Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 8

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow

Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

• Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android79 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as personal promotion (sentences like My original book had some valuable information in it... show to me that he's only tryin to promote the book linked at the bottom. drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Notice how the entry is named aafer the author, yet the text is all about the theories in the book. So, as an entry "about the author" it's a very poor one. And about the theory, there's a criteria in the official wikipedia policy at

WP:NOTthat

states:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions...

which I think that fit 100% into this case. And since it goes agains official policy, it should even bee speedied. drini ☎ 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity, rant, original research, crank. -EDM 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 06:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although syncretism of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, etc. is widely discussed in the field, this article is an advert for the author, and appallingly laid out - if the book is this badly designed and formatted, I would advise people not to bother trying to read it. ~~~~ 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. First person. not notable. Mmmbeer 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article about non-notable figure.
  T/C 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. May warrant a rewrite in neutral third-person language, but I don't think anything in this version is salvageable to an encyclopedic article. ESkog 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete autobiography is inherently Vanity/non-verifiable, even if the subject is notable. Of course, this should be without prejudice if someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article. IMO, auto-biography should be CSD, but it isn't. Robert A West 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite completely Google gives about 8400 relevent hits [1], he does seem quite notable. The current article as it stands is just a pointless POV rant, but it should be rewritten with some relevent information. Cyclone49 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone and attempted to rewrite the article from what I found on that google search, although there was very little salvagable information. If someone who is actually knowladgable about this person expands this it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 00:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has been re-written and 'polished'.User:M-filecastle

Comments

• Comments moved here to clear up votes

This topic should not be deleted.

The subject matter is religion.

Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?

There are a series of articles that suggest that

Christianity comes from pagan origins.

• Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.

The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers

Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.

It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)

The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.

Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.

ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.

What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader

to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.

Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .

The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!

[email protected]

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also: the addition of this section was user's first edit: M-filecastle (talk · contribs)

Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.

Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.

His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...

When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?

Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?

In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?

The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...

Isn't that the point ?

[email protected]

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. There is no rule that says that anonymous votes are automatically discounted, but here, the sheer number of votes makes me suspect

Asheron's Call Friends

Completely nn, vanity, etc. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's getting completely ridiculous.
  Talk 04:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. nn vanity →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 06:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. That was pretty funny. Delete of course, for reasons already stated.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:52:31, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and comprehensive. Voyager640 16:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't need a page for every nn BB community. The article's tone also makes me believe it's a joke.-128.249.162.120 16:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC) That was me, forgot to sign in. -D. Wu 16:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Original and informative, still evolving (Unsigned vote by 159.18.94.65 (talk · contribs))
• Delete. Funny, but not good enough to keep in an encyclopedia Tcwd 21:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I even post there and I want this deleted. It would take a lot more than some copy editing to clean up this article. there is so much pointless material. ACF is not a famous forum that deserves it's own Wikipedia article. --Chupon 21:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's awesome and informative. (Unsigned vote by 67.182.206.253 (talk · contribs), first edit)
• Lock, no, wait, delete. Sabine's Sunbird 00:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn forum vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Information is something to keep not destroy, whether it's riveting or fanciful. ACF has been the driving board for Vault and IGN and is currently the most posted board according to the lists. Whether it's place in the scheme of world events is small, it's still and informative article on a sub-culture of the still evolving internet society. Kcferret
  • By that rationale, every board deserves a page on Wikipedia. There is, however greater precedent in favor of delete. See
    Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete off-topic forum articles, especially when they belong to the less-successful fansites of dying MMORPGs. Asheron's Call is notable, your forum is not. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable online community. The photo lends support to the vanity assertion as well. By the way, the photo should probably go as well as it does not add anything to the article and I cannot imagine it being useful in any other article. Tobycat 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Unsigned vote by 24.229.168.45 (talk · contribs))
• Keep, but rather instead of giving it its own page, merge it into a page for VN perhaps, like with IGN and The Vestibule. User:Demosthenes3 (Vote actually by 68.85.163.157 (talk · contribs))
• Delete—Nanocultures are not individually encyclopedic, no matter how well documented. --Tysto 21:12, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and not serious. Boojum 14:36, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RiseIsrael.com

POV advert for non-notable website.

• Delete as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advert, link spam. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
• Delete : Strong POV.
  Manik Raina 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. as per
  Fernando Rizo --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weird. It's really not even an article, is it? Just a blurb for some pretty odd websites.Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:49:21, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Address to the Deil

A long Milton Burns poem. Clearly Wikisource territory. I've done the move (

• Delete. No problems here, good initiative.
  T/C 05:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep in light of excellent re-write.
    T/C 17:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Not Milton. Robert Burns, as should be apparent from the fact it's in Scots. But delete keep now it's been re-written. AlexTiefling 09:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes quite right. The quote on the top threw me off.
    t
    21:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The poem should be wikisourced. However, it would be good to have a genuine article on this given the significance of Burns as a poet. Capitalistroadster 18:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep Great to see the content has been moved over to Wikisource. I also noted that Robert Burns article has a link over to his works in Wikisource, so we have good linkage between the two. Tobycat 06:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "keep" after rewrite. Kudos to Capitalroadster rewriting this! Tobycat 21:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have written an article on this poem which is considered to be one of Burns' most notable poems. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice one.
    t
    17:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after excellent re-write. Good work Capitalistroadster! Hamster Sandwich 15:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 'troadster does it again! -R. fiend 15:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - nicely rewritten. eric ✈ 18:37, 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbuckle

A character in the background of a Mortal Kombat stage. Wow. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 05:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, part of the Mortal Combat universe, of interest to fans of the game. 06:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) unsigned vote by
  Kappa
• Keep, creator of the article; important to MK fans and the history of the game. 07:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mistercow 10:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the love of God, apple pie, and all that is pure and good, this ridiculous entry -- fancruft at best and more likely simply a bunch of made-up nonsense, attaching a name from one medium to a completely random picture in a videogame -- must be destroyed. Nandesuka 12:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fatality Delete, crufty non-canon claptrap.
  t c 14:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Annihilate, nn. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 15:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have a fairly high fancruft tollerance, beeing something of a sci-fi fanatic myself, but this is just crazy, not to mention pure speculation, all that needs to be said about that stage is already in the
  Blaze article. Delete Image:Hornbuckle.jpg too. --Sherool 15:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete May be worth a reference in the main MK article, but not a separate article. Allegrorondo 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the love of Mike (or somebody). --FuriousFreddy 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page for Hornbuckle might as well be deleted. As the
  Blaze
  article, since most of the information was the same. The article Hornbuckle could just simply redirect to Blaze. 18:05, 8 August 2005 (EST)
• Delete sub-trivial non-canon fancruft. --Carnildo 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rip it's spine out, er, um, Delete fancruft Youngamerican 13:40, 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). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hasba bill

A "proposed bill" that has been rejected by the courts and never became law. The article consists of the verbatim text of the bill.

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository/archive of things that could have, but never did happen. --Ragib 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ragib, plus this is POV and maybe copyvio (is all that text in the public domain?) Tonywalton 12:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment how about transwiking to Wikisource? Unlike the Wikipedia Wikisource is a repository for all kinds of texts, and some people might find proposed laws interesting even if they where not implemented. As for the copyright status, I'm just guessing, but surely law texts and other public documents are public domain. --Sherool 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean Up: Wikipedia is not a repository of things that didn't happen, but important proposed laws should be fair game. A policy that excludes this could also be used to exclude the ERA article as well. The article is bad, and needs a lot of work, but it should be kept, perhaps without the full text. --Arvis21 17:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This Hisbah issue is not over. The provincial government is re-introducing it with amendments and also introducing it in other assemblies. This bill is an important example of what political Islamists want to do and will be a good reference for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.243.130 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep
  iff it can be re-written as an ensyclopedic article (maybe with a brief abstract/summary). The raw law text can either be moved to Wikisource, or linked to externaly depending on it's copyright status. --Sherool 19:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, but not the full text of the bill.. if that belongs anywhere, it's Wikisource. --Mysidia (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bill text copied to Wikisource:Transwiki:Hasba_bill --Mysidia (talk) 16:58, 14 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 Tony Sidaway. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in Wadsworth, Illinois

Not even a list. There already is a article for the school on in this "list". Kushboy 05:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• keep potential to expand this article unlike the school. Other schools in that town should be added. --Tim Pope 06:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lists of one, particularly since there is an article for the school that duplicates the information. --Scimitar ^parley 17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I added two more schools, but I think that's the end of 'em. Wadsworth's not what you might call a big town. -- Visviva 18:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Wadsworth, Illinois as a section titled "Education." Every locality article should have one. That will also help people to understand that the entries ought to be short -- otherwise, some are bound to make the author's mistake and put entire school articles here. -- Visviva 18:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a result of Tim Pope's odd approach to merging. The article is actually here; quite a reasonable school article which could use a lot of expansion. Tim has decided to wipe out most of the information about the school, move it to a "list of" article and then add tiny little gobbets of information from other school articles which he intends to keep as redirects. So don't be deceived by the insubstantial nature of the article at present. It has been edited close to death but can be restored and expanded whent he VfD is over. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong on several counts, I "wiped" nothing, I moved an article. The "gobbets" were not added by me. I do not intend to create redirects. Please check your facts. --Tim Pope 21:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • FIne, then you won't object to my reverting the article to its original version before you mucked around with it so that we can work on improving it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ask Visvia, it's his edits that have been lost. You've deleted two schools!--Tim Pope 21:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. They have their own articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Comment: Sheesh, I'll save my effort next time. I was just trying to convert this to an actual list, per its title, since we already have a suitable article on Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois. If that was such a bad idea, my edits could simply have been reverted. Very strange behavior from all sides, here. -- Visviva 23:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to explain what happened as a result of Tim's "musical chairs" approach to merging, but I'll try. The article that was at Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois was a clone created by someone after Tim moved the actual article to the list article. I deleted that clone because its material is already in the edit history of this article, which I've now moved back to (you guessed it) Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois.
  • You gave adequate material for two school stubs, so I created those stubs with attribution. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous contents of artcle

Millburn School is a K-8 school facility meaning that it ranges from

During 2004 - 2005, a local vote was issued to build a new school since Millburn was getting crowded. In 2005, it was announced that a new school was to be built in the neighborhood of Heritage Trails in Lindenhurst. It is named Milburn West and the mascot is a cougar.

{{US-school-stub}}

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

undeletion request

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otche nash

I just transwikied this to Wikisource (

• Delete Yeah, good transwiki move. Doesn't belong here. Kushboy 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. feydey 20:25, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don Smith

User has history of invalid articles. This one is about an unnotable teacher. The article itself claims to have been deleted previously. Kushboy 05:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry but he does not meet
  WP:NOT a memorial. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable. Botsie 07:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Tonywalton 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. God wants this article to be kept. Also, Mr. Smith just before his tragic death wrote letters of recommendation to people who are destinied for greatness. (Unsigned vote by 68.189.48.55 (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.

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

Jason Snell

Mr. Snell has been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia and he did not start this article although his acquaintance User:Cfarivar, who is lately infamous for surviving the longest VFD discussion since GNAA, did. Mr. Farivar has advocated an atroucious use of Wikipedia -- as personal space with self promotional benefits. He suggested readers through an article in Slate do likewise. And he has now directly exhorted a collegue to follow by starting his article for him to pick up. Self written or acquaintance vanity, just like any other low-verfication item, only weakens Wikipedia's credibility. Let's not tolerate this anymore. We must hold the line here.

