Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 10 July 12 >

July 11

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --

✉
02:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Socio-Nationalism

Neologism. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --

✉
03:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Amir farmanesh

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only thing that links there is this VfD tag :) -mysekurity 01:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, it's actually a portion of his resume in the external link. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reasons above. -Uris 04:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I think he may be just notable for inclusion. Typing "Amir Farmanesh" into google gives 215 hits, and the majority of them are relevent [1]. I don't actually know the criteria for inclusion for government officials, but he seems notable enough from looking at that article. However, it should be moved to Amir Farmanesh.Cyclone49 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Curriculum vitae; we've been o'er this and o'er this. Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Were this to already be a 3rd person, NPOV discussion of the achievements of the person's life, and were those achievements to have amounted to something significant, there would be a debate. However, as a CV, there isn't. Geogre 15:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a student building a resume at this point. Dcarrano 20:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cv vanity. And only 99 unique google hits. --Etacar11 23:40, 11 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. --

✉
03:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Farmanesh

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above (and my previous vote). This guy obviously hadn't heard of a redirect, it seems. -mysekurity 01:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Also appears to be a copyvio-- duplicates his personal web page. -- Mwanner 01:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as website copy. If at all noteworthy this content should have its site linked in his article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Redundant, even if the other were kept. Geogre 15:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above identical vfd. --Etacar11 23:43, 11 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 merge and redirect to

✉
03:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Silo Monster

Monster from one episode of power rangers. Non-notable to the extreme.--InShaneee 00:43, 11 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 no consensus, so keep. --

✉
03:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffries Projects

No claim to notability. Just some buildings with a history of falling apart and housing drug dealers. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlike Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor Homes, there is no indication that this particular project served any role in history, was the locus of any particular action, or is an exemplar of the misguided project mentality. The number of persons passing through it is totally irrelevant, because, by that logic, again, every pizzaria in New York City would be more "notable" than the Battle of Little Big Horn. Rather, it is the effect that a thing has had on the world, and it is that solely because that indicates the likelihood of a need for discussion and explanation and the likelihood of a term being sought by researchers. There is no rule on tenements, projects, height of buildings, etc. To suggest such is to abrogate your voting responsibilities entirely in favor of "rubber stamp" votes. Each article is an individual entity. Geogre 15:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not some corner pizzeria; it was a community of thousands of people. If the community was sited in nice private homes spread out over some suburban tract, presumably there would not be an objection, because there are thousands of such articles on Wikipedia.--Pharos 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would be an objection from me. We do not cover subdivisions, housing estates, etc. We don't do that for the rich or the poor. We only do little subdivisions of perfect homes if they have some interplay with history or the wider culture. The same should be true of tenements. Again, saying "lots of people live there" is ridiculous as a criterion for inclusion or deletion. You don't feel a sudden need to look up 225 Smith Street in Shanghai just because there might be 1,000 people there. You need to look it up if it has some significance other than being a big box of people, if it has some place in history or politics or literature or some other way in which it needs contextualizing. To think otherwise is to think that encyclopedias are about good and bad, that they are passing values by inclusion. Not so. Geogre 23:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It becomes no less notable for being a notable neighborhood belonging to poor people. A. J. Luxton 22:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it's not notable because poor people live in it. Rather, because there is no claim to notability in the article, besides simply housing a lot of people. Like Geogre said, how do these buildings affect society at large? Should I be encouraged to write articles on each dormitory complex at my university? After all, lots of people live there, even if there's virtually nothing to say about them, and certainly nothing that would be of any interest or relevance to the wider culture. We live in a world of six billion people. Allowing articles for anything that holds a couple thousand, regardless of whether anything notable ever happened there, would be like allowing an article for every street in every big city. — Ливай | Ⓣ 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable neighborhood royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this article different then one on public housing high rise projects built in the 1950s? Didn't they all go through the same set of problems? If so, then why is this one so unique that it is encylopedic on its own and not unreasonable to just cover it in a general topic article? Somehow I don't see the number of complaints being filed as encylopedic. Vegaswikian 04:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not the number of complaints that's encyclopedic. It's the fact that this was a major community of Detroit. Eighteen 14-story buildings is a real residential neighborhood, just as real as the 13 others (Category:Detroit neighborhoods) we have articles on.--Pharos 05:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm becoming more of a rabid inclusionist every time I see a needless VfD like this one. This housing project is notable enough and an interesting part of Detroit's history, a neighborhood of sorts in its own right. Why delete it? It's a symbol of, and an important part of, Detroit's particular social culture, especially as it existed in the era of large housing projects. And it's become a cliche but for heaven's sake, repeat after me, Wikipedia is not paper. Edit: I've read a bit about this housing development, and have consequently added some to the article as well as added a link. Actually, this was rather a notable housing development in Detroit (uh, thirteen separate 14-story buildings; don't minimize it), and serves as a symbol of the failures of the high-rise, isolated public-housing model in American cities. There are many articles about the projects (find them on Google) and I encourage everyone to read the article linked in the article now, from the Detroit News. This isn't, as someone keeps comparing these supposedly "non-notable" VfD entries to, a random pizzeria. Moncrief 06:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These housing projects are a big part of how urban America developed itself. Development like that is a big thing in that it drastically affects how a city grows and shapes itself. They are now a big part of urban America's history. They notable, especially these extreme examples. -maclean25 07:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article established notability. As they've been mostly destroyed, I don't see how something new could happen that would make them notable. Maybe they're still known to people from that area, but I don't see how buildings (even large ones) are automatically notable. Friday 14:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is a minor concern for a non-paper Wikipedia. It is not a great article, but it could, with expansion and more verifiability, be valuable to researchers. Such concerns are editorial, and not deletion criteria. Dystopos 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencylopedic. Nothing her or in the article has shown that this neighborhood is encylopedic. It could be mentioned in a list of failed 1950s projects or maybe, if they are different enough, in a failed detroit neighborhood article. This would not be the place for a researcher to look for information, they would go to the back issues of the local newspapers. This is not the place for everything non encylopedic. For this resource to be useful there needs to be quality. Without quality articles, this wiki will die. Including articles that should not belong does not help this project. Notability is not the criteria for admission, however lack of notability is clearly a reason to not include an article. Noteable articles that are not encylopedic should be deleted. Vegaswikian 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree. Researchers will look here for information on topics that are encyclopedic, even if well below the bar of notability for paper encyclopediae. It is more helpful (and absolutely NOT harmful) to have such information preserved here. This would, of course, include references to the pertinent back issues of local papers. Where there is a lack of "quality", there is an invitation to improve the article, not to axe it. --- And while I'm on it, even if I were going to give "notability" more credit as a criterion for deletion, having witnessed a consensus to keep a fleeting web-meme, I would have to set the bar WELL below the threshold of a major public housing project in a major American city. Dystopos 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so a bad decision can be used to justify more? The issue is encylopedic and I don't see that quality in this article. I do see it for an article about the failed housing projects of the 1950s since they all had similar histories and problems. For a project to be encylopedic on its own it would have to be rather different then a general article. I suspect that you and I would agree that some VfD votes keep moving the bar lower and that may not be a good thing if it gets too low. Vegaswikian 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We probably would agree on some. In this case, I think a single housing project is likely to have as much verifiable, encyclopedic info as entire classes of Wikipedia entries both notable and not notable. The fact that the article does not yet contain much of it is an editorial weakness. Deletion doesn't help us. Wikipedia is blessed with the potential to become much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles like this should be left open to encourage the development of that potential. Dystopos 03:03, 14 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. --

