nandesuka 18:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was falsely A7 speedied. Restored. I'd normally leave it at that but I noticed that there was an ongoing VfD when it was falsely speedied. Please continue. No vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:18, 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 --Allen3 talk 13:32, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Uprising

Nominated for deletion because I judge this to be advertising, and as such it's a violation of Section 1.4.3 of

WP:NOT The Literate Engineer 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Author's Response
I personally do not see how this is advertising, as, unless someone hits the page using "Random article" (and what are the chances of that?), they aren't going to stumble upon the page without actually looking for more information about the game itself.

Screenshots and the website for the game are due out in just a couple of weeks, and it is only a couple of months before the game makes its debut.

You say that Wikipedia is not a "Crystal Ball," and yet there are tons of pages about upcoming movie, music, and game releases. The only reason you are against my example of it is because I come from a very small, independent game company, which doesn't give me the same kind of voice.

I've had the same problem getting information about the game published on game websites--no one believes me. Yet this game has been in development for over a year, and is very far from an amateur attempt at an MMORPG. We have a rather large and fully capable team of coders, designers, modelers, and writers who have given enormous quantities of their time over the past year making this project a reality.

Delete it if you must, it'll just be recreated again when the game comes out this winter. Instead of trying to destroy every attempt at deleting every page that might be some kind of indirect advertisement, just have some trust, for once, and let the information about the game be out there for your audience to see.

That's all I'll say, and if you, the editors, still are not convinced, you are more than welcome to delete the page. End of (unsigned) author's response

Second Author Response I have saved a copy of the article in .odt form on my computer, so feel free to delete it now. However, I still think that all of you are being absolutely ridiculous, not to mention completely hypocritical. The only reason I'm being treated this way is because I represent such a small game studio! Frag 11:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not relevant in the gaming world (yet). Good luck with the project, though. KevinGovaerts 14:32:11, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Further, the lack of a website makes this unverifiable. --Carnildo 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You've not yet completed one project. No one has seen any of your work. When it's released, then maybe the article can be related. Also, the attitude taken by
    Hahnchen 01:38, 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 speedily deleted as unintelligible nonsense, potential hoax. WPCR is a real radio station, but it's in New Hampshire, not Nashville.

FCYTravis 19:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

WPCR

Radio station that does not assert any kind of regional notability. It's also practically illegible. EvilPhoenix talk 07:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this trivia dump until someone writes a real article. "a piano music radio station that plays piano music." Gazpacho 17:37, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 13:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

KjellFakta

This is advertising for a feature of a chain of electronics stores in

Swedish Wikipedians' notice board and will put off nominating that one for a while. Uppland 07:20, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 13:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Where's Gary

The article is for something that is not of enough importance to have its own article, it should be deleted or merged with the main spongebob article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSeer (talk • contribs) 02:49, 5 August 2005

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once the DVD is on the market, and if someone finds enough material on it for a lengthy article still meeting WP standards, a page of its own might be OK. --DrTorstenHenning 11:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you think it can be merged, then rather than put it on vfd, be bold and merge it straight away. But in this case, the quality is so bad that it is probably best to just put it out of its misery! Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:47, August 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. -Splash 20:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinski

Marked as vanity speedy, but it's a band. No vote.

t
07:22, August 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 speedy delete. – malathion talk 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shi-tones

Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote.

t
07:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. An admin erroneously deleted the article after it was placed on VfD. I have asked him to undelete it so that VfD can proceed. Pburka 00:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • There was nothing erroneous about it - I ran across it and deleted it as being a very short article with no claim to notability and no encyclopedic context.
      FCYTravis 02:49, 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 Keep. --08:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Voyager One (band)

Tagged for CSD as band vanity, but there's no such criterion. No vote.

t
07:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Well, they do have an allmusic page here. This reports that they have released two albums, which might qualify them under
    WP:MUSIC. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the label, Loveless Records, fits the description "more important indie label". Their homepage, here doesn't seem to indicate that they have a "roster of performers, many of which are notable". That is, I couldn't find a page of ours on any of their other bands, which should exist for a really notable band, i.e. one which would make the label itself notable. I'm willing to be proven otherwise, but that's my position for now. --Icelight
    18:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Icelight unless the majorness of their label is established. -Splash 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Allmusic.com has an lengthy article on these guys suggesting that they consider that these guys are notable. see Allmusic.com article [21] Capitalistroadster 01:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but it doesn't say they did anything much. -Splash 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep might just be above the bar. --Etacar11 01:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have expanded the article. Their Loveless records page shows that they have attracted a fair amount of attention from the media covering the independent music scene see [22]. A Yahoo audio search shows that they have a number of tunes available from commercial download sites such as iTunes and Napster see [23]

No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 06:16, 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 speedily deleted as nonsense hoax or no claim to notability, whichever you prefer. Good catch, Szyslak.

FCYTravis 08:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Eddie "Centrino" Forgacs

No Google hits for "eddie "centrino" forgacs" or eddie centrino forgacs. I don't know about the rest of you, but I smell a hoax. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:58, August 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

China History Forum

Vanity, and sounds awfully like advertising. Forum isn't even big. x42bn6 08:25, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 13:12, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Audacious

An evangelical Christian youth event in Britain; there are thousands of these around the world. Doesn't seem notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Borderline advert, no criteria for notablity met (3000 people is not a lot by megachurch standards.) Sdedeo 09:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3000 is big for the uk... (Note: Unsigned comment by 82.32.80.168 (talk · contribs); user's first edit.)

Eh, I don't think it's a valid arguement, but

Bonus Stage only recieves 2000-3000 hits a week. Note: Timestamp? Sorry, I'm no good at Wiki'ing --82.33.194.36 09:27, 8 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 --Allen3 talk 13:08, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in the Copper Age

Same reason as for

Ancient weights and measures and sub-articles, to the degree these articles have survived the contributions of this same anon. Sorry for the rant, but I get tired of being his janitor. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed. I'd suggest leaving a redirect, but it's unlikely anyone would type that exact phrase in, so just delete.
t c 09:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, excellent links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
updated and under mediation, also as to the linking these pages were all
linked together under ancient weights and measures
which is where they belong

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures
makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.
If you would like to see them compared in their own or contemporary units
as well as mm, why not put that comment on the discussion page?
Most copper age measures are given as multiples of a standard
of which the best surviving example measures 1/2 meter.
As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several
decimals of mm, copper age standards are not precise to decimal mm
or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.
For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary
primary reference to sharing a standard (as with the letter of Nanse}
which was cited on the discussion page for ancient weights and measures)
There are long term investigations of the units involved and the results
are now considered basic historical fact.
In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective
to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",
"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer
histories that have been explored in the literature.
Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological
period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities
and differances much clearer
The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid
as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and
in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with
translations given in English
Comment While unconvinced, I stand in awe of a response written in poetry. --Icelight 18:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, Rktect's reponse is incorrect: there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article at all. Nandesuka 19:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page in question is the discussion page of

[Ancient_Weights_and_Measures]

      • When user Egil decided he wanted to rewrite the whole page in a different format
      • to catagorize by cultures rather than by standards I suggested that it was important
      • to keep the comparative aspect of the standards which you could previously see just
      • by scrolling up or down, not changing pages.
  • Delete, no useful data other than a list, said list is adequately covered in other articles. Xaa 23:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rktect 8/6/05
If you think this table is just a list and adequately covered elsewhere
I'd like to know where you are looking