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Snell seems relatively notable, at least by the low wiki standards. I hate vanity articles as much as the next guy. In general, don't worry too much. An article with no links from other pages gets little or no attention; once it does get linked from other pages (or if for some reason it generates interest elsewhere), the wonderful wikipedia world intervenes to balance things out. Take a look at CF's own article: Cyrus Farivar. It's just how things go. Sdedeo 06:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I should add that vanity articles that survive usually get their just recompense; real, unbiased information is added to them that often doesn't reflect well on the subject. Sdedeo 06:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be noted, in substance, the Cyrus Farivar article is little changed (the Wikipedia section will be jettisoned eventually). Use of Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle is a new challenge that will only be more tedious (patrol new articles and see for yourself). If we choose to keep promotional/vanity articles, then we should accept our lack of control over the article. We can't verify most of the claims, leaving editors just the task of snipping egregious self aggrandizing prose, but we will be powerless to challenge the actual information. If the nature of an article is known, I say aggressively stamp it out. You can shrug dozens or hundreds of instances of unlinked vanity but that number will grow and it would be foolish not to expect damage to Wikipedia's reputation. lots of issues | leave me a message 08:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am happy to accede to the wishes of the community either way -- only you all can judge whether I am a worthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. I did not create the page or ask for it to be created (and I have a user talk page, regardless), but I did modify it in order to add some facts about my background that the page's creator did not know about. (And actually, it make me consider that the early days of publishing on the Internet are not well-covered by Wikipedia, which may lead to further articles regardless of the results of this particular vote.) Thank you for your time and consideration. Jsnell 21:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One addition: I ask you to please vote based on the merits of this article and its topic. As is clear from lots of issues's introduction, this VfD has been generated because of the politics of Cyrus Farivar's Slate article and the ensuing VfD discussion there and here: #vfd_I_think_you_should_see... Jimbo Wales: vfd I think you should see... Jsnell 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep based upon existing precedent. Hall Monitor 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Issues of politics and reputation aside, the subject is of very minor interest. Contributor details should be kept to user pages. Dottore So 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso[reply]
  • I guess it has to do with what you consider "minor interest." To members of the Macintosh community, I'm a pretty well-known figure. The key here, in my mind, is: what is Wikipedia supposed to be? A source for information on as many possible subjects as possible, even those that are fairly obscure but still relevant to a wider audience than a small circle of friends and family? Or a source for information that's both broad and extremely narrow. As Jimmy Wales has put it himself, it's not as if there are space constraints on Wikipedia -- that's one of its assets. If this article is truly of interest to nobody, it should be deleted. But how do you define "minor interest"? Is Adam C. Engst interesting? Frankly, I am getting quite confused about Wikipedia's VfD subculture. What's the point of Wikipedia if not that I can look up someone obscure like Carl Steadman (who founded Suck.com and should have his own entry), as well as looking up Albert Einstein? Jsnell 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand your point, but should every reporter and every columnist from every major and minor newspaper and magazine have a separate entry since they can, by defining their own ground, claim to be a "pretty well-known" figure? It seems unnecessary, particularly when we have user pages for contributor bio info. Dottore So 17:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User pages are for bios of wikipedia contributors; articles are for topics that someone might come to Wikipedia to learn more about. I think an argument could be made that everyone who has a byline for a major publication/web site should be a candidate for a Wikipedia entry, just to promote transparency -- that way, readers would have the ability to find out exactly who is writing the articles they're reading. (It's even more important since many newspapers and magazines print only a bare byline, with no other biographical information to tell you anything about the perspective of the person in question.) I guess the question is, what's the true definition of someone "important enough to be in Wikipedia"? And should the community be extra vigilant in deleting articles about people, or extra lenient in giving articles the benefit of the doubt because what's unimportant to you may be very important to someone else? I'm obviously trending toward the lenient side, but I do see both sides. Jsnell 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snell provides a very reasonable argument. In addition to Cyrus Farivar, see Jesse Liberty (and the accompanying VfD debate), who is also a contributor to Wikipedia. Is there a list of Wikipedians with articles available? Hall Monitor 18:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. But I think it should be a question of lingering or lasting importance and some kind of reasonable standard with this regard should be iterated. I note that there are almost no entries that I can find for New York Times reporters or even critics (whose role as arbiters of popular tase elevates them to a higher importance in terms of who they are). This is also true of someone like James Taranto, editorialist for the WSJ. If they are deemed by the community (through omission) to be below threshold, I think surely the same applies in this case. The existence of other entries of marginal interest does not promote the point. Anyway, just my $0.02 Dottore So 19:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I want Wikipedia to become the last reference of all interests. As an inclusionist, I bulk at the suggestion that an article should be deleted due to limited interest. However, there can be no compromise between inclusive interest and factual integrity. Whenever Wikipedia includes a low-verifiable subject with even a minor interest in becoming better known, quality chips away. Not surprisingly the author will be an acquaintance or the subject.

I don't want to eliminate these journalists because only Mac users will query their name; actually, I am upholding neutrality and verifiability, which are some of the central tenets behind how Wikipedia works. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I think that any published figure should have a Wikipedia page--if someone chooses to create it--as all writers have bias. The more information about a writer, the better the context in what they write is placed. This is true for computer journalists and writers at small local papers as for New York Times writers. The case that more well-known print journalists don't have Wikipedia entries demonstrates a bias by Wikipedia contributors, who are certainly multifarious, against mainstream media. This is well-known as Wikipedia is itself a stance against mainstream, single-voiced/publication-voiced media. If you remove Jason Snell, then Wikipedia also has to have a VfD for every single figure of any sort that someone believes hasn't contributed enough. There should be a very weak test for adding a biography, because the mere presence of a biography doesn't confer any authoritativeness nor an expectation that anyone will ever find such. Insufficiently well-known people will never have their biography read. They may post inaccurate information, but this is true on any obscure topic that no one ever reads. Any biography of anyone with sufficient reputation will be read and corrected. Further, there's nothing wrong with the subject inserting their own opinion because Wikipedia is designed to push toward the mean. A subject who persists in perpertuating known lies will not be able to persist if they are sufficiently observed. Disclosures: I found (did not create) a stub entry for myself, and fleshed it out. Someone had added Adam Engst and put a link to me. I did not create the entry. It has since been edited, showing that I have at least some minor interest to someone, otherwise no edits would have taken place. Disclosure: I write for Macworld and know both Jason and Cyrus. I have no vested interest in their particular biographies appearing or disappearing, nor my own. I edited my own biography with the expectation that it might be deleted. User:Glennf:Glennf 09:44, 13 August 2005 (PDT)

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

undeletion request

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verona pizza

Not notable outside of Ayer, Mass. Google search for "'Verona pizza' ayer" yields 24 results all of them business directory hits.