✉
03:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

ZAG

Seems to be a hoax, google returns zero hits. PrologFan 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism, probably just a joke. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a hoax. Jaxl 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unverifiable. The article helpfully tells us that the organization lacks any tangible existence. There's nothing to rewrite about, moreover. Although quite a few ZAG University departments exist, Zentrum für Angewandte Geowissenschaften and Zentrum für Anthropologie und Gender Studies aren't the English names that they are known by. Delete. Uncle G 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence such an organization actually exists. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a hoax or is not noteworthy. The irony in the ZAG is pretty funny. DarthVader 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems more like a bad joke and unverifiable. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Original author here... perhaps it should be deleted: ZAG is indeed a joke. I guess the question is whether the joke is widespread enough to make note here. Or perhaps just the article tone is wrong. Much like TLA and GNU, ZAG is an amusing self referential joke on the tendancy to turn everything into an acronym. I guess calling it an organization is misleading... it's just that that is the form of the joke: someone complains about acronyms, and then the jokester asks if they'd like to join the association for "zero acronym growth", or ZAG. Ha ha ha. Well, that's the deal. If it should be deleted based on that, I won't argue. If it should be modified, that sounds good too. Thanks. 05:00, , 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just made an attempt to wikify and expand the page. It isn't a hoax, simply a joke that I believe deserves an explanation. -- Reinyday 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, is it a notable joke? How popular is it? There are no Google hits for "zero acronym growth", and I can't fathom why an English-language joke notable enough for an encyclopedia would not appear anywhere on the web. — Ливай | Ⓣ 23:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 00:31, July 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 delete. --

✉
03:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

MentalBot

Somewhere between "not notable" and "vanity". There are some 26000 hits for the Beehive Forums, which might merit an article (although not in my opinion). However, the bot itself gets very few hits, and none from the aforementioned article. Nothing links here, and only two edits -- from the same anonymous user -- grace the article.

Avriette
01:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Add "nonsense" to above two reasons.
    Avriette
    01:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. yea, seems kinda pointless and nn to me. In agreement with Avriette -mysekurity 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whatever the hell it thinks it is. The nominator is too generous: it is nowhere between nn and vanity: it's absurdity from otherwhere. -Splash 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said {{db|inspid rubbish}} but probably people would have called me prejudiced, or a deletionist, or whatever. I figured it wasn't a speedy, and that the vfd would bear it out. Last time I thought something was completely deletable,
Avriette
07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --

✉
03:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Phuk

hoax with zero (0) relevant Google hits ➥the Epopt 01:21, 11 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 no consensus, therefore keep. --

✉
03:44, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wenlin Software for learning Chinese

This page is an ad for a particular piece of software from a particular company. It is not an encylopedic article. There are many other programs, including freeware and open source, which have a dictionary function etc. Mccready 01:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn ad vanity. -mysekurity 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A stub constituting only an ad, therefore falls under
    Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Companies. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mysekurity. Weak keep after rewrite and assurances of those in better position than me to know that the product is notable (although I still would have liked more specific proof of that). Dcarrano 03:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete if not rewritten. I'm happy to believe that it is a major product, and an NPOV version would be a keep. It's not horrid advertising now, so a little cleaning would swing my vote. Geogre 15:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well known integrated learning system for the Chinese language. There is a review of the package, paying attention to its weaknesses as well as its strong points, here at csu.edu. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have copy edited, adding more information about the software, and a link to the review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge, to a new article with just the company name, as opposed to a page for its product. --Eliezer 11:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Wenlin Institute" shows about 850 google hits. --Eliezer 11:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As a technical matter, "redirect and merge to a new article" is best executed as a page move. Just move to the new name and then edit content accordingly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 13:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable product. Unfocused 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not familiar with vfd policies and didn't find and guideline stating if I'm allowed or not to call some users I know who may vote "keep" (some people that I met while editing Chinese philo related articles). I may explain also why I feel this article on Wenlin is usefull, notably for some other articles : explaining Chinese "concepts" in English is not simple, (typically for "things" like Tao) an usefull way to do it is to give some "etymology" of the Chinese character (even if it is sometimes useless). It give a main line and/or a start. Etymology in Chinese is often very "unprofessionnal" as everyone can see "little pictures" is characters. However, there are some serious and usefull works made on every Chinese characters internal composition and history, those of Wieger and Karlgren for instance. Wenlin is one of them (or, more accuratly, is collecting them). Then, my claim is that this article on Wenlin is valuable for attributing an explanation of a Chinese character. I heard that a major trend in wikipedia now is cite sources, and this helps a lot. BTW, I'm only a user of Wenlin, I don't work for them ! gbog 02:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bushka--GrandCru 17:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be a borderline advertisement, but it does seem more explanatory than promotional. ElleBigelow 05:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems the author might help by spending some time giving us the history of the product and how it is fits into the history of translation. ElleBigelow 05:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not written in form of an ad. And I have heard of Chinese learners using this program before. --Menchi 02:50, 16 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 move to

✉
03:50, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

THE ABC OF SEX EDUCATION FOR TRAINABLES

Note: I found this nomination half completed, I'm following through lots of issues | leave me a message 01:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a hoax. I think it should be deleted. Did I do this right?--BirgitteSB July 7, 2005 23:51 (UTC)


-Its a real movie, google it up.