Indo European Mycenean Minoan Greek unit AfroAsiatic Egyptian unit
fngr unit mm ft fngrs unit mm ft cbts ryl cbts hayt minutes
1 daktylos 19.3 1/16 1 uu 18.8 1/16 1 24 1/28 1/280 1/8400
1.4 u 19.3 1/16 1.35 u 25.3 25/296 25/444 5/1036 1/6216
1.3 nail 19.3 1/16 1.33 inch 25 1/12 1/18 1/21 1/210 1/6300
2 condylos 38.6 1/8 2 mnw 37.5 1/8 1/12 1/14 1/140 1/4200
3 ? 57.8 3/16 3 špsi 56.3 1/5 1/8 3/28 3/280 1/2800
4 palaiste 77.1 1/4 4 wršpsiwaw 75.0 1/4 1/6 1/7 1/70 1/2100
5 ? 96.4 5/16 5 pt t 93.8 1/3 5/24 5/28 1/56 1/1680
6 ? 115.7 3/8 6 sb3 112.5 3/8 1/4 3/14 3/140 1/1400
7 ? 134.9 7/16 7 spdw 131.3 4/9 7/24 1/4 1/40 1/1200
8 dichas 154.2 1/2 8 mh 150.0 1/2 1/3 2/7 1/35 1/1050
9 ? 173.5 9/16 9 dsfirrm 168.8 4/7 3/8 9/28 9/280 3/2800
10 ? 192.8 5/8 10 tm3<tsf 187.5 5/8 5/12 5/14 1/28 1/840
11 ? 212 11/16 11 r< 206 2/3 11/24 11/28 11/280 11/8400
12 spithame 231.3 3/4 12 swtu 225.0 3/4 1/2 3/7 3/70 1/700
13 ? 250.6 13/16 13 pa 243.8 4/5 13/24 13/28 13/280 13/8400
14 ? 269.9 7/8 14 thoth 262.5 7/8 7/12 1/2 1/20 1/600
15 ? 289.1 15/16 15 šsp 281.3 1 5/8 15/28 3/56 1/560
16 pous 308.4 1 16 mhtf 300.0 1 2/3 4/7 2/35 1/525
17 ? 327.7 1 17 sa 318.8 1 17/24 17/28 17/280 17/8400
18 ? 347.0 1 18 imi 337.5 1 3/4 9/14 9/140 3/1400
19 ? 366.2 1 19 m 356.3 1 1/5 19/24 19/28 19/280 19/8400
20 pygon 385.5 5/4 20 Nbthyt 375.0 11/4 5/6 5/7 1/14 1/420
21 ? 404.8 21/16 21 sth 393.8 1 1/3 7/8 3/4 3/40 1/400
22 ? 424.1 11/8 22 sts 412.5 13/8 11/12 11/14 11/140 11/4200
23 ? 443.3 23/16 23 stir 431.3 14/9 23/24 23/28 23/280 23/8400
24 pechya 462.6 3/2 24 ptah 450.0 1 1/2 1 6/7 3/35 1/350
25 ? 481.9 25/16 25 gb 468.8 1 4/7 1 25/28 5/56 1/336
25.6 mcts 493.4 8/5 25.6 ma 480 13/5 16/15 32/35 16/175 8/2625
26 ? 501.2 1 3/8 26 k33 487.5 15/8 13/12 13/14 13/140 13/4200
27 ? 520.4 27/16 27 m3<t 506.3 1 2/3 9/8 27/28 27/280 9/2800
28 royal cubit 539.7 7/4 28 re 525.0 1 3/4 7/6 1.00 1/10 1/300
40 bema 771.0 5/2 40 gradus 750.0 2 1/2 5/3 1.43 1/7 1/210
48 yard 925.2 3 48 yard 900.0 3 2 1.71 6/35 1/175
72 xylon 1387.8 9/2 72 xylon 1350.0 4 1/2 3 2.57 9/35 3/350
80 passus 1542.0 5 80 passus 1500.0 5 10/3 2.86 2/7 1/105
96 orguia 1850.4 6 96 fathom 1800.0 6 4 3.43 12/35 1/87
160 akaina 3084 10 160 decempeda 3000 10 20/3 5.74 4/7 1/52
264 rod 5088.6 17264 rod 4950 16 1/2 11 9.43 33/35 1/32
280 hayt 5397 18 280 hayt 5250 17 1/2 35/3 10 1 1/30
1056 perch 20354.4 66 1056 perch 19800 66 44 37.7 132/35 1/8
1600 plthrn 30840 100 1600 plthrn 30000 100 200/3 57 40/7 4/21
1920 actus 37008 120 1920 acts 36000 120 80 68.57 48/7 8/35
2800 khet 53970 175 2800 khet 52500 175 350/3 100 10 1/3
3339 ar 64359 209 3339 3kr 62606 2082/3 1113/8 119 477/40 31/78
8400 minute 161910 525 8400 minute 157500 525 350 300 30 1
9600 stdn 185040 600 9600 stadion 180000 600 400 343 240/7 8/7
10000 stdm 192750 625 10000 stdm 187500 625 417 357 250/7 25/21
10560 frlng 203544 660 10560 frlng 198000 660 440 377 38 44/35
11520 cable 222048 720 11520 cbl 216000 720 480 411 288/7 48/35
12000 stade 231300 750 12000 std 225000 750 500 429 300/7 10/7
19200 diaulos 370080 1200 19200 dls 360000 1200 800 686 69 16/7
80000 milon 1542m 5000 80000 ml 1.5km 5000 3333 2857 285 200/2
84480 mile 1.6km 5280 84480 ml 1.6km 5280 3520 3017 302 352/35
115200 dlchs 2.22km 7200 115200 dlchs 2km 7200 4800 4114 411 14
280k .5l 5.4 17500 280000 .5l 5.3 17500 11667 10000 1000 33.3
560k l 10.8km 35000 560000 l 10.5km 35000 23333 20000 2000 66
576k sch 111 36000 576000 shn 10.8 36000 24000 20571 2057 69
1280k st 2.5 80000 1280000 st 2.4 80000 53452 45714 4571 152
6m dgr 111 359922 6m dgr 112.5 375000 250557 214285 21429 714

How user Egil's massive edit changed the whole nature of the page

First He proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing by culture rather than measure
On his own, over protest, he unilateraly did so
Then he decided to delete all reference to the original version
which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page

Ancient Measures by Culture

  • Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures
  • Ancient Persian weights and measures
  • Ancient Egyptian weights and measures
  • Ancient Indus Valley weights and measures
  • Ancient Greek weights and measures
  • Ancient Roman weights and measures
  • Ancient Vedic weights and measures
  • Ancient Chinese weights and measures
  • Ancient Arabic weights and measures
  • Ancient Hebrew weights and measures
Rktect7/31/05
Another way to approach the listing of measures would be to break it up by time and unit
These will eventually compare cultures in a less ethnocentric way (note pre-conquest Americas)
They are a work in progress requiring the names and values of many units be filled in
ideally they would also eventually get their value in increments of their own units.
  • Delete. A quote from
    Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures
    "232. e2 abzu-ta me nam-ta-ba
   233. siraraki-ce3 dijir lagacki-a gu2 mu-un-na-si-si
   234. na4 gen6-na kug la2-e-de3 gi-gur gen6-na gub-bu-de3
   235. jicba-an inim gen6-na kur-kur-ra [cu] ba-an-ja2-ja2-ne" Vegaswikian 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Vegaswikian: You are right, the articles
Ancient Mesopotamian weights and measures etc in their present form should be axed to. Same author, same problem. The issue with these articles is that once upon a time, there was reasonable content here. As you perhaps may deduct from the above, this is now impossible to maintain. -- Egil 09:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
rktect 8/6/05 why, in an article discussing sumerian standards of measure, would you
want to delete a cite in the language being discussed which proves the point being made?
I can see that if you don't know a lot about Sumerian standards of measure you might not
be interested but why burn the book that someone else might want to read?
This is a votes-for-deletion page. I have answered you here: User_talk:Rktect#Burning_of_books.3F -- Egil 12:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rktect 8/7/05
Egil, why won't you respond where others can read your response.
I asked you to tell me what your expertise is
in standards of measure of the copper age
This was your response, with my response to that interleaved
The most revealing part of your objection is as follows
User Egil comment

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of books?