• Delete Advertisement at the least. Kushboy 06:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above.
  Manik Raina 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. same reason; no unique logic here. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn pizza place vanity/ad. --Etacar11 00:45, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for the Direction of the Mind

Just transwiied this to wikisource (

• delete now that it's on Wikisource. Might also want to "transwiki" links that currently point to this article as well. I fixed the authors article but I see a few more articles link to it. --Sherool 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been re-written as an ensyclopedic (stub) article, so I changed my vote to keep. --Sherool 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rewrite. One of Descartes' most influential works is surely encyclopedic. -- Visviva 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite per Visviva. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless re-written. --Carnildo 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it has been transwikied. Vegaswikian 05:53, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 14:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster 1912

I did a transwiki to Wikisource. A poem like this belongs there. Kushboy 06:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• You need to finish the transwiki before it can be deleted. Transfer the article history and list it at the Wikisource transwiki log. Ask me on my talk page if you need help with this. Thanks.
  t
  06:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now, concur with nominator. And the link is
    t
    09:01, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angry dragon (sex move)

Speedied, which I canceled because the myth, noted as such in the article, appears from a Google search outside of the Wikipedia entry.

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Still contains nothing to fit it into wikipedia.
  Manik Raina 09:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - This stuff is on urbandictionary already, and should stay there.
  Hahnchen 14:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, for many reasons, one being that whatever this is, it is not a "sex move", it is a form of sexual assault. Sdedeo 01:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• leave it - For a dictionary which, in my mind, seems to have *everything*, it only makes sense to leave it. It is a term that I've heard more recently, as of late. Such as "hand job" or "anal", it's quickly becomming a term that shows up more often. Yes, it is sexual assault, but regardless, if someone mentions the term, another will want to know what it means. Wikipedia has the answer.
• Let it be - There is no rule stating that topics on UrbanDictionary and Wikipedia must not overlap.
• Leave it or cross reference a bunch of unusual sexual acts on one page (bigger article). It shouldn't be deleted just because of its graphic definition.

Could be covered in Sexual slang --Cheese Sandwich 02:53, 17 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. Eugene van der Pijll 14:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deontology as consequentialism

Original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --DrTorstenHenning 08:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would urge caution here. The subject matter is a serious avenue of study in the philosophy of ethics, and is encyclopedic. It needs some serious attention, most importantly its writing needs to be NPOV. It is in serious need of references. Are there other articles in the Philosophy sections that touch on the subject matter? If there is already a good article on it I'd urge deletion for duplication. If there is no other article, I'd urge applying the clean up tag and bringing it to the attention of the philosophy experts on Wikipedia.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 11:06:40, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

  Reply I'm sure that in the field of philosophy I cannot say that I am an expert, but I am rather confident that there is almost nothing relevant going on in this field and that attempts to reconcile deontology with consequentialism are simply flights of fancy. Realistically, they are polar opposites; it's like trying to reconcile oil and water. I believe that one philosopher advanced a "deontological consequestialist" theory of some kind, but it was more of a suggestion than anything, and I'm not sure that he actually supported the theory personally. Anyway, this article is a personal essay. --malathion ^talk 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Reply. I understand how you feel, but I'm afraid I am unpersuaded. You seem to be giving us reasons why you feel deontology may not be reconciled with consequentialism. That's fair as far as it goes, Malathion, but it doesn't quite address the issue, does it? I think the issue is the encyclopedic merits of the subject. This truly should not necessarily take into account how "true" a conjecture is, or even how many people themselves agree with one or more of the conjectures. For example, no one today believes in the pre-Copernican idea that Earth was the center of the solar system, but that does not mean an article on Ptolemy and his astronomical theories should not be written. No one today believes some of what Plato had to say about politics and philosophy, or what Aristotle had to say about medicine, but that shouldn't stop anyone from writing just such articles. In 5 years time, some genius Cambridge physicist might show that Einstein's light constant is in fact no constant at all; I doubt any of us would be rushing to remove articles from Wikipedia in that eventuality. Now, I am no philosopher, and I really cannot tell you for certain how widely the above problem is studied. However, I don't think it's as bad as you suggest; I seem to remember RM Hare writing on the subject just before he died (see his Sorting out ethics, for example). Of course, if it stays it's going to need a massive rewrite, as it's got all kinds of problems.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:49:18, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