It does look to be real. The title and all caps and small amount of info made me think it was a hoax. I think it should be deleted if left as is, but it could also be done properly.--BirgitteSB July 8, 2005 02:42 (UTC)

  • Cleanup and expand. As-is, it's pretty bad, and at least it should be dropped in its caps. -mysekurity 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to
    The ABC's of Sex Education for Trainable Persons per IMDB. Pburka 02:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename per Pburka. Dcarrano 02:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Actual movie. Rename according to
    Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Needs to be renamed and expanded. DarthVader 03:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move as per Pburka. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:35, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Move as per Pburka. --Blu Aardvark 08:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and keep, as per Pburka. JamesBurns 09:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion #1. It can then be recreated at its proper title. There are very few words in this "article," and those that are present are POV. It's "infamous?" Let me guess: the anti-sex education folks like to mention it as a way to discredit Planned Parenthood. There is no article here at all. Geogre 16:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a real movie that I purchased from Ebay a few years ago; I'm shocked that it's no longer available for purchase. To the best of my knowledge, planned parenthood has nothing to do with it; I believe the city of New York covered the cost. Although it's eerie and nostalgic to see, it's hardly legendary given how uncommon it is.

. --The_stuart 15:03, 18 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 redirect to

✉
03:54, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Orlaith McAllister

If only Big Brother contestants were required to use NewSpeak... Not notable person in a notable but execrable show.

Aaron Brenneman 01:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge sometimes contestants have valid reasons to separate articles. This isn't one of them. --

Willow 20:19, 16 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. --

✉
04:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

SillyGoth

Advert for non-notable website. Self-promotion from one of the site's admins (on every newpage edit screen: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)."), and an alexa rank of 753,889. Only 348 displayed hits[2], mostly where anybody can post, so it's hard to know how many of them are also self-promotion. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 04:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons give above. -Splash 04:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, use of "we", and peacock terms ("amazing"). People, please read the rules before making an article. I didnt, and my first got deleted, but I learned my lesson, I hope. -mysekurity 05:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 09:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator reasoning. - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Niteowlneils. --Blu Aardvark 09:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, forum vanity, advertising. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blatant POV editing. --
    Natalinasmpf 13:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete nn ad/self-promotion. --Etacar11 23:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Niteowlneils. royblumy 00:26, 12 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. --

✉
04:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ghettoware

Non-notable neologism dic def du jour. 43 displayed hits[3] most of which appear to be other uses. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 03:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Funny, yes; but useful, no. -mysekurity 05:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Neologism/veiled racism with no currency. (Odd that the forced settlement of Jews in Warsaw would be used this way.) Geogre 16:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. neologism, nn. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 18:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism. royblumy 00:26, 12 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 Redirect --Allen3 talk 00:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Japanenglish

Bonus non-notable neologism dic def du jour. About 200 displayed hits[4] but many if not most appear to be other uses. Niteowlneils 01:47, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Daniel

Not sure what to make of this. Definetly vainty though...Delete and vote for the new speedy deletions so we won't need to wait to delete pages like this. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 01:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hugh Daniel didn't write it. I did. I did it only because the FreeS/WAN project page referred to him. It also refers to John Gilmore.--Mcr314 02:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this comment can be investigated. DarthVader 03:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical non-encyclopedic article. With an article like that, I'm afraid I'm not going to grace the comment with an investigation. -Splash 04:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, and what appears to be vanity. I doubt it is useful, unless it shows something significant. -mysekurity 05:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable nonsense. JamesBurns 09:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverifiable (you can't get information about him), irrational (loud man, thinks about lots of things), and nothing points to any reason for an article about him. Geogre 16:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, close to vanity, even if he didn't write it. --Etacar11 23:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. royblumy 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain If Wikipedia is going to have articles about nobodies like
    Nanotech, and many other fields. He likes to keep a low profile, which is why you haven't heard of him. (Unsigned vote by 67.161.42.199
    )
  • Comment There is also a Hugh Daniel who is somewhat notable as the head of a multinational corporation. If kept, the article should disambiguate. Dystopos 15:11, 13 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 Redirect --Allen3 talk 00:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Pizza Delivery

talk) 01:53, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

60's rioting

This seems almost taken from a syllabus -- although I can't confirm that (tried Googling several parts).

In any case, I think it should be redirected to an existing list. List of riots perhaps.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An outline to the subject of US riots and particularly minority/ethnic riots. "Riot" incorporates many majority uprisings, too, you know. All of those American Patriot riots against British rule, the various riots of the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, etc., so this is an attempt at an outline for a lecture (or the notes from a lecture) on race riots in the US in the 1960's. Thus, it's not an article, not properly named, and non-discursive. Geogre 16:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --
    /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/
    20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. royblumy 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this vote please? --

Natalinasmpf 05:20, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 08:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tv carnage

Basically just an advert JeremyA 01:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ad for non-notable product. Dcarrano 03:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This doesn't read like an ad to me. It reads like a genuine, if weak, attempt at an article. A TV show that has 4-5 series and 648 Googles just about makes some kind of late-night bar for notability. Needs capitalizing right, though.-Splash 04:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's very late/early here and that was a very stupid vote of me, as Dcarrano has pointed out very nicely. -Splash 04:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, besides description of it as "horribly amazing"... not a TV show, but a series of videotapes. Dcarrano 04:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. What a weird article....:-\ -mysekurity 05:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --
    /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/
    20:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton brown

Vanity page, hoax. Being edited by several anon editors, one of whom removed {explain-significance}. --

talk
) 02:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) delete, what kind of ibanking does he do if he has time to write this nonsense... lots of issues | leave me a message 02:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity page. Jaxl 02:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Obviously not very important with the 'b' of 'brown' not being capitalised. DarthVader 02:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete 'He also introduced a completely new usage of the profanity fuck, using "fucked" as a synonym for "messed up.' Gosh i always wondered who did that. absolute nonsense.--Porturology 03:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, good point, DarthVader. and i thought i was the one who coined the phrase! ugh! -mysekurity 05:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utter vanity with picture included. --Etacar11 23:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 00:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn vanity --205.203.128.142 14:12, 19 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiltyfied.org

Not notable website.

Aaron Brenneman 02:06, 11 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 --Allen3 talk 00:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Macro project

By Richard B. Cathcart (thank you for getting an Id, please remember to Log in when you edit). I would call this original research but there isn't any. When you strip off the pretentious language all you are left with is "very large civil engineering projects can have ecological impacts". -- RHaworth 02:02, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

  • Delete - not orig research, just blather. Vsmith 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bloviation, POV lacking a P. -EDM 04:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for discussion of future events (I think it's in
    what Wikipedia is not or something). -mysekurity 05:41, 11 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence and public policy

Highly charged POV couched in calm language, unlikely to ever be NPOV, and original research.