User Egil comment

As the votes-for-deletion hopefully have shown, Wikipedia is not the right place for the type of material you are producing. I have given you a number of reasons before, and other Wikipedians have now also expressed their opinion.

rktect 8/7/05 The votes for deletion are ultimately reviewed
by a competant administrator who will probably decide
what to do with the articles based on their overall content.
You have made a number of false statements about them
which a competant administrator will probably pick up.
You have claimed they are original research when the articles
cite sources that are in their fifth printing and
in some cases date back to classical sources.
You have claimed they are just lists when in fact they are tables
You have claimed they have no value or are covered elsewhere
which is far from the case because they are comparative tables
which restore the comparitive nature of having lists of unit
values on the same page that you removed by putting them
on separate pages plus adds the utility of putting them
in a table form for comparison
What amazes me is that the articles were not even complete before
you began demanding their deletion. What that tells me is that you
are afraid of discussing their content.
Egil, your massive edit changed the whole nature of the page
You proposed to "cleanup" the page by catagorizing
by culture rather than measure
On your own, over protest, you unilateraly did so
Then you decided to delete all reference to the original version
which preserved the comparison of units between cultures on a single page
User Egil comment

We are not taking of burning of books. The Internet is full of places where you can put your content. Very many free of charge. I defintely suggest you move your material to other such locations before your valuable material is deleted.

: rktect 8/7/05 I seriously doubt it will be deleted
as I can see that others are now aware of your activities
User Egil comment

As you may have understood, in Wikipedia, discussions are resolved by consensus. It does not matter if you can read Sumerian, and understand hieroglyphs. Probably the common masses, i.e. Wikipedians, are not capable of understanding nor appreciating material of such extraordinary intelligence and knowledge that you are producing.

Whatever the reason, I suggest you go elsewhere. -- Egil 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

: rktect 8/7/05
Actually if you read the deletion page it informs that the
votes are used as a guideline but that it is up to the judgement
of the administrator what action if any should be taken
particularly when the page is just being created and is still
being actively worked on every day it would be the normal
policy to keep it and wait to see how well it is ultimatly
polished and perfercted.
  • Delete as for the other articles in this series. Ken 13:01, August 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 --Allen3 talk 13:05, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in Medieval Europe

Same reason as for

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Additionally, this is utterly broken as a concept because the units were often dramatically different from city to city and from time to time, even in the same country. For anyone interested, see Medieval weights and measures. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
] 

* Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative, good external links. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
updated and under mediation

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Egil claims "this is utterly broken as a concept
because the units were often dramatically different from city to city
and from time to time, even in the same country"
yet its very easy to see by looking at a list of German cities
that these "dramatic differances" are nothing more than a multiple of earlier standards.
Its not always the same multiple or the same standard and
in some cases they have multiple standards but its still reconstructable.
Part of what I am doing is giving the unit and the multiple for comparison
I can go back and compare what Ogilby said about the equivalence in 1607
shortly after Elizabeth changed the statute in 1593 and see that it makes
a difference what the reporters standard is at the time.
Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures
makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.
Medieval standards are different than copper age standards
because there are many references to their having been copied from Greek or Roman
units already well established in the popular literature as opposed
to obscure technical publications written in dead languages
so they are much easier to document and much more accessible web sources.
As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several
decimals of mm, medieval standards are not precise to decimal mm
or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.
For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference
to sharing a standard (as with the Roman surveyor Hyginus Gromaticus
who traced the dimensions of local fields back to the standards established
by Claudius Ptolomy as the Romans first entered Germanica
which was cited on the discussion page for ancient weights and measures
There are long term investigations of the units involved and the results
are now considered basic historical fact.
In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective
to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",
"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer
histories that have been explored in the literature.
Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological
period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities
and differances much clearer
The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid
as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and
in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with
translations given in English
  • Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rktect's claim notwithstanding, there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article. Nandesuka 19:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Presumably you are aware that you are proposing to delete subsections of a larger page
      • on which the discussion exists at length and that user Egil massively rewrote the
      • entire main page to create the subsections labled by culture rather than by standard
      • so that it couldn't be as easily observed where the similarities were.
Rktect: 8/5/05
If you could provide a list of all the names of medieval measuring units
even for one year out of a period of over a millenia, that would be pretty impressive.
In some standard reference works people have tried to provide such a list by city,
or by country and region or province and then by city, generally focusing on major
periods of redefinition such as Queen Elizabeth's changes to the mile by statute in 1593
or the effect of the Metric system being passed into law in France in 1812.
Klein's "The World of Measurement" is pretty good that way, so are a couple of on-line sites
that compare various definitions of land.
In the standard reference works in which there is an attempt to collect them systematically
giving examples that match a definition, comparision tables are very useful.
I have seen a few attempts in the collection of medieval measures to show
where a measure is geo-commensurate or based on Greek or Roman standards but
in general the effect of Egils massive edit is that it no longer is easy to
compare one set of influences with another in two different kingdoms let alone
in two different periods.
On the Ancient Weights and Measures discussion page when user Egil first proposed this
I put sufficient facts to explain why its not useful to look at weights and measures
in isolation divided up not according to commercial interest but political interest.
The point he seems not to get is that measures define property and commercial interests
are very resistant to having someone change the rules when they are in the middle of
their transactions.
A really good book on this subject is "The Medieval Machine" by Jean Gimpel
  • Delete as for all the other articles in this series. Ken 13:04, August 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 --Allen3 talk 13:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in Iron Age Europe

Same reason as for

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
] 


* Keep, Valuable, uses links to ancient maps and commentaries, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
updated and under mediation

Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures
makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.
Iron age standards are different than copper age or medieval standards
because this is the period when the Greek and Roman and for that matter Phoenician
empires are heavily engaged in trade with Europe.
Traders moved overland, up rivers and along coasts which they surveyed.
Rivers like the Dneiper, Dneister, Danube and Don
led deep into Germanica to connect with rivers like the Oder and Rhine.
As the Greek and Roman traders moved into into Germany well in advance of
any conquering armies they carried with them standards of measure for
commerce and agriculture.
These Greek and Roman units are already well established in the popular literature
as opposed to obscure technical publications written in dead languages
for copper and iron age units so they are much easier to document
and have much more accessible web sources.
As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several
decimals of mm, iron age standards are not precise to decimal mm
or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.
For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference
to sharing a standard (as with Ptolomy;s geography) which was cited on the
discussion page for ancient weights and measures, there are long term
investigations of the units involved and the results
are now considered basic historical fact.
In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective
to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",
"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer
histories that have been explored in the literature.
Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological
period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities
and differances much clearer
The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid
as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and
in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with
translations given in English
  • Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rktect's claim notwithstanding, there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article. Nandesuka 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article has no introduction and no useful information, it's simply a list. Xaa 00:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as for all the other articles in this series. Ken 13:02, August 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 --Allen3 talk 12:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Standards of measure in the Jemdet Nasr

  • Keep, Valuable, well researched, well cited, interesting, informative. Rktect 7:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
updated and under mediation

Same reason as for

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Copper Age above. In this case, various values are filled in. But the entire concept of a table with exact 1/100 mm units is really meaningless. The subject is already covered, as mentioned. Egil 08:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

rktect8/6/05 Perhaps user Egil only sees what he wants to see
This is the table he is refering to, cites are now on the page
The idea is to see where and when standards are changed or converted
by comparison between more specific times and places than "Mesopotamia" or "Egypt"
which are civilizations that span several millenia each

Table of Unit Comparisons

Jemdet Nasr Units Dilmun Elam Sumer Akad Mycenian Egypt Notes
Dilmun fingers šu 15 ? ? ? ? ?
Elamite fingers ? šusi 16.67 ? ? ? ?
Sumerian fingers ? ? shusi 17.67 ? ? ?
Akkadian fingers ? ? ? sheshi 20 ? ?
Egyptian fingers ? ? ? ? ? db 18.75
Mycenean fingers ? ? ? ? ? daktylos 19.275
thumbs 18 20 21.2 uban 24 ? mtr 22.5 ? mtr = precise
condylos 30 33.3 35.3 40 37.5 38.55
palms 60 66.67 70.67 shepsi 80 ? ssp 75 ?
hands qat 75 83.33 88.33 100 ? drt 93.75 ?
fists 90 100 106 120 ? amm 112.5 ?
spans šu-dù-a 150 zipaþ 166.67 zapaþ šu.bad 176.67 200 ? spd 187.5 ?
feet ? ? ? 300 ? bw 300 ? bw = 1 ft
remen ? ? ? 353.53 ? rmn 375 ?
small cubits ? ? ? 500 ? mh 450 ?
large cubits ? ? ? nibw 600 ? mh 525 ? ni bw = 2 ft
double remen ? ? ? 707 ? rmn750