• Reply I understand the NPOV policy. My point is not that I dislike this article because I disagree with it, but because everyone disagrees with it. RM Hare was not a "utilitarian consequentialist" and he advanced the idea as a flight of fancy. No one else takes the idea seriously. That makes it unencyclopedic. Further, this article is a personal essay about the author's own ideas, and not those of Hare. That makes in original research. --malathion ^talk 00:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Malathion, you continue to miss the point. Ptolemy's theories of planetary motion were a flight of fancy. Aristotle's idea of the number of teeth women had was a flight of fancy. Much of Galen's anatomy was a flight of fancy. Most of Hippocrates' therapeutics were flights of fancy (indeed, all of medicine was a flight of fancy until about 150 or so years ago). Yet all of these things have a place in Wikipedia (and every other reputable encyclopedia) — and rightly so. Wikipedia is a scholarly record of things about us and our world and our past. If it were restricted only to those theories and "facts" which are held by contemporary society to be true or plausible, then an astonishing amount of our scientific, religious, cultural, philosophical and artistic heritage will find no place in it. That we don't believe Hippocrates' quackery or the Intelligent design peoples' fantasies ourselves, does not mean that a record of these beliefs and thoughts should find no place in an encyclopedia. Now, as I have said earlier, I am no philosopher. I have no idea how much scholarly activity is contemporarily centered on this subject. I do know that it has been debated in the past, and it engaged some of the best minds in philosophy. Certainly that has been my impression. Now, like very many other things, it might be deeply flawed, but that is not intrinsically a reason for it not to have mention in an encyclopedia. If you know something of the subject, I will have no objection if you rewrote that article to say "The idea of deontological consequentialism is held by most philosophers today to be little more than a flight of fancy. Etc etc etc..." That's fine (I'm assuming that assertion is factually true). If it stays, it will need a complete rewrite anyway, because as I (and you and the others) have pointed out earlier, it's very badly written. I'm only saying that I am mystified by your reasoning — that to find place in an encyclopedia, a subject or theory or thought has to be true or held to be true by contemporaries. That's absurd.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

PS. Do you realize you wrote "utilitarian consequentialist" when you were talking about the deontology-consequentialist relationship?—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC) This was a silly thing to ask, and I'm striking it with apologies to Ryan.—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:21:35, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that this essay is original research. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malathion/Ryan, I was addressing your argument that an article has to be about things that are held by contemporary thinkers to be wholly or largely true before it may be included in an encyclopedia. This is an erroneous belief. Your point about

poorly cited

, rather than wholly unacceptable.

Having read once more Hare's "Could Kant have been a utilitarian?", I am inclined to think that the earlier claim that Hare advanced this subject as a flight of fancy is in fact a flight of fancy. Hare was making a serious effort to form a bridge. Be that as it may, I don't think WP will suffer a real loss with the deletion of this article. The problem with what to do with an article or stub that 1. is of encyclopedia value but 2. is poorly written and referenced, is vexatious. Editors like Tony Sidaway usually move to "save" anything that isn't actually incomprehensible gibberish; other editors with higher standards about what should find a place on WP often vote to delete. If I had to describe my own view, it is far closer to the second than the first; by this I do not mean that the former are "wrong," in fact both "types" of editors usually act within WP policy/guidelines. In this particular instance, I feel the page should not be deleted for reasons already elaborated. Summary of what I think should be done: 1. Keep the page. 2. Reduce it to a stub with only verifiably true details of the concept, with references. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:21:35, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

• Delete original research. --malathion ^talk 16:47, 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. dbenbenn | talk 17:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James fletcher

• Delete. nn/vanity. --DrTorstenHenning 07:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and possible speedy. I don't think playing
  Dungeons and Dragons is even an assertion of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oops it was apparently
    Warcraft III, and not D&D, but that doesn't make much of a difference. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Google doesn't say much about a WarCraft III player by the name of James Fletcher. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]
• Delete, vanity. If this page is deleted, please nominate Image:Lordjamesfletcher.jpg for deletion as well. -D. Wu 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,. vanity, and NN --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete--
  Talk 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete vanity, NN --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject of this article is also apparently defacing Wikipedia pages and removing the VFD notice from his page—none of which makes him notable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 17 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. I'll move it to the proper capitalization. -Splash 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The stolen child

This is the full text of a William Butler Yeats poem. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (

• Delete as per nom. --Sherool 16:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's re-written. --Sherool 18:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that it is a poem by a notable poet it would be good if we had a legitimate article on it. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite as article. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless rewritten --Carnildo 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but expand. I added a bit on the Waterboy's adaptation and recording of it, which I think is enough to make it a viable little stub. Hopefully it will be expanded further. I can try, but I'm no poetry expert. -R. fiend 15:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and it should be moved to The Stolen Child. -R. fiend 15:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as per R. Fiend. Thanks to R. Fiend for writing a good little stub. I have done some preliminary research and there is definite potential for expansion in the future. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have further expanded the article. Capitalistroadster 11:22, 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. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Cook resignation speech

This is the full text of a Robin Cook resignation speech from the UK government. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (

• Keep, it represents a notable event jamesgibbon 10:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The notable event is represented in Robin Cook. Wikisource is the best home for this. The JPS 12:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per JPS. Qwghlm 13:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's already found its way to wiki-source, and should be shown the door here. --Scimitar ^parley 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Already transwiki'd and can be linked with the Robin Cook article. Capitalistroadster 18:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, transwikied. feydey 20:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since what needs to be in Wikisource is there and what needs to be in Cook's bio article is there. Barno 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Rd232 21:55, 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. Carnildo's vote becomes a keep, so only the nominator still votes delete. -Splash 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

Full text of an eighteenth century treatise. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (

• delete as per nom. Note: the transwiki was deleted as a duplicate of existing text. The text can be found here: Wikisource:A Treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge --Sherool 16:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep The current stub is better than nothing --Sherool 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: can't anyone be arsed to write a stub? Dunc|☺ 17:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if just a stub summary. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless rewritten. --Carnildo 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: User:Duncharris has graciously written a stub article. Collabi 18:48, 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. -Splash 00:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tryst with destiny

This is the full text of Nehru's speech upon Indian independence. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (

• Keep : Strongly vote for keeping this page . There exist precedences of speeches being kept in Wikipedia . Do see this.
  Manik Raina 09:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Manik, do click on your link and discover that there are articles about the speeches, but not the full text of the speeches alone. Sdedeo 10:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi
    Manik Raina 12:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Hi Manik -- yes, precisely. Sdedeo 00:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, extremely notable speech, you wouln't try to delete the
  Kappa 13:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but rewrite to describe the speech and its importance, not full text. 12.22.156.139 17:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. notable speech, could use some bachround info though. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Description of the speech's significance and consequences should be in this article. Full text should be on Wikisource, not in the WP article. Delete transwikied text, mark for rewrite/expansion. Barno 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Strong keep as notable, but should be about the speech. As above, really.
  t c 15:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - in the current form and with the current contents. Now, there is scope for this stub to grow to a potentially good article, wherein the portions of the speech may be reproduced depending on the contexts of the further edits. --Bhadani 15:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had some thoughts, so I'll share them with you all. I have some objections to the rule that important speeches are okay if they are substantiated with some background information. I feel this background info is desirable and definitely helps the reader and makes the article more encyclopadeic. But the absence of this information does *not*, IMO make grounds for deletion of an article from wikipedia. This is a personal opinion and opinions differ. Do let me know what others think. Alternatives like {{attention}} or {{cleanup}} could be pursued. Do let me know what you all think. I'm new to wikipedia, please be gentle :-)
    Manik Raina 09:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If all that an article contains is the text of the speech, then it should be on
      t c 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep - pamri 18:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Decalogue

Delete this rambling mish-mash that duplicates the Ten Commandments article; it's full of original research (see Talk:Ritual Decalogue); the topic could easily be redirected to the Ten Commandments article where the uniqueness of the word "Ritual" could be explained; "Decalogue" already means "ten commandments/utterances"; anything deemed suitable could be added to the Ten Commandments; as it stands, this article merely adds gratuitous clutter to a serious subject.IZAK 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. IZAK 09:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• To make sure there are no doubts, I'm going to be verbose: Salvage anything worthwhile from this article and merge it with Ten Commandments. Then delete this article and recreate it as a redirect to Ten Commandments. Now, voy a volver a mirar la revista de «Battlestar Galactica» por SciFi... Tomer ^TALK 09:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to put the material into Ten Commandments. Do check the talk page. Pilatus 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does not in the least duplicate the TC article. There are two Decalogues discussed in biblical scholarship, the Ethical and the Ritual. I made this a separate article because it's not the common understanding of the "Ten Commandments", and I didn't think people would appreciate having it in the main TC article. Izak and Tomer, if you would prefer to divide that article into two sections, Ethical Decalogue and Ritual Decalogue, I would have no objection. In fact, I would prefer it: I agree with you that that's where it belongs. I was merely attempting to avoid the edit war that I thought might follow.

Please delete any original research. I agree the article's a mish-mash; I'm not the person to write it. I came to Wikipedia to read up on this topic, and it's a rather egregious omission on the part of Ten Commandments article not to mention the Ritual Decalogue. Better a mish-mash, which will improve with time as other editors play their part, than silence. Please improve the article to make it more respectable, wherever it ends up. kwami 09:57, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Hi Kwami: It is rather poor form to "create" articles out of thin air, and then admit that they are in fact "mish-mash" to wit! May I suggest that you first learn how to do things in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Writing an article is not the same as putting down in writing the stream of consciousness of one's mind about any given subject. All you are citing are philosophical and moral aspects, perhaps, of the Ten Commandments...otherwise articles could become splintered in 6 billion ways as each person on Earth comes along and has "thoughts" and "ideas" that they may dredge up from the Internet or wherever. We must be more responsible than that in creating a respectable and coherent online Encyclopedia that conforms to accepted scholarship. What you say here merely re-inforces the need to delete the article (and place anything of value on the Ten Commandments page.) Thanks. IZAK 10:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point. I'm prepared to accept the criticism that the article is mishmash, because I know I'm not the best writer in the world. But these are not my opinion about the TC, or dredged up from the internet. They are accepted scholarship, and can be found in standard biblical commentary. You can perhaps find better sources than I. This material needs to be in here somewhere, preferably in the TC article. It should be clear that according to much biblical criticism, there are two distinct Decalogues. One is not a "philosophical" version of the other, at least not according to the sources I've cited. (There will of course be other points of view which I have not found.) kwami 11:28, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

• Keep or merge as above. kwami 09:57, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
• Delete. anything good should be merged with the Ten Commandments article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ten Commandments The term is notable. Pilatus 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. Consensus at Ten Commandments is to have that page to refer to the Ten Commandments proper, and the term Ritual Decalogue or Ceremonial Decalogue is notable in the literature. Clean up, remove original research, then it will stand. Pilatus 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ten Commandments after reducing to the bare bones. This is nothing but a vehicle for the documentary hypothesis (although it goes back to Goethe) and has no other notability. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you don't like the Documentary Hypothesis, it's still notable. Hey, even though I don't like
    Creation Science, the term still belongs in an encyclopedia. Pilatus 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, seems entirely based upon limited philosophical thought — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then turn into a re-direct. If there is anything worth keeping, it could be merged with Ten Commandments, but this is not crucial. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe a slight mention could be made in the
  Documentary Hypothesis article. HKT ^talk 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. --Arcadian 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As per Tomer's suggestion
  Robertbrockway 22:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• DeleteAs per IZAK's suggestion Kuratowski's Ghost 23:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Interesting, valuable and scholarly. The vehemence of opposition to this article is clearly ideologically driven - read the talk page. Alternatively, add as a section of the Ten Commandments article and redirect. ntennis 04:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteAs per IZAK's suggestion. This article is based on flawed analysis of the Old Testament DRosenbach 12:21 11 August 2005
  • It's not up to us to judge if the scholarship is OK, that would be
    POV. What counts is that the Documentary Hypothesis is a notable view. Yes, the article needs serious reworking. Pilatus 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep. I'm not in favour of merging these with the Ten Commandments article since it is an unrelated set of injunctions. Which set may be Moses's original set may be open to debate, or not, but it's the other one which is known today as the "Ten Commandments". IMHO merging the articles would be misleading; but the article as it stands looks already interesting, NPOV (or if some people think it isn't, it can be made so), and it can also be seen as useful in that it's easier to remember "Ritual Decalogue" than "Exodus 34" which is the place where to find it in the Bible. -- Tonymec 23:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per kwami, Pilatus & Tonymec. Mish-mashery is a necessary first step for many a good article. I appreciate that this is not orthodox understanding, and it needs to be cleaned up to reflect this, but the sources already cited show it is one scholarly understanding, and notable enough for its own article outside "documentary hypothesis" or "Ten Commandments".Lusanaherandraton 11:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject deserves its own article. COGDEN 19:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes in Manchukuo