Aaron Brenneman 02:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete, unencyclopedic personal essay. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to keep. Not knowing much about the subject, I assumed this was an original essay. It probably does need cleanup for possible original research, though. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is not a personal essay, but rather a planned expansion of the related material in the
    Rikurzhen
    02:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me....? Keep. Dcarrano 02:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Acceptable. Not original research. DarthVader 03:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, doesn't seem to have anything seriously wrong with it. Jaxl 03:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article needs a thorough POV check but is a valid topic. Kaibabsquirrel 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was using the phrase "original research" as per
    Aaron Brenneman 03:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with the topic, the writing is sourced and better than most such articles, and even if what is presumably being targeted as objectionable is deleted or modified encyclopedic content would remain. -EDM 04:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suppose, there's probably a Wiki-article in this. Note however, that merely including a list of references doesn't count. The text and the claims in it need to be related directly to one or more of those references. References are not for saying "look, I'm not the only one doing this so let me have an article", they are for saying "look, this is a verifiable fact, and it comes from here". -Splash 04:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem, I read it again. For the most part, the claims are from the references. Not in the whole part though, but that's no worse than most articles we have here. Still, my point about references is true, imho. -Splash 04:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't contribute to this article, but I notice it's only 2 hours old, so we can probably expect tightening up of the finer points in the future. --
      Rikurzhen
      04:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Definately needs a POV cleanup tho. -mysekurity 05:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is brand-new, concerns a subject that is widely researched, and will benefit from Wikipedia community efforts. Disclaimer: I drafted the article. --DAD T 06:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Interesting topic. JamesBurns 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Hiding 15:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly encyclopedic, if edited somewhat. Strong keepDjadek 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way is an article entitled Intelligence and public policy encyclopedic? I could write a huge article on the stregths and weaknesses of policy issues from government's around the world, and the intelligence involved in creating them, but that's way too broad. The title is broad and meaningless. Unencyclopedic. Hiding 18:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is about intelligence as a subject of public policy, not the role of intelligence in crafting public policy. --
        Rikurzhen
        18:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Your description is way too broad. The scope of the article is much narrower than your comment suggests. The article, a planned expansion of related material in other articles as indicated in the second vote above, focuses explicitly on public policies which specifically regard intelligence testing (e.g. employment law and disparate impact), intelligence measures (e.g. execution of low-IQ criminals), or correlates for which a significant and specific debate exists regarding the role of intelligence (e.g. achievement gaps and No Child Left Behind). The article's title reflects the commonly used terms; that it can be read too broadly is a common problem with titles, and misunderstanding should be quickly dispatched by the article's content, which is quite focused. --DAD T 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Exactly. The title is broad and meaningless, and so unencyclopedic, and the content POV or at best poorly mistitled, since many states do not even entertain execution and all the examples seem to be U.S. based. The content would thus still be unencyclopedic as surely it's a thesis. Hiding 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Restriction to US is hardly grounds for deletion. Specific policies cited in the article are US-only yet have their own WP pages. "...since many states do not even entertain execution" -- this is a red herring, since the
            US Supreme Court ruled on the issue and created a US-wide law. "Surely its a thesis" -- given the citations, one can verify quite easily that it's not a thesis. WP editors are invited to do so. The charge of POV is of course fair, though as many voters have noted, need for POV cleanup does not imply need for deletion. Similarly, the request for a more specific title and the vote to delete seem quite disparate. --DAD T 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Keep, though needs some editing with an eye to NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:44, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Was leaning towards keep until I actually read the article. What a bunch of speculative, mis-informed, US-centric tripe. Definately NOT encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 21:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. Which parts are you referring to? --
      Rikurzhen
      21:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Try these: All military recruits take the Armed Forces Qualification Test, what, everywhere? and The present article covers particular policies and policy areas, generally in the US. A self referring article as well no less. Also, at the very least it has to be Western in bias, and therefore unencyclopedic, since the scope of the article's title will not allow anything less than a broad meaningless overview of all policies, all government and all examinations of intelligence. The only true content on this page would surely have to be something akin to some people think public policy in some parts of the world is designed to discriminate in some way on the issue of intelligence, which may possibly be measured in certain ways, but then again may not, and other people may disagree, whilst in other parts of the world people don't even recognise these as issues. Hiding 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which part of the
          Rikurzhen
          23:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • "The only true content on this page"...fascinating. I stipulate that the Supreme Court rulings, the discussion of disparate impact, the No Child Left Behind law, the quote from Murphy, the citations attributed to Gottfredson, the statement regarding cognitive ability testing's status as the single best predictor of job performance, the reference to the theory of situational specificity, and the statement regarding the AFQT (when properly restricted to the US military) are all verifiable, among (many) others. Please, don't take my word for it; verify. Moreover, the claim that an article must cover all policies, all governments and all examinations of intelligence is pure opinion (and prima facie difficult to swallow, IMHO); WP policy stipulates no such thing. The article is the proper place for material on other countries' policies as well. As the article is roughly 24 hours old, it can hardly be faulted for being a bit drafty. You're invited to flesh it out -- verifiably, of course. --DAD T 23:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, some of these statements regardless of their verifiability need to be limited or qualified in various ways. For instance, the statement that cognitive ability testing is the single best predictor of job performance: what were the other predictors against which it was tested? Obviously, not all possible ones. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 2005 July 12 (UTC)
            • That's true. In this case the statement is part of a direct quote. Also, similar statements appear widely in the literature (and the Hunter and Hunter paper cited is among the seminal primary references for it); the statement represents the consensus position among experts. Perhaps the tweak you're looking for is "best single predictor known" which for experts is perhaps implicit. For the curious (and this is not meant to be a defense of the article, only a response to the comment) cognitive ability testing has been compared to job interviews, job experience, biographical inventory, education, age, personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and agreeableness, and a host of other predictors; in most cases, and particularly for medium- to high-complexity jobs, nothing else comes close to IQ testing in predictive validity. --DAD T 15:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgruntled Keep. I don't like this article, but don't feel up to becoming a part of the monstrosity of an edit war I forsee happening, but anyway my call's that it's not original research, and that's really the only thing from the deletion policy that I think would cover this. The Literate Engineer 04:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, here's a big serve of humble pie, fresh from the oven: I made a mistake. This was not a valid nomination for deletion. As it is rude to talk with your mouth full, I'll stop talking now.
    Aaron Brenneman 06:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Certainly a very important topic. Can and has been studied scientifically, like in the Copenhagen Consensus. Is extremely centered on the US right now, which should be corrected, if possible. There should also be much more emphasis on the many ways in which IQ scores may be improved, especially in the developing world. Ultramarine 20:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those not watching the page, significant non-US content has been added recently in the Health and Nutrition section. --DAD T 18:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm clueless as to how a VfD is closed out. It appears that active discussion has largely wound down and that consensus has emerged. I cannot speak for other editors, but I am grateful for the helpful comments; the article is already better for them. --DAD T 21:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They get evaluated by an admin and closely periodically. --
      Rikurzhen
      23:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important topic carefully and articulated explored, if in a somewhat POV way. carmeld1 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: This could become a very useful reference article, a hallmark of what the Wikipedia is all about. The issue strikes to the heart of matters related to man-made disasters and the
    anti-intellectual discrimination against those who find it uncomfortable to toe the establishment line. Ombudsman 04:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Cryptoracist POV. 172 12:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMHO, that a very unhelpful opinion. In the U.S. population, most variation in IQ occurs (1) within familes and (2) between families of the same race and social class. Claiming that discussion of this topic is racist is like claiming that a discussion of poverty is racist. --
      Rikurzhen
      23:14, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Intelligence research doesn't intrinsically qualify for deletion. Nectarflowed T 01:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Please cleanup and head the topic so the article's import is apparant at its outset. Amicuspublilius 23:07, 19 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anderhage Incentive