Rktect 6:03, 5 August 2005 (EST)

Looking at unit standards of measure comparatively by cultures
makes it much easier to see who shared measures with whom.
Egil says the subject is already covered but that is false
Associating units with cultures makes it appear that every time a new culture arises
it reinvents the wheel and starts over again from scratch with new standards of measure
that have nothing in common with those that went before.
That is clearly not the case as measures are used to define property and people
tend not to like strangers coming around and messing with what's theirs.
The important thing about this period are the letters documenting the desire
to establish common standards between countries which have been placed on
the discussion page where anybody can read them.
In this case in particular I would point out this is a work in progress
since it takes time both to do the data entry and translate the cites
from the original languages.
The standards of the Jemdet Nasr are both similar to and different from
copper age or iron age or medieval standards. In many cases they are better
documented by weights than by land units because this is the period when
the Sumerians first became heavily engaged in trade with Melluha, Makkan,
Dilmun and Egypt and first needed agreed upon international standards
of weights and measures.
Its the period in which the first archaeological and written evidence
of standards appears and in many cases the values of goods and services
are directly related to their standards of measure.
Traders moved overland, up rivers and along coasts which they surveyed.
Rivers like the Indus, Tigris, Euphrates and Nile connected with the Erythrian Sea
In the case of the Nile by means of overland portages and eventually a canal
As the Sumerian and Hurrian traders moved into Syrio-Anatolia well in advance of
any conquering armies they carried with them standards of measure for
commerce and agriculture.
These Sumerian units are not always already well established in the popular literature
Sometimes they are found in obscure technical publications written in dead languages
copper and iron age units are easier to document and have much more accessible web sources
so only now are they begining to emerge on line as citable primary sources.
As to giving their values to the nearest whole mm rather than to several
decimals of mm, Sumerian standards are not precise to decimal mm
or variant to 10's of mm and generally best established to +/- 1 mm per foot.
For those cultures for whom there is a written contemporary primary reference
to sharing a standard (as with the rod of Gudea) which was cited on the
discussion page for ancient weights and measures, there are long term
investigations of the units involved and the results
are now considered basic historical fact.
In the past many people have applied an ethnocentric perspective
to "their measures" stating that they are "Anglo Saxon", "German",
"Danish" French or "English" when they actually have much longer
histories that have been explored in the literature.
Being able to see the connection broken down by conventional archaeological
period rather than simply lumped to gether as ancient makes the similarities
and differances much clearer
The objection that these studies are original research is also invalid
as their original sources have been cited on the discussion page and
in some cases transcriptions of the original ancient language with
translations given in English
  • Delete as per all the other articles in this series. Nandesuka 17:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rktect's claim notwithstanding, there are no sources cited on the discussion page for this article. Nandesuka 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's [cleaned up beforehand.] Citations, better introduction, wiki format, etc. Please note: Citations do not go on a talk page or on some other page the user has to click to find, they go on the bottom of the page you have created. Xaa 23:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as for all the other articles in this series. Ken 13:05, August 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Diliani

Not notable and not

verifiable (no Google hits on Nick or Nicholas Diliani)- Silver149 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as non-verifiable. Hall Monitor 21:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete notability not established in the article. Tobycat 21:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor point: the requirement is "assertion", not "establishment" of note. There's a small, but important, difference.-Splash 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I smell a hoax. The article talks about George, but is titled Nick. I get no Googles at all for any of the names in the article. -Splash 23:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/unverified. And it switches between George and Nick...am I reading that right? --Etacar11 01:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article claims that the subject worked at the U.S. Embassy in Israel in 1914. This seems unlikely, since Israel was not an independent country until 34 years later. In 1914 it was still part of the Ottoman Empire. Pburka 16:36, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - for reasons above; it's a feeble joke. - DavidWBrooks 12:59, 8 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 19:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avarik

Delete Biography of an unknown troll, one of the most vandalized pages. Vanity, not notable. Avarik is a Star Wars character, a google search for Avarik, without "Star Wars", returns only 21 different results. Possible Speedy Deletion KevinGovaerts 10:36:41, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hobbs (footballer)

Just forvarding an anon VfD, the reason being not notable. feydey 11:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question--it says "Hobbs agreed to a pre-contract with Liverpool and will officially join the club on his seventeenth birthday. He also agreed on a three-year professional contract at Anfield and will be placed into the Liverpool Academy set-up."--Does this mean he doesn't actually see playing time at the highest level games? Is he in the equivalent of the minor leagues, or something like that? Meelar (talk) 13:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • He will probably play in the reserves or u-19 team first (there aren't any 'minor leagues' that he would play in, though some would argue that the Lincoln City team he was signed from could be considered to be - they play in a league 3 levels down from Liverpool) - but I can't actually find anywhere which says he'll be placed into the Academy (the Academy deals with the 'underage teams') set-up. Not to say that that won't happen though. There are other footballers out there with pages that won't get to see first team game time this season - should we delete/vfd their pages too (by the way this is a serious question, not a cutting remark - I'm pretty new to wiki)? Cursive 14:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professional soccer player.
    Kappa 19:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep He's played first team football for Lincoln (albeit 3 minutes) and it appears that he is signing a professional contract with Liverpool, rather than a traineeship contract, so he's on the second rung of their squad ladder. Note for Americans: Liverpool are the European Champions, so he's not a young player at some average club. Osomec 04:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, maybe hoax. Never heard of him.  Grue  19:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definately not a hoax [24], [25], [26], and very unlikely to be vanity - original author has plenty of edits [27]. Cursive 20:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for inclusion, partly because Liverpool is a big club, partly because Arsenal (another big club) were close to signing him. Whilst I personally wouldn't have added an entry for him just yet (why him, and not any of the other young players Liverpool have, for example?), I certainly wouldn't delete the entry now it's here. KeithD 07:25, 9 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 keep. Nomination was based on a vandalised version of the article, not the actual article; nomination has been withdrawn. --

talk
16:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Theforce.net

Patent Nonsense Botsie 11:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • *Bashful look*. Thanks for pointing that out; I missed it entirely. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 14:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooops. Didn't think of checking that. Forgive the newbie. Botsie 14:46, August 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 --Allen3 talk 12:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

NILU

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Tony Sidaway. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bluecat

seems to be a hoax page. only linked to from List of subcultures, only has one edit in history, nothing remotly similar showing up when googling for related sites -- MilkMiruku 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • But would the cat qualify because it has inherent Bluetooth capability ? --Simon Cursitor 14:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The BlueCat linux distro is written in
CamelCase though --MilkMiruku 14:34, 5 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 (no consensus). For those interested in vote count there were 5 delete, 3 keep, and with no comments which sway me away from the "two-thirds" guideline, this article defaults to keep. There is however a concern about the verifiability of the subject, so it may appear on VFD again unless better sources are provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peg boy

Vandalism, surely

Al 14:52, 5 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. -Splash 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Bano

No meaningful content except external link. Vanity? Psu256 15:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand — apparently a Pakistani ghazal singer of some note.[30][31] — RJH 16:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable. Psu, if you see a page that's only an external link, you can tag it for speedy deletion, if you don't want to expand it.
    Kappa 17:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Notable singer Forbsey 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic.com notes her as an Indian classical and popular musician which is consistent with profile in Pakistan. Keep and hopefully expand. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 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 --Allen3 talk 12:48, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Jackie Noyes

Editors, you are hereby served a cease and desist letter. Forget about deletion. Every word of the entry is factually true.

Below I enumerate my options: - Trying to Slashdot.org the news of this delete attempt. The /. site is read by a million plus geeks (free-as-in-speech advocated) people daily. They would be grossly enraged about such low in their beloved Wikipedia. - Telling BBC. They are not fond of the US humanwrongs-wise.