Article has valuable intent but consists solely of a POV rant; material concerning this topic can be put into

• Cleanup and merge. Mistercow 09:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very little content to merge with anything else. Doesn't seem like much of a rant to me, but I don't think it serves a useful purpose in its present form. --Scimitar ^parley 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't delete. Clean up. --Dysepsion 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or cleanup. there is nothing worng with the subject, but the article is substandard and doesn't do justice to the subject. Cleanup and add more info and links and it should be good. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rants without details, nothing new compared to Manchukuo. Pavel Vozenilek 03:34, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Levesque

Ooh! Ooh! Very exciting -- elaborate hoax page. Claim to be a bio of "Pierre Levesque", but the article history shows [2] that it's actually the creation of "Michael Burke and Aaron Schlosser of the independent film organization, "Prospect Hill Productions". PHP appears to be "non-notable" (their only 'productions' being on local public access cable), so as the non-notable hoax of a non-notable group, I vote delete. But! Nice try! Well done. Advice for the future: to avoid being caught and rise to internet hoax fame and fortune, keep a low profile on VfDs! [3] Sdedeo 09:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and the authors should consider the wonders of the Uncyclopedia for their future work. Eclipsed 12:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree. <drini ☎> 15:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Heh. Pulled this up as a Random Page, would not have given it a second thought but for the obviously anachronistic picture (note to future hoaxers: you'll have to do better than that). Get your own darn fake buzz site. Delete. Jgm 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable hoax. Hall Monitor 23:17, 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay icons

is a list, not accurate, no explination for why some of these people are on the list. (23:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC))

Note this discussion wasn't listed when it was created, I have therefore just listed it under August 8th, not August 7th. --

Francs2000 | Talk 10:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

• Keep. Fix the list, don't delete it. BlankVerse ∅ 02:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless someone can present outside sources for the existence of "gay icons" (specifically as "gay icons") and objective criteria for inclusion, stands as original research.
  siafu 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Fis where necessary, but no reason for deletion. -- AlexR 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fix it, don't delete it. -- Commking 11:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote was actually by
    Francs2000 | Talk 10:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Clean up, don't delete --
  Francs2000 | Talk 10:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. David | Talk 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs attention, not deletion jamesgibbon 10:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having a "significant following among the gay community" is an extremely vague criterion, thus the very definition of gay icon is invalid. Punkmorten 11:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Inaccurate? Template:Sofixit. (I love that template. I think I'm going to make use of it a lot from now on.) CanadianCaesar 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though it's definitely odd at the moment...
  Noel Coward and Erasure aren't? WTF? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  13:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, though this needs a lot of work. Virtually every actress or singer could be listed here, so I think a very firm criteria needs to be established. IMO this list can and should be cut by up to 50%, however I lack the personal knowledge (or interest) to decide who goes; I'll leave that to someone else. 23skidoo 16:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- what makes Princess Di, or Carol Burnett a gay icon as opposed to just a regular icon? The current criterion for this list is really anyone who has a following in the gay community. The number of followers is undefined, and subjective. For instance, suppose I am gay and think that Jani Rita is a good role-model. I could include him on the list, particularly if I have a gay friend who agrees with me. It's inherently flawed, just as a List of heterosexual icons would be. A list of icons who are gay is encyclopedic, a list of icons liked by some gay people isn't.--Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's the set criteria? As per Scimitar, anyone can be listed. --Dysepsion 18:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Scimitar. -feydey 20:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clean up and set a criteria.--WolFox 20:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if there is not a list of Heterosexual or bisexual icons, why should there be a list of Gay icons, I would suggest a list of Icons who are gay, but not a list of Gay icons. (Mac Domhnaill 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Deleting the category is OK only if the list is kept. CDThieme 23:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently point of view category designed to make a point. Sure to attract endless misleading entries. Osomec 00:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I usually vote to keep random lists as this, but what it takes to be a gay icon is a vague, and in most cases, unverifiable standard. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:Philwelch marked everyone on this list as Category:Gay icons as a test for Wikipedia:Merge some redundant lists to categories. Using the category tag on each person's page lets the expert for that person decide whether or not they are a gay icon. -- Norvy (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The X-Men? Bruce Willis? Princess Di? Carol Burnett? As far as I can tell, any person or character with any following that happens to include some homosexuals can be included, according to these vague criteria. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, but keep none the less. Youngamerican 13:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna have to go with delete here. Entirely subjective lists like this always deteriorate into crap as users add anyone who comes into their mind to it. Bruce Willis? Is every "hunky" guy as well as every flaming queen to be included, as well as nearly everybody in between? If the list is fixed I may be persuaded to change my vote, but I'm not convinced it can be. -R. fiend 15:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Criteria for inclusion on the list too vague; don't really see how it could be fixed. Sliggy 16:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is perplexing to me why Category:Gay icons was kept in a recent CfD. Hall Monitor 23:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category_talk:Gay_icons#Qualifying_.22gay_icons.22, a question which was never answered. Hall Monitor 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete out of date cliché. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hopelessly POV. Since "Gay icons are sometimes also popular with heterosexual fans", how is that different from someone who is simply very popular? ManoaChild 02:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the quality of the list is poor, fix it don't delete it. — OwenBlacker 20:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Its not the quality, but the impossibility oif choosing a standard. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 20:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Romeo Bravo ^=/\= 21:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep were it not for the fact that I know there is such a thing as a gay icon and there probably could be a good article about them I'd say delete. I agree with all of those who have said that there is basically no justification for any of these people to be considered gay icons and thus in my view this article serves very little purpose. It seems very arbitrary and doesn't meet the standards that seem to normally be applied to other Wikipedia articles in terms of detail and in terms of original research. I don't really want to see it trashed, but if it were come up for a vote for deletion again in a few months and nothing has changed I would very likely vote the other way. Each person on the list should, at the very least, have enough of a following as a gay icon to warrant a section in the original article otherwise it would appear to me to be very arbitrary. Some of them seem to be very improbable to me... Mr. Clean?? is this really a substantial portion of this imaginary cleaning man in an unusually clean outfit's cultural context? Gabe 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this list is far too expansive. You've got almost half the celebrities in Euro-American Pop Culture on the list!70.243.39.62 04:03, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgepreneurs

Francs2000 | Talk 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

• You need to think outside the ball!
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faethon387 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 August 2005
• Delete - meaningless entry. This is perilously close to nonsense. Naturenet | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Management talk and nonsense are sometimes hard to tell apart, which keeps me from asking for speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 11:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. neologism. ManoaChild 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable neologism, with original research. Eclipsed 12:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete managelogism. Buzzwordwise, that's the way the flagpole crumbles. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 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 Speedied by Starblind. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Milmo

This page was speedied a few days ago as nn-bio, but reappeared today. Since it has been rewritten slightly I put it up here, but it's unquestionably nn with 2 google hits Punkmorten 10:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. nn/vanity. --DrTorstenHenning 10:57, 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. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy a directors cut

This film isn't listed in the

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn amateur film. ManoaChild 12:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I consider an IMDB entry to be the absolute minimum inclusion criteria for films and their makers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can provide a link to a noteworthy festival showing the film. IMDB is sometimes VERY slow about updating info, especially with small films like this, so having an IMDB article on a recent movie isn't neccesarily a fair basis on which to judge a movie.--Frag 21:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn film vanity. --Etacar11 00:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why would you hassle this article? Wikipedia isn't just for professionals. I have seen many articles like this.

Unsigned comment above contributed by 81.156.237.92, who also blanked this VfD. Users first edit. -- Longhair | Talk 10:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: i too have seen articles like this (Unsigned comment by 212.139.38.16 (talk · contribs), first edit)
• According to the article: Created only for the enjoyment of the director's and the actor's entertainment, the movie is not officially listed nor available for sale. That makes it unverifiable. Delete. If there are other articles like this, they should be deleted too. --Metropolitan90 14:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Save: It's ridiculus to undermine one article's credibility to another; a website article is independant, too, just like a movie, so your arguments of non-professional artices is extreme and unjust. (Unsigned vote by 212.139.42.76 (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 KEEP. -Splash 00:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Character displacement

I'm not sure what to make of this - it appears to be either original research or spam. Alphax ^τεχ 10:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to article on evolution. This appears to have some validity, but there is little content here. The links don't work, by the way. ManoaChild 12:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup/Expand or Merge with Evolution. Google search for "Character displacement" +evolution has over 10,000 hits. Eclipsed 12:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to STRONG KEEP. It's a fine stub. Eclipsed 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and allow for organic evolution.
  Kappa 12:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Owwwww! (grin) Weak keep based mainly on Duncharris' comment below. Barno 01:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - leave room for expansion. We have too few science articles and too many on TV shows and primary schools as it is. Google scholar has plenty of hits. The concept makes sense to this trained biologist at least. Whatever you do, Do not merge with evolution - it's far too specific for that. Dunc|☺ 16:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete its a lecture! Yes, there are problems with other articles being kept, but that should not be an excuse to drag down the quality of all of wikipedia. Probably falls under origional research based on the reference. If kept it really, really needs a rewrite. Vegaswikian 05:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link to Duke University lecture you mean? I added that in after the article was created, as an example of the 10,000+ pages I found on the topic. I leave it to others to find better links. Eclipsed 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh? This is a fine stub. Keep. Sdedeo 07:44, 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 Speedied by Grutness. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kansas State Historical Society

Oh dear. if this wasn't so sad it would be BJAODN material. No doubt an article could be written about this society, but this sure ain't it - this is "start again from scratch" time. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy as criteria #1 and/or #3. This deserves a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Starblind. More work from User:Maoririder, I expect we'll be picking up the pieces for a while now. I've gone through a bit of his work and merged, redirected and expanded where appropriate, other things I put on my watchlist and might VfD or redirect later. CanadianCaesar 13:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're both right, of course. Speedied. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 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

If you want an easy link to the essay just use this link. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M*A*S*H developments in Korea

Should be merged with

• Comment If you think it should be merged, why are you nominating it for deletion? A merge does not involve a deletion. I have merged several articles myself, and I'm not an administrator and I didn't need to go through VfD. Please read
  Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Or, if you're nervous about merging something, slap a merge tag on it as opposed to a deletion tag. CanadianCaesar 12:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with
  Mobile army surgical hospital. Invalid deletion criteria. — RJH 16:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, signed personal essay with lots of POV content. jamesgibbon 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Signed personal essay, lots of content, mostly encyclopedic but I haven't compared closely with the established article. Probably delete but should be reviewed first for anything needing to be merged. No obvious need for a redirect from this title unless something real gets merged. Barno 01:46, 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 Speedied by Starblind. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andyman

Do I need a reason? This is a nonsense entry. I'd SD it as pn, but its borderline readable, so I'll leave it up to this forum instead. Delete Usrnme h8er 12:29, 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 00:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Rivera, 2nd nomination

This article about a wrestler was undeleted following consensus at

• Keep I guess. No reason not to cover pro wrestlers. I should note that the original deletion was due to an unrelated article, and I do not disagree with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, professional athlete.
  Kappa 13:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, pro athelete. Regarless of how real his sport may or may not be.BillyCreamCorn 19:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Professional actor. --Carnildo 23:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why put it up for deletion, just needed to be cleaned-up a little. And needs more info, but I can take care of that though. — Moe ε 22:02, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Dickison

Created by a vandal to provide a source for his repeated vandalism of