A secret society that seems so secret that I can't find any verifiable information about it. Almost identical information at Rostrum Campus. Joyous (talk) 02:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • "We are a covert anti-terrorist team that is so secret, when we snap our fingers NOTHING HAPPENS." (Face/Off) 10 non-WP google hits (most of which look like mirrors) = hoax or non-notable conspiracy theory = Delete. Dcarrano 02:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable if not a hoax. DarthVader 03:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DarthVader. -mysekurity 05:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same as above Djadek 08:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article admits to being unverifiable.- Mgm|(talk) 09:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Nonsense. "Greek Emperor Nero?" West Sweden? All records lost? It's supposed to be funny, I think, but is too bathetic to manage it. Geogre 16:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax. Anything so secret no one knows about it doesn't belong here. --Etacar11 23:53, 11 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AngelBear

and Angelbear and Angel Bear (All three the same content)

Seems to be a hoax/joke. Zero hits for Angel Bear "Ursus Angelus". Sample from the article: "The North American Angel Bear (Ursus Angelus Americanus), most commonly referred to as Ann Marie, injests large amounts of honey and other sweet items to help match her personality."--sounds pretty joke-y. Niteowlneils 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax, joke, vanity, or some combination of the three. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 03:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a hoax. DarthVader 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Android. -mysekurity 05:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Kid (self-)tribute. Geogre 18:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless vanity listing. Duckorange 15:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could have been speedied.
    Binadot 03:48, 19 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 --Allen3 talk 00:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

CastleCops

This article was created by two (possibly one, as one is anonymous) known link spammers, one of which (User:Zhen-Xjell) works for the website in the article. Both editors have link spammed to this website on several articles. The article itself may be link spam. LGagnon 02:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Authors aside, this is still nn website vanity. No real proof of why it needs to be here. -mysekurity 05:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi'ya, thanks for the comment. I found some time today to check out some more pages and found
      Wikipedia:Google_test, which is where the previous article's Talk page took me. Is that the page typically used in such VfD discussions? I never knew that the team effort of the Wikipedia was so precise and professional. I'm very impressed. TIA--Paul Laudanski 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Weak delete. CastleCops, along with several other security sites, was the target of SLAPP-like cease and desist activity on the part of the authors of iDownload spyware [5] [6]. The site is also relatively notable in the anti-spyware community; however, I don't think that makes it sufficiently notable on either account to be worth a Wikipedia article, especially if vastly larger sites like SecurityFocus aren't here too. --FreelanceWizard 10:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this does beat the five-issue webcomics but still doesn't rise to notability requirement for websites, when WP's systematic bias towards Internet/computing is considered. Dcarrano 13:55, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article strongly appears to be an instance of abusing Wikipedia to direct traffic (or, more likely, search engine results) to a site. --FOo 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]
    BTW -- User:Zhen-Xjell signs his posts "Paul Laudanski", which is the name of the owner of the site in question, according to the WHOIS record. --FOo 02:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote to delete is withdrawn. I now vote Keep, as it seems clear that the editor in question is well-intentioned and not interested in spamming us. --FOo 02:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi folks, I am the author of this article (and make no attempt to hide who I am as owner of the WHOIS record for CastleCops) and was on the road when I couldn't log in to my account. I apologize if it makes me a "link spammer", however that was not my intention. In the past I stumbled upon some articles like
    WP:NOT, et al) on spamming just now and Wikipedia:Vanity versus Wikipedia:Importance. Certainly this discussion and outcome will give me a practical example of what is WP permissible. In reference to the computer security articles I have modified, yes they contained links to CC, but those links were in my humble opinion noteworthy and useful. I did add other links to Sunbelt, Spywareinfo, Microsoft, and elsewhere -- some of which were also removed by others. I will of course oblige with whatever outcome admin decides, however, I would ask that the information I added in all the articles that were reverted be inspected for importance and value. I have read many comments in the VfD log section make mention of global reach (Google, Alexa, et al), I also ask that admin query the same -- the results (at least in my very humble opinion) indicate there is no reason for me to "link spam". Rather, my intent was to offer the reader as much information as possible. Certainly, an example is Spyware where I added a "Research" section with links to live database lists for processes, startups, services, spyware/adware, et al. I'd hate to see useful information removed (other articles I edited, and not the topic of this discussion) just because of little ole me. Thanks for your time, I hope this answers any and all questions. Paul Laudanski 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I have gone over why your links count as link spam on both your talk page and Talk:Spyware. As for the other sites you linked to, you gave very few of them (none in equal amounts to your site's links) and, as the person who has been cleaning up the link spam, I did not delete those links. What I deleted was a bunch of additions you made in the References section of the Spyware article that looked suspect (as you added citations for them that went nowhere). -- LGagnon 03:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks for your prompt reply. I have thus replied in Talk:Spyware in reference to "citations" explaining my Wiki code ignorance. Curiously, which links in References were "suspect"? I appreciate the passion and willingness you and anyone else has to discuss these things with me. --Paul Laudanski 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough Google hits to be notable. Should be written more neutrally though. -- RainR 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thank you for the feedback, I appreciate it. May I ask for some suggestions on how/where to make the article more neutral? I apologize in advance if this is not the best place to ask.--Paul Laudanski 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Major example, the last sentence in the community section. Not enough linking to other Wiki articles. Also, try to include factual information: who runs it, what software it runs, specific dates. Using O* codes in the Wiki without explaing them there may be bad form. -- RainR 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Thanks for the recommendations, I'll start making adjustments. Although, anything you or anyone else sees please feel free to hop right in. I love the whole concept of Wiki and its collaborative approach.--Paul Laudanski 20:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. Phrases like "what is hot and what is not", "and more" usually aren't found in a neutrally written article. Some of the product namings read like name-dropping; unless you're an official site for them or they're your main focus, probably don't list them. Calling a lawsuit a SLAPP is a point of view that a lawsuit is without merit (and also if I understand correctly, no lawsuit was actually filed) -- RainR 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. Ok thanks again. Will go make the changes. As to the SLAPP comment, I was working off the reply from User:FreelanceWizard, but you do have a point. Some of those product namings we are official for, so I'll keep them?--Paul Laudanski 14:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. Keep the bit about the Cease and Desist. The coverage it got is one of the things that makes the site notable. Just word it in a neutral way.-- RainR 07:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like a pop-up advertisement or spam e-mail. Arevich 20:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi and thanks for the feedback. This VfD has taught me so much: I was reading some more of the Policies and Guidelines like
      Wikipedia:Wikiquette which quite amazingly are very informative and have helped me better understand WP. Hence, I want to say that it was my good faith intention to share useful and important information rather than be viewed as advertisement or spam. May I ask what your thoughts are exactly on how to make it a better article? I'm currently working on User:RainR's suggestions above.--Paul Laudanski 21:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete Well written, but no encyclopedic value; just advertising -- lucio 08:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi Lucio, question, what are your recommendations on making it have encyclopedic value?--Paul Laudanski 16:04, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 11:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