  • The above comment was made unsigned by 195.70.48.242 (author of the article) ([32]). Cursive 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the vfd notice was removed by 195.70.48.242 only 8 minutes after originally put up by 195.92.40.49 (see [33])- I am only bringing this to attention because of the revert of the original vfd, and the above letter, wasn't sure where else to put this. Cursive 15:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs to be cleaned up and wikified. Possibly merged to a "prison rape" article. I've been Googling for the story, but haven't found anything in mainstream media yet.
    Al 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete — an ugly story, but it doesn't seem notable in and of itself. This VfD discussion needs to be monitored for edits by 195.92.40.49. — RJH 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, an ugly story, but I've found no indication that this is some sort of "international scandal" or even that this woman's case is being used as a reason to get the law changed. Either of those things would make this story (and thus the victim) notable. As an aside, the original author's reaction to this nomination is rather amusing. Neither Slashdot nor the BBC would care about a single article being deleted from Wikipedia, and using this threatening tactic in defense of an article isn't going to change anyone's mind. android79 16:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Article has merit but is sorely in need of work.Gateman1997 16:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the story is false, delete as hoax. If the story is true, delete as not notable. Nasty business indeed, but not encyclopedic nasty business. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, and blackmail sucks. RasputinAXP 16:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. And slashdot away, you really think anyone cares? Nandesuka 17:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wouldn't have bothered voting but amused by the idea that the BBC would care.
    Agentsoo 17:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Not an exceptionally notable crime, as it doesn't seem to have attracted extensive media attention. Obviously most rape and murder crimes that don't happen in very large cities will garner at least some notice in local papers. --Icelight 18:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated by Starblind and to flip the bird to the threat by the author. -EDM 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Carnildo 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, but if for some unlikely reason it's kept, it needs to be run through a few NPOV filters. 23skidoo 00:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Starblind. The story happened, but sadly, it's simply not notable and the article is not encyclopedic - it's more a news story like one might read on Slashdot. Xaa 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sad but nn. "Cease and desist"? That's a laugh. --Etacar11 01:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we have article about the criminal bitch PFC Lynnie exploiting detainees like animals, than we should have article about a detainee being exploited. If we only carry the criminals, then Wiki is aiming for a new low. Wiki is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so the amount of media attention is not a measure for inclusion. If it were, Wiki should be called Reader's Digest instead. But as far as news go, Jackie's federal venue civil rights violation lawsuit series will certainly make it into the big news sooner or later, so why not have the article now?
As for Slashdot, they already the carry the news from yesterday, that wikipedia is starting to censor officially (read it here: http://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/05/2012229.shtml?tid=187&tid=95). I think this Jackie Noyes article is perfect example why wikipedia will fail. People delete info they find disturbing and the majority of netizens are in USA, so only US-pinkglasses info can be posted and wiki has less and less to do with reality over time. However, I need to warn, that it is EN.wikipedia.org and not US.wikipedia.org, so you cannot sanitize this wiki of all US-condemning info.
By the way, the Jackie case was an international affair, because it was the AI who did most to get her and the baby out of prison. They secured the support of a european monarch, mother herself, who contacted the wisconsin governor via a mutual friend, an influental lobbist-businessman and this really set things in motion. But this is not offical info that could get into wikipedia. — (Unsigned comment by 213.178.101.126; user's 1st edit.)
    • The Slashdot story you link to describes greater editorial control, not censorship, and if you would bother to read the comments, many Slashdotters think this is a necessary thing to add to Wikipedia. I'm personally ambivalent about the idea. Please point out above the voters you think wish to "censor" this particular article based on finding the article "disturbing." This is not censorship; this is editing. android79 14:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Jimbo has officially said the aforementioned story is complete bunk. Yelyos 07:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Prisoners, and mental patients, get raped in prisons and mental institutions around the world every day. It's sad. Scandalous, even. It would be instructive, and encyclopedic, to have information on the incidence of such events in various countries around the world. Anons and slashdotters, feel free to make such an article and include this person in it on an equal NPOV basis with other identified victims of prison abuse worldwide. This person, alone, is unencyclopedic for reasons of disproportionality in view of her non-notability. Oh, and in view of the last anon post, add to the reasons for deletion: conspiracy theory. -EDM 17:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I think, given the media coverage, that this is notable enough for Wikipedia. However, it really needs to be cleaned up, and should be linked from
    Nicole Morin is the relative media coverage in each case, and if Jackie has become some sort of media figure representing custodial rape, by all means we should include the article. Blackmail is unfortunate, but it shouldn't factor in our decision to keep an article unrelated to the perpetrator. Yelyos
    07:07, 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 --Allen3 talk 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Noon hour basketball

nn local basketball club - but gently folks this is a first attempt --

(?) 15:36, 5 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. -Splash 20:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arab culture in france

In its current state, it is just dump site for names. lots of issues | leave me a message 15:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improved, nomination withdrawn. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — the subject is valid; the content is meaningless. Might as well start over. — RJH 15:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is okay, just enough context is given. It should be written in w:fr: and then translated & transwikied over though. Dunc|☺ 16:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject could be interesting, though as is, is just a stub. Grcampbell| 16:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Xaa 00:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone has created an
    Arab culture in France article with this name title as a redirect. That seems to me to be an elegant solution. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep and expand. -- Darwinek 07:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is it actually OK to remove the VfD tag when the nominator withdraws a nomination? There was one delete vote, and some people (not in this discussion, apparently) favor the mass deletion of ethnicity-related articles. -- Visviva 12:59, 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 MERGE to Rathfarnham. Will do in a min. -Splash 00:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Orchard Pub(Dublin)

Non notable pub. 80 google results.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 15:51, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 12:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Eyal Tarazi

Dentistry instructor. 3 Google hits. Possible vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 15:58, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 12:41, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Phantasy World

Non-notable and website spam - Also poor (promotional) structure 172.214.177.252 15:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be worth looking at the whole "List of popular MOOs" section at
MediaMOO, but overall I'm thinking it would make sense to merge the significant parts from those individual articles into MOO and have one good article instead of a smattering of trivial ones. I'm not sure, however, if that discussion is in-scope for this particular VfD. --RoySmith 13:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: It is unknown to this writer the difference between said article and other articles under the same topic heading. The topic heading is noted as "List of Popular MOOs", and it is obvious to even the most casual observer that the said article is 'on topic' and according to the topic. The writer of the article did not create the topic. 207.69.138.7 02:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save on topic. --207.69.137.202 22:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Could you provide us a reason why this should be in Wikipedia not just "on topic." It is spam as I see it. --J. Nguyen 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Xaa 00:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. I also agree with Roysmith here - These pages may be seen as trivial and competetive advertising - Maybe a section on each of the MOOs is required on the main MOO page to create one substancial page. However I see that LambdaMOO is deserving of it's own page due to the insight it gives. Kipper2258 11:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into MOO. -- Visviva 13:39, 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 --Allen3 talk 12:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Michael hazelberg

Non-notable/vanity/self promotion, related to Bronson Pharr and Bronson Pharr & Bronson Pharr Associates. Delete --Etacar11 16:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a lot of pages on Wikipedia that don't belong in an encyclopedia. You people obviously have a vendetta against Bronson Pharr. I say keep it. (Unsigned vote by 172.142.197.160 (talk · contribs), first edit)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 12:35, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ditsworthy Warren, Dartmoor

A bio of a farmer. Likely relative wrote this entry. lots of issues | leave me a message 16:17, 5 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 merge and redirect to

Aramean. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Arameans

The Arameans are an extinct, possibly fictious nationality that is only mentioned in the Old Testament. The page in question lists 3 names and at one time listed 5 (2 were wrong). It serves no purpose and could *easily* be assimilated into the proper, existing Arameans page. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:30, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 17:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

MN Chat

Delete It's... an IRC channel. About Minnesota. With maybe 50 users. I think we're scraping the bottom of non-notability barrel here. Not to mention that

WP:NOT a directory, which should apply to IRC and Usenet etc... channels just as much as phone numbers. Icelight
16:41, August 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 SPEEDIED by Niteowlneils. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Probabilistic Graphical Models

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, or a place for original research. However, if the article can be replaced by a definition of the term, it can be kept. --202.149.55.42 16:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From the article: "This is the new page for discussions on Probabilistic Graphical by students". Oh, no it isn't. Wikipedia is not a free forum host. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to have confused Wikipedia with the general concept of a wiki. Delete.
    Agentsoo 17:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy delete. Contact attempt. Nabla 23:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,
    WP:NOT Xaa 00:25, 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 speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax which isn't very funny.