EbolaWorld

EbolaWorld is not a very well-known websbite; for example, looking up "Taco-Man", or "The George Bush Show" do not display any pages on ebolaworld.com Gafaddict 03:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment . The Alexa rank for their website is 417,000, and they get 9440 Googles on just their name. Most of these appear to be hobby-sites, however. If someone filters through the Googles and shows me where they have come to considerable media attention I might vote keep. -Splash 04:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm with Splash. I'm kinda leaning towards weak delete, but I can be swayed either way, with enough background. -mysekurity 05:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another website. Dcarrano 13:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Inasmuch as Wikipedia is not a web guide, a site needs to not only be popular, but actually a leader in some respect for me to believe that it requires coverage. The more susceptible to time the site is, the less we need it. Geogre 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* they have had several shows on flashplayer.com, such as the george bush showJCS 22:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* The website is very good and obviously destined for success. Ebolaworld's Michael Jackson cartoons have been featured on atomfilms. Newgrounds puts ebolaworld cartoons on the front page everytime they are submitted. One of its series recently won 3 different categories in the animation magazine pitch party contest.(http://www.animationmagazine.net/article.php?article_id=4200). The George Bush Show was featured in a holiday issue of Hustler magazine in 2003. --Adamcik 21:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This vote is Adamcik's only edit --Allen3 talk 11:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 08:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ruairí

A dicdef of an Irish word.

Dmcdevit
03:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dictionary definition. DarthVader 03:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. Jaxl 03:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete foreign dicdef. -mysekurity 05:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Digestif

A dicdef of an French (and English? Sounds familiar, but doesn't matter since it's a dicdef either way) word.

Dmcdevit
03:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd love to see that vfd. Why don't you see if you can persuade the folks voting "keep" on
    Kappa 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It would be helpful if you didn't respond to counterexamples with personal attacks and misrepresentations.
    Kappa 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am not one of the people who believe that "nothing should be deleted" so your comments are misdirected.
    Kappa 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • These topics are unrelated.
    Kappa 00:46, 13 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original four

Vanity? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 03:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No doubt that this is vanity. DarthVader 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Jaxl 03:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unquestionably vanity, and nn vanity at that. Plus the fact that they referenced future events, a no-no. -mysekurity 05:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four people who think that inventing a collective name for themselves is all it takes for them to be notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is the kind of thing we should be able to speedy. the wub "?/!" 08:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 09:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. Mrendo 11:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hopes, the dreams, the naivette, the innocence...it brings an honest, unjaded tear to my eye. Delete for the glaringly obvious reason (vanity) and for making me cry. Geogre 18:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See the proposals at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2. --Carnildo 19:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 23:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If I had come across this I would probably have userfied it and deleted the link. It's rather nice but not encyclopedic. Not worth discussion either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 18 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment (Magic: The Gathering)

This page was VfD'd June 25 with the following vote by User:Zantastik, but it was never listed. Completing the nomination. No vote. -- Grev -- Talk 03:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Magic: The Gathering -- Zantastik talk 07:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This should be merged with Magic: The Gathering. DarthVader 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this not simply another 'expansion set', as listed here:
    Torment_(Magic:_The_Gathering) and Onslaught_(Magic:_The_Gathering)? Surely this can potentially be expanded to the extent of many of the other 'expansion set' articles. That is of course not to mention the complications of merging an infoboxed article with the main article. Seeaxid 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge as per Seeaxid. Good point. -mysekurity 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Existing Wikipolicy on M:tG expansions seems to be to give each their own page, as evidenced by the fact that most of them have their own articles (and at least one of those articles, the Legions page, is literally a one-line substub). In short, there's a precedent for keeping it, and while that precedent may not be smart, I don't think this is the place to overturn it. Marblespire 09:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for bringing this to my attention. DarthVader 11:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(<-- See below). That's to some extent what I was saying, but it seems I was misinterpreted. Oh well, Seeaxid 12:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Sets in order of release:
    • Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering)
      created Apr 2005
    • Antiquities (Magic: The Gathering)
      created Apr 2005
    • Legends (Magic: The Gathering)
      created Apr 2005
    • The Dark created May 2005
    • Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) created May 2005
    • Fallen Empires created May 2005
    • Alliances (Magic: The Gathering)
      created May 2005
    • Homelands (Magic: The Gathering)
      created May 2005
    • Mirage, Visions and Weatherlight do not seem to have articles.
And so on... obviously the idea of "Existing Wikipolicy" is kind of an odd thing in the face of such new (and sometimes non-existing) articles. -Harmil 12:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, I sincerely fail to grasp what contention you are making. Seeaxid 12:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This discussion, as Seeaxid said, does not belong here. Current policy is to eventually have a well-developed page for each expansion set. Andrew Levine 11:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: Many of the M:tG expansions have well developed pages and this one just needs a little love. -- Nis81 13:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Most of the expansions seem to have pages, and this doesn't seem much different from having an article on a best-selling book Salsb 20:58, 15 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xhavok