FCYTravis 19:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Humberto Herdocia

Some guy just put up a fake bio

This is good Vote tampering by Johntes (talk · contribs) -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • This is not good. Speedy Delete. Lame-o attempt at a "funny" vanity page. Possibly a BJAODN attempt, but neither funny or interesting enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy Delete for reasons stated by starblind.-- 17:06, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

About Angels And God Consciousness

Someone's personal spiritual theories. Not encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth 16:51, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:56, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Kaegan Blackthorne

Apparent Fanfiction, google brings up no hits and is not part of any Ultima background and should be deleted. RasputinAXP 16:51, 5 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. -Splash 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Story
2

No vote. This article had a hugely messy

previous VfD. It was overwhelmingly rewritten during the course of it, and the rewriter suggested relisting on VfD. There was only one useful vote subsequent to the rewrite, and thus I am taking the rewriter's advice. -Splash 16:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep It is now a much more useful article than when it was originally listed. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be a valid article about a minor (somewhat)relegious movement. Remarkably NPOV for such, actually. --Icelight 18:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good catch Splash! =) Xaa 00:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable enough article. I think that part at the end is pointless, about using the term sarcastically. Why is that there? --Etacar11 01:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current state. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a serious article about an important strain of thought. I agree with Etacar11 that the sarcastic Term section is out of place. A quick Google search suggests that the phrase great story in common usage is positive not sarcastic. -- JimR 06:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After my rewrite, and the subsequent modifications, this is a far more useful piece. Mmmbeer 20:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks Mmmbeer! MBDowd 11:02, 8 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 or merge, but not delete. Discussion of whether to keep or merge is for the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red screen of death

WP:NOT crystal ball. Dunc|☺ 17:06, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Different languages mean different meanings.

Nearly-coherent essay that, when you get down to it, is original research. Also it's poorly named. DS 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Original Research. -Satori 18:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; essay, OR. Jaxl | talk 19:12, 5 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. – malathion talk 06:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Kansteiner

The wife of a notable politician is not in and of herself notable. DS 17:31, 5 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. -Splash 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Field Marshal (India)

This article is nominated for deletion as I could find no evidence that the rank has ever in fact existed. During

Husnock 17:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Send to cleanup. Google search confirms many instances. Still, the article is way to short to be useful in its current form. Mistercow 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Real and notable position but article is too short to be useful in its current form. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 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 keep (but a less cumbersome title may be in order). --

talk
05:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum

50% nonsense, and when that's removed there's not much left. I don't see the point of the list. Tim Pope 18:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonsense. Nandesuka 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is no longer nonsense. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, why shouldn't wikipedia users be able to find examples of fictional characters with autism?
    Kappa 19:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete original, um, "research". Or does Melville actually say anywhere that Captain Ahab is "on the autistic spectrum"? Uppland 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are dozens of sources which say that Raymond in
      Kappa 22:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete as much of it is unverifiable original research.
    FCYTravis 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Listing is highly subjective, so qualifies as original research. ManoaChild 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. I would vote to keep if enough is left after the subjective elements are removed. ManoaChild 06:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Possibly move to fictional characters with autistism if all speculation (Ralph Wiggum? Bert? Come on...) is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 22:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Changed to tentaive keep now speculation is removed. Sabine's Sunbird 23:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What is left if all speculation is dropped? (This is not intended as a rhetorical question.) Certainly most, maybe even all, of the second part of the list would have to be dropped. Can all of the characters in the first section be verified? ManoaChild 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, all the second section would have to go. It's speculation. A lsit of characters that have autism from fiction is a potentially useful list (and would be a better page with a small line or two about said characters). A page of unsubstanciated guesses, that is not encyclopedic. Sabine's Sunbird 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm all for tossing the speculation section of the page, but I think a list of canonically autistic characters is useful and no more unreasonable than any other list. --Ambyr 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but delete the speculative part unless the speculation can be documented (e.g. if the speculation was covered in the media). Pburka 01:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculation and original research. Kaibabsquirrel 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which part of the list do you think is speculation? They all seem verifiable to me. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic is verifiable and encyclopedic. The objections above all refer to an earlier version of the list that was easily improvable, demonstrating that this was properly a matter for cleanup, not VfD. Factitious 23:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. However, anon appears to intends to add his own speculation - should be watched - Skysmith 08:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article in its current state is useful. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list is interesting. Brownman40 07:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, and a worthy study, so far as the fiction actually confirms that the character is autistic and not simply implied nor
    fanon. - Gilgamesh 04:01, 13 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell

Vanity and non-encyclopedic Gorrister 19:01, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 12:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Norris

Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy. These kind of articles can now be speedied (see
    WP:CSD), which helps reduce clutter on VfD (and is easier, just insert {{db|reason=vanity (CSD #7)}}). Brighterorange 19:52, 5 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. humblefool®Deletion Reform 20:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanjali Banerjee

Vanity Gorrister 19:03, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ontological guilt

Unsavable original research and amazingly POV. A few days ago, I deleted an obnoxious picture gallery that consisted of images of George W. Bush, Hitler, and the Holocaust (and I'm a solid Democrat, by the way). This article is the first of the 174 Google hits on "ontological guilt". Article is the sole contribution of User:Delita Figaro, who has not returned to defend her work. --goethean ॐ 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete; totally OR. Brighterorange 19:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; OR and it doesn't conform to some of the most basic standards of style on wikipedia. Mistercow 21:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hopelessly original research. Tobycat 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Not NPOV. If it wasn't completely OR, I would say that nearly all of it was, and that the concept of ontological guilt is not at all widespread or consistent. (However, many google searches will return wikipedia articles 1st in a list--I don't think that by itself shows anything.) WhiteC 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,
    WP:BRD. =P Xaa 00:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete OR. Even written in first person... --Etacar11 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term seems to have very little currency, if any. Matuszek 17:38, 9 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dinger

Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 19:15, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Glamazon X

"Glamazon" is a fairly obvious portmanteau with lots of Google hits, but not when it's combined with what seem like keywords from this article, like "blankenship" or "talexia". Hoax? DS 19:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Searches reveal nothing useful. Whether hoax or actual fiction, it's certainly non-notable. Qualifies for deletion. Tobycat 21:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, a search on "Glamazon X" yielded 3 unique hits, 2 of them porn. --Etacar11 02:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actual graphic novel, not a porn site. Please don't delete this. It means a lot to a lot of people to have this listed as an entry here. Thank you. (Unsigned vote by 24.117.199.139 (talk · contribs))

Glamazon X is a comic book character familiar to gays in the South Mississippi area. Please don't delete this entry. (Unsigned vote by RWFanMS (talk · contribs), second edit)

Okay, then, tell us more about her, and in what way she's relevant. This is what VfD is for.DS 01:07, 8 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 REDIRECT to Bionic Bunny. The merging has already been done as a result of the VfD on that article, and the suggestion to merge to Arthur (cartoon) would seem redundant now that the author of that comment has voted to keep Bionic Bunny. -Splash 20:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Bunny

Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to

Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:22, 5 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. -Splash 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic Bunny

Simply being a character on Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this character on the show. The show is notability, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to

Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep or at the very least don't redirect to the cartoon. Bionic Bunny is also a character in the books, and even has his own spin-off (The Bionic Bunny Show, ISBN 0316109924) which predates the Arthur cartoon show by more than a decade. The Bionic Bunny Show was also made into an episode of Reading Rainbow. BB also has merchandise, such as a doll, and scores decently on Google (16,800 Google hits). Redirecting Bionic Bunny to the Arthur TV show would be like redirecting Bugs Bunny to Space Jam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the article is expanded to reflect how prevalent the Bionic Bunny character actually is I'll be happy to withdraw my vfd request. As the article currently stands, I wouldn't have known any of that about the books (and didn't!) without you saying something. -Soltak 21:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an insignificant subject, but compared to some other things we keep, this isn't that bad. BB definently a recurring character in the Arthurverse. ike9898 21:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Andrew Lenahan CanadianCaesar 22:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almafeta 22:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Withdrawn following large-scale expansion by Starblind. Great job on the expansion, by the way :-) -Soltak 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. It's a solid 12 paragraphs now. No hard feelings, of course, since the previous stub was mighty slim, and I fully understand why someone might nominate it for VfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, if it's necessary... Wow. Starblind, this is one of the reasons Wikipedia is great. Almafeta 21:27, 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 merge and redirect – Ryan Delaney talk 08:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Ducks

Simply being a facet of Arthur does not confer notability, regardless of the prevalence of this item on the show. The show is notable, every character and plot device is not. Delete or Merge to

Arthur (cartoon). -Soltak 19:21, 5 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. -Splash 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Portland High School, Portland, Maine

  • "It's located in Portland, Maine." is barely even a bloody stub! I don't want to get into that ridiculous "every school is notable" nonsense, but if somebody wants to start an article they should know more about the topic than its geographical location! Delete -Soltak 19:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please doing this all the time is totally against jimbos wishes Yuckfoo 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned initially this is completely independent of the schools debate. This vfd is motivated by an article devoid of content. If recreated later with actual information, I would not nominate it for deletion. -Soltak 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no content. It can be recreated when someone has something to say about it. --Tim Pope 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please note that we have a speedy criterion for articles that merely rephrase the title. Gazpacho 19:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that this article demonstrates how utterly bankrupt such a policy is. I had never heard of this school, but with only the title of the school and its location I was able to write an undeletable article in a few minutes. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy it, but if recreated with verifiable content, then it should be kept. Brighterorange 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page has been tagged for speedy deletion -Soltak 19:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. King Middle School, also in Portland, has a similar VfD entry. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did what the person who nominated this article should have done instead--what we are supposedly here to do--research and expand. This is the second oldest high school in the US, the third high school to be established in the new country, and among its famous alumni were Robert Peary and John Ford, the award winning movie director. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something in your research is wrong. At least 4 schools founded pre-1800 still operate in the U.S.: the Phillips Academies, Boston Latin, and Milton. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:20, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You're right. My edit said that the school was the second older public high school still operating in the US, but I omitted the word public in my vote here. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • remerge following undeletion. --Tim Pope 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    schools. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Nothing was undeleted. The article was properly recreated after I speedily deleted the contentless and unhelpful subsubsubsubsubstub that had been created. Kudos to those who turned it into a proper article.
    FCYTravis 17:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
  • Following rewrite my vote is keep Everyone knows I rarely vote this way on a school article, but I think the age of the institution confers notability. -Soltak 19:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - notability clearly established. Dunc|☺ 20:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep now that it has been made into a good article, and its notability has been made clear. Salsb 20:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, yet again. Next time try improving the article instead of deleting it. —RaD Man (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would've tagged it for deletion even if it wasn't a one sentence stub. Schools aren't inherently noteworthy. And before anyone even gets started, I know that Wikipedia isn't paper, but it's also not a junkyard. The only reason I changed my vote to keep was because the age of the institution is notable. -Soltak 21:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'll be watching your taggings carefully for a while. There is no CSD for a school article on grounds of non-notability. You were right to bring this to VfD. It would have made more sense to do some research--it's what you're supposed to be here for. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to have misunderstood. I'm well aware that there's no CSD for non-notability. I tagged the article for speedy deletion, and that request was favorably acted upon, because the original article had no content other than "It's located in Portland, Maine." What I was referring to was the fact that I personally believe that the majority of articles regarding schools do not belong on Wikipedia due to the fact that while education is inherently notable, the buildings where instruction occurs are not. It would've made more sense to actually read my statement before commenting -- it's what admins are supposed to be here for. -Soltak 22:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrongly speedied articles, particularly schools, are always resurrected (I should know, I usually do it myself). It is wrong to speedy an article on a school solely because it only correcly locates the school--that is all we need to expand it. I'm taking the liberty of moving the school building/homeschooling debate to the talk page of this VfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable alumni, second-oldest public HS in the USA. ESkog 16:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. Gazpacho 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, new version shows acceptable level of notabilityGateman1997 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough.
    Beta m (talk
    )
  • Keep. Please do at least some research on topics before resorting to deletion. VfD is crowded enough without pointless nominations like this one. Factitious 22:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ediot

neologism descriptive of the article creator. DS 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving to Wiktionary. There were about 5500 Google hits, but it's a neologism for sure. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete (or speedy as I think this is actually an attack page). Not to be confused with
    Ren Höek's "eeeediot". Brighterorange 22:07, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 12:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

CakePHP

WP:ISNOT a PHP manual. DS 19:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or merge with another article on PHP. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Etacar11 02:06, 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 --Allen3 talk 12:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Evil Incorporated

Some bizarre conspiracy theory that lacks references (Google , context, etc. Or maybe it's about a

gaming clan. Dunc|☺ 20:37, 5 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 copyvio. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frost & Sullivan

advertising, cut and paste from promotional text, obvious copyvio Sdedeo 20:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted after listing on
WP:CP
  • Sure, delete, but the copyright guys should get to it. -D. Wu 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's copyvio, there's no need to bring it here too.
    WP:CP helps take some of the VfD strain. -Splash
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

365 Tomorrows

But so far it has only 4 (yup a 96hr old website) not many more tomorrows here I think. --

(?) 21:11, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dj itch

Non-notable DJ, hoping his skills will expand. Official website is a

MySpace page. the wub "?/!" 21:24, 5 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. -Splash 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ID eNTITY

This was put to VFD just a few weeks ago. However, it only received three votes, and I believe there was some confusion, so I'm nominating again (if anyone thinks this is inappropriate, please direct to my talk page). "Id entity" roto (Roto being a character in the story) receives just 20 Google hits. I understand it's been published, but being published doesn't necessarily mean it's notable enough. First VFD can be found below. ral315 21:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®Deletion Reform 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ID eNTITY

This article was speedy deleted as nonsense, but was undeleted after discussion at WP:VFU. This appears to be some sort of cartoon. I myself am unsure of whether this cartoon is notable so no vote. If kept the article will need some wikifikation/cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I already said I'd fix it up and such... I'm planning on doing it when I get back home from Connecticut on Friday of next week. Solomaxwell 23:06, 20 July 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 20:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baja California Rat Snake

As it stands this article probably could be speedied, but I'm leaving it open to vote for the benefit of the poster. I have nothing against this snake or an article about it. However, the article doesn't tell me anything I can't figure out simply by looking at the name of the snake. -Soltak 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 60 google hits are enough for me.--Fenice 21:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not the topic I have a problem with but the content, or rather the lack of content. If someone else was interested in expanding (I don't know nearly enough to do so) I'd be more than happy to withdraw the vfd request. -Soltak 21:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then mark it with a stub or expansion topic or find the WikiProject snakes or look up some info or find some herpophile Wikipedians and ask for input ... but don't VFD an article about a subject when you accept it's a perfectly valid one for an encylcopedia article. Ben-w 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would remind you that this article could have been (and still can) simply be speedied due to lack of content beyond restating the title. -Soltak 22:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And then we would not have an article about the snake. Now we do. Which do you think is better? Ben-w 22:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's irrelevant at this point becuase I withdrew the request but I'll respond anyway. It is always, always better to have no article at all than to have a poorly written one with no valuable content. -Soltak 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If those were the only two options, sure. They aren't. Ben-w 23:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following expansion by
    Kappa there is no longer a need for vfd. Request Withdrawn -Soltak 22:18, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 16:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