Vanity Page Atratus 04:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • At present, vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion. See
    WP:CSD and note additionally that out-of-process changes have recently been made to these (though they still don't include vanity) -Splash 15:15, 13 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightly.net

Article doesn't establish notability, it just has a lot of message board politics and such. Alexa traffic rank 104,302. Wikipedia is not a web directory. TheCoffee 04:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 04:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. -Splash 04:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, too much politics but nightly IS one of the oldest online SW communities. -Klestrob44 05:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 09:20, 11 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.

Nightly.net

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 11:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Kahn's Law

Original research? "Kahn's law" gets 72 Google hits, none of which seem to be related. This is the only article by the author. TheCoffee 04:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 04:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten into an encyclopedic article on the main Google hit; "that the effectiveness of a committee is inversely proportional to the number of participants and the time spent deliberating". I doubt that an encyc article exists in the future for that, however. But I do wonder how it might apply to VfD... -Splash 04:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Splash. -mysekurity 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student neologism. JamesBurns 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable law. Don't even know if the law is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 15 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E5_Series_Shinkansen

There is no such train as the E5 series, and so this page can only be considered a hoax. Dave 04:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Trusting the user above (Dave), this is a hoax. DarthVader 05:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with above. -mysekurity 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is indeed No Such Train. - Thatdog 08:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:21, 11 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 Userfy. Scimitar parley 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Illustrating a point

Contentless

WP:POINT Whig 04:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Sorry, you are quite right. The trouble with editing past dawn. Comment corrected. -Splash 13:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't like the article, why didn't you leave me a note on my user talk page, instead of vfd'ing behind my back? And before you say "the rules permit it", let me remind you about Wikipedia:gaming the system. Uncle Ed 18:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not gaming anything, I think the article is inappropriate in Wikispace at least in its present form. Please feel free to Userfy it yourself and develop it into something worthwhile. No personal insult intended. Whig 22:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • None taken. Thanks. All I ask, is that if someone userfies it, they leave a note somewhere so I can find it. Uncle Ed 12:50, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. If you aren't done, why is it linked from
    Talk
    18:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 00:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Weeman the fisherman

It looks like a hoax and gets no hits on Google:[8] Seeaxid 04:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"'Do not delete'" This is legit User:CitadelWeeman05 05:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC) (No such user, edit actually by article creator 67.172.181.134)

Delete Well i did put it up for deletion Jobe6 04:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Based on real life events involving two college students from both coasts taunting each other over a girl SilverSnake020

  • Delete per other delete votes. --Trovatore 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough. Thue | talk 19:33, 22 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 --Allen3 talk 00:22, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sarah nashold

While probably true, this does not appear to meet any standards of notability. Looks like vanity. A google search only turns up her resume, and other non-notable references. Delete.

Dmcdevit
04:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

General any topic

Doesn't establish notability. Nothing links to it. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Alexa ranking 927,588. TheCoffee 05:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, why do people put so much effort into this forumcruft? the wub "?/!" 08:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 14:11, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Phillips

Autobiography. Delete as vanity Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn vanity. -mysekurity 05:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. DarthVader 07:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Claims subject exhibited at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. If this can be verified it would make him notable. Pburka 23:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/self-promotion, google hits just say he gave talks at these places, I think. Doesn't make him a notable artist, in my opinion. --Etacar11 00:32, 12 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 keep (no consensus). There are some merge votes, but they don't specify a target. Therefore, I will just call this one an outright keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gak

A band who only played one show and that was at a party? Sounds like a glorified jam session - clearly non-notable, despite the obvious notability of participants XmarkX 05:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 05:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn, an improvised band that existed for a few hours. --
    TheMidnighters 08:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete non notable jam. JamesBurns 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as a band page at all, and once again I feel I need to ask JamesBurns: what is your threshold for a notable jam? A major event with unarguable super-stars of corporate rock isn't notable? Pray, what is? Elvis returning from the dead to jam with the Statue of Liberty?!
This event was clearly an item for the rock-n-roll history books even if you don't like these performers (as I do not). -Harmil 12:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldnt be notable - it wouldnt be true. Everyone knows that Elvis is alive and working at my local burger franchise, so he couldnt possibly be dead. JamesBurns 06:07, 12 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 REDIRECT. Jinian 20:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American political shift

Article is a dicdef and there is no evidence that the meaning of the term is what the article says. "American political shift" can mean anything. Yahoo search on "American political shift" with the quotes returns 11 hits of which 4 are Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors, and the other 7 have no relation at all to the definition given in the article. Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 05:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I heard about this before; perhaps it should get a clearer name, but I think we should definately keep and expand it. Djadek 08:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--2 reasons. First of all, this isn't an actual term used in political science or history, it's a neologism--the search engine results show this, and I've never heard it despite a political science degree and years of inspired nerdiness. Secondly, it grossly oversimplifies a hundred years of U.S. history, and is thus quite inaccurate. I would vote keep if this were a notable inaccuracy, but it is not. Meelar (talk) 14:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Neologism; Merge into Politics of the United States, which does have historical info such as this. Dcarrano 14:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Realignment. Don't merge, this info is covered better elsewhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:53, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Redirect to realignment which is the common name for this subject. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom gaffe

Doesn't sound particularly notable. Greatest claim to fame seems to be managing a youth venue somewhere. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GTA: San Andreas Guide

An attempt to write a video game guide. Not an encyclopedic topic, but the author might want to look into Wikibooks. Don't know if they accept video game guides. Rhobite 06:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Kaibabsquirrel 06:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark 06:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would have voted to transwiki to Wikibooks, but there are about ten different guides on Wikibooks on various parts of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Cyclone49 06:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Cyclone49. I have personally seen the books, in response to Rhobite. Perhaps Thankingcobra would like to look there? (and maybe at some of the wikitutorials?). -mysekurity 07:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, GameFAQs calling? --Madchester 07:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the wikibooks already exist and this adds nothing to them yet. Gently inform author about Wikibooks and why game guides don't belong here.- Mgm|(talk) 10:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pending creation of a WikiGamer project. Almafeta 21:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - Agent003
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was userfy, presumably, make this the userpage of User:RyanSaotome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Saotome

Vanity, created by user:RyanSaotome. Not notable, see also Wikipedia:Autobiography.Thue | talk 06:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. I also sugguest said subject move article to his own userpage, where it would be better served, as he currently lacks one, it would be a much more appropriate place for such an article. -mysekurity 07:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Suggestion by Mysekurity is a good idea. DarthVader 07:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per
    tɔk tə mi 07:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Has edited some other articles afterwards, so not here just for just the vanity. Mgm|(talk) 10:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy That's what user pages are for. --JB Adder | Talk 11:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Dcarrano 14:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy that's what it's for. --Etacar11 00:49, 12 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 --Allen3 talk 11:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

M.R.M. Parrott

Appears to be reproduce article, but some time has passed.