NXTbook Media

ad page by anonymous user 69.104.40.172, whose only contribution is this article. Delete. Ken 21:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertisement. -D. Wu 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the anonymous user who created this article. This article is exactly like the Zinio and Texterity articles, which have not been deleted. If this article is going to be deleted, then the Zinio and Texterity articles should be deleted as well. -69.104.40.172 21:56, August 5, 2005
    • Comment: I agree that all three articles are similar, so I've nominated Zinio and Texterity as well. Thank you for the pointer. Ken 22:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; text is essentially an ad; no claim to notability. Sdedeo 22:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 02:18, 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 COPYVIO. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. -Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embanet

Patent advertisement. Furthermore, the articles's creator, 216.234.39.163 (contribs) has added Embanet's name to several other pages. While these other edits don't seem to be overt advertisements (with exception of Computer Based Training, which has also been VfD'd), I believe that any mention of Embanet should be removed from those articles as well. -D. Wu 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio, as below. -Splash 00:07, 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 COPYVIO. Already in progress, and no offer yet of a new /Temp article. -Splash 00:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Based Training

This article is patent advertisement, identical in text to Embanet (see above). -D. Wu 21:44, 5 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. There is some small support for merge; that is not something on which this discussion need reach a conclusion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honker

Simply being a character on Sesame Street does not confer notability. This character appears to be present in very few episodes and in limited capacity. Delete or Merge to Sesame Street. -Soltak 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Honkers actually appear in many many episodes (I remember seeing them when I was a kid and I saw a recent episode still featuring them). However to the best of my knowledge there really isn't much else to say about them beyond this one line. 23skidoo 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sesame Street and redirect to nose. --Scimitar parley 16:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor characters. ESkog 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very minor character. --Carnildo 21:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Brownman40 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sesame Street characters are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 16 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.

Honker

There's a completely another meaning for Honker. The page was rewritten and if it needs a redirection, please feel free to add a tag. --Yau 12:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 16:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Texterity

Advertisement. Delete.Ken 22:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ad/promotion. --Etacar11 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -D. Wu 05:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a new product space... As long as the descriptions are somewhat factual, its necessary to keep Zinio and other entries to maintain parity. These are all "vendor generated" descriptions, but unless someone has a better idea, it's better to have some information rather than nothing. (Unsigned vote by Cimarron.buser (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Deleted. Article was recreated soon after the previous deletion and has just now been noticed.

t||c|m 00:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Texterity

This is essentially an advertisment for the corporation. The user who created the article is an employee[34]. While the company may not be insignificant, Wikipedia isn't designed to provide free ads. Additionally, this page was created not long after the previous deletion above! -- Scientizzle 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. Daniel Case 22:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, {{
    db-repost}}, tagged as such. --Rory096 23:32, 29 March 2006 (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 Delete --Allen3 talk 12:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

St.joris

Doesn't make much sense to me. --

R.Koot 22:09, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 12:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Cosmos UI

nn addon for

WoW. humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:22, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 11:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Life Lies Bleeding

Not notable. Does not fulfil

WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:36, 5 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. – Ryan Delaney talk 08:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd.

Wind consultant firm. NN humblefool®Deletion Reform 22:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. 7800 google hits indicate some notability. Pburka 23:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently just an advert. Sdedeo 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 KEEP. -Splash 20:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carrigtwohill

Original research essay about the name of a town. Not notable or informative, terribly written, and doesn't need an article.

Harro5
22:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. Verifiable place, and the article contains salvageable information. I'll try to clean it up a bit tonight. Pburka 22:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - this text is also found at [35]. I haven't reported it as a copyvio because I expect that the same person authored both. FreplySpang (talk) 22:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if possible - what FreplySpang said. If it's copyvio, it needs to go, else wikify. - Pete C ✍ 23:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real place with real community of history and history. Article as at the time that I lodged my vote appears to be in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 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 (blanked by creator) --cesarb 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and answers

The Reference Desk at

WP:RD already exists, so having this page would be unnecessary. HappyCamper 23:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete as stated above --HappyCamper 23:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - as creator has acknowledged mistake --
    (?) 23:57, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 11:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Matt McCormic

Main character in non-notable webcomic. DS 23:12, 5 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. But I am going to move it per Vegaswikian since the article uses the name s/he suggests. -Splash 20:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMME (FM)

Delete. No attempt is even made to assert notability. Article simply states the location of the radio station. -Soltak 23:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Move. I cleaned it up some and it should be OK, even though it is still a stub. Broadcast stations are generally considered notable. I think WMME-FM might be a better article title since that may be the more normal naming convention though both are used. Vegaswikian 05:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vegaswikian. Radio and TV stations are inherently notable as broadcast media.
    FCYTravis 17:49, 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 --Allen3 talk 11:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

List of groups widely considered extremist

there's no way this could ever be NPOV, and the article certaintly starts that way, with its one member being

PETA Sdedeo 23:23, 5 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. – malathion talk 06:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know what discussion malathion is reading but there seems to me to be a clear concensus to delete this page. If anyone is really interested in mergeing its contents with Operation Phantom Fury, they should do it. None of those who voted for mergeing meant to indicate that this page should be saved, they meant for the tiny scraps of it that are creditable to be merged. - atfyfe

U.S. attack on Fallujah

Bias propaganda selectively citing reports of abuse by U.S. Marines. This information is covered in the page on Fallujah and so (1) does not need it's own entry, and (2) even if it did this shouldn't be it. As a person who spent a long time in Fallujah (not during the attack in question) I am willing to admit not all the acts by US soldiers in Iraq may be morally acceptable. However, I would argue most are and that this entry well over-exaggerates the bad behavior of US soldiers in Iraq. It was also my experience in Iraq that a large amount of the reports given to the media by Iraqis were themselves lies or exaggerations. Heck, I've even been to the hospital cited in this article.

There is a valid place for criticism of U.S. actions in Iraq, but this entry is just rampant nonsense. [Delete]

  • Merge Brownman40 07:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be merged. I doubt there's much here worth salvaging, though. The quotations look questionable, and the intro certainly isn't of any use. Still, it might be good for
    Operation Phantom Fury to have a line mentioning the controversy somewhere. Aquillion 07:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete WP:NOT a soapbox Klonimus 20:01, 12 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 Delee --Allen3 talk 11:38, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

T.T.C.C.

Delete. Not notable. No relevant Google hits that I can find. Reminds me of the ole Rompin' Stompin' that we had in the early 1980s. Those, too, had less than a ten-year lifespan. The article states that the "T.T.C.C. now faces extinction". Should this article meet that same fate? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 23:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article lacks a little thing I like to call "context". --Scimitar parley 16:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd be willing to put good money down that this "article", if we can even call it that, written by a brand new member, was here solely for the purpose of seeing how long something ridiculous like this would stay on Wikipedia. --Jemiller226 03:50, 11 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 --Allen3 talk 11:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Meca-Zonic

Minor character in non-notable webcomic. Although the description "we can rebuild him! Make him faster, stronger, smarter -" "Actually, our budget's been cut. We can make him faster and stronger, but that's it" is funny, I'll admit. DS 23:44, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 11:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sage Deathwish

see Meca-Zonic. DS 23:47, 5 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 merge with

water jet (machining), then redirect to water jet. Alright, I'll see what I can do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Waterjets

Some sort of new user test, non-verifiable info EdwinHJ | Talk 23:47, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 11:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boss McCormic

see Matt McCormic, Meca-Zonic et al. DS 23:49, 5 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 --Allen3 talk 11:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Homeless J

Vanity page, nonnotable band EdwinHJ | Talk 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:28, 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 SPEEDIED by Dpbsmith. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Soft drink addiction

No potential to become encyclopedic because the title intrinsically favors the point of view that soft drinks are addictive. No source citations of any kind given. Personal essay? And: help me here... wasn't something almost identical to this previously voted for deletion? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. Repeat vandal, subject of prior RFC. This is just more of the same.--Tabor 00:05, 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.

.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_5&oldid=1081091750"