  • Please see discussion which refers to another VfD. Has he become notable enough since then?
  • Please vote based only upon his notability, not his likability.
  • And, uncharacteristically enough - Abstain.

Aaron Brenneman 06:57, 11 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. Woohookitty 00:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a character that is only used in Macintosh computers. Even the title is not properly visible on non-Macintosh computers. Useless article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbotika

Non-notable, unverifiable dance non-craze. the wub "?/!" 07:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unverifiable by its own admission. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 14:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two things:
    1. There aren't any artists who use the Beatbotika style--or at least any notable ones--so it's of no use to anyone;
    2. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Doesn't matter how much the contributor thinks it'll be a craze, it shouldn't be here. --JB Adder | Talk
      04:48, July 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Börner

I just finished this nomination. No vote by me. --

Dmcdevit
07:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet

WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Delete. Icelight
6 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete content, redirect/disambig (I'm regarding redirect and disambig as essentially the same thought here, since a disambig is really just multiple redirects on the same page). Scimitar parley 19:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan

I'm marking this VfD because I'm pretty sure it's a "vanity term", meaning it's a word invented based on someone the author knows personally. It is not a notable term and references a specific person. (preceding

unsigned comment by Mipadi
08:09, July 3, 2005 (UTC))

  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE and REDIRECT to The Heroic Legend of Arslan. 67.68.64.81 09:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per 67.68.64.81, even though his conflicting vote is the standard example. -Harmil 11:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "delete and redirect" is for once correct. The contents of this article should have been speed-deleted, and a redirect to a relevant article should then have been created. No license infringement involved, see? - Mustafaa 13:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am not mistaken, Arslan is Turkish for "lion". There are a few people and a few places with Arslan as part of their name. Wouldn't a disambiguation page be appropriate? Redirecting to a modern fantasy novel seems like a case of systemic bias. Uppland 16:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good point - I should have checked the link. In that case, delete and disambig. - Mustafaa 18:19, 11 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.

.

I vote to keep, since arslan is derived from persian Arsalan. Which means Lion, it was adopted by Turks, hence Iranian or Persian Kings with the name pre turkishi migration and also found in the Shahnameh the Persian epic. I vote keep it. --Aryan 14:31, 2 January 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FinalFantasy123

Vanity, non-notable flash artist. Was subject of previous VfD with Delete consensus. Delete again. Thatdog 08:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable artist. JamesBurns 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatdog. Dcarrano 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy since it is recreated content. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a recreation. The previous nomination was never listed in the log, meaning it was never seen, or closed, or deleted, or recreated. --
      t
      21:08, July 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalipps

Non-notable rapper with a very high opinion of himself. the wub "?/!" 08:18, 11 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 --Allen3 talk 11:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

7 Colored Fish

This may as well stand for all the pages I nominated yesterday, for the following reasons:

  1. The cards that these are written about are hardly notable. Many are not even famous within the Yu-Gi-Oh! community.
  2. The old "if every card had an article..." line holds true here.
  3. These articles have all been created by the same IP address. If several people made them, I could possibly accept it, but this person (or small group) have created all of these short, uninformative articles.
  4. The XYZ Series already has its own article, so the following pages may as well be merged with it:
  5. An article already exists for each set, so we could always merge some of the more useful content into those articles, eg 7 Colored Fish into Metal Raiders.
  6. The creator appears to be somewhat biased towards WATER- and FIRE-type monsters. If these articles remain, there should at least be an even spread over the wide variety cards that could possess their own article.
  7. And finally, is it likely that Yu-Gi-Oh! fans will come to an encyclopedia of all places to find information on individual cards? If they are, should we begin reviewing cards? This appears to be the direction in which we are heading, if we do not act.

I made those articles and I am willing to talk about the problem. Maybe we could work things out so it benefits both of us.

Talk then; I have laid out my point of view. And you should really create an account if you embark on such a courageous project. Setokaiba 07:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your idea about reviewing cards would be interesting.

<Falls over backwards in a very animé-style way.> Setokaiba 17:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we start reviewing cards?

  • Strong delete for this, and all other individual weapons in Yu-Gi-Oh (or any other anime) that have their own articles. It's fancruft, I tell you. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
  • Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Delete --
    YOЯ
    8 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable fancruft. I dunno how Yu-Gi-Oh! cards work, but if this thing belongs in any sort of series of cards, can't you just merge it in? Individual cards do NOT need their own articles. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone wants to start
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex. That probably wouldn't work because there are over 1000 Duel Monsters cards and only 386 Pokemon.--pile0nadestalk | contribs 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Wikipedia is neither a TCG card database nor a place for card reviews. Only cards that contribute majorly to the Yu-Gi-Oh! storyline deserve their own articles. Riddle | Talk 07:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual cards are not notable.  Grue  19:13, 14 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A-B Porn

Finished this nomination, no vote by me. --

Dmcdevit
08:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. By its own admission, this article is about a neologism that has not become widespread -- wikipedia is not a neologism-spreader. -- Zantastik talk 03:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. BTW: "Made famous in the Christopher Walken classic "Brainstorm" (1983). It was to be the last film that Natalie Wood appeared in." Didn't she appear in one of the new Star Wars films as well? - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to Natalie Portman perhaps? Natalie Wood tragically drowned in 1981. JamesBurns 10:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're absolutely right. No clue as to how I mixed them up.... - 131.211.210.10 12:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup This is a notable neologism, and keep in mind that neologisms are "acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape". I'm not sure what the Google hit count on A-B Porn should be before it's considered a notable neologism, but for porn-related slang, it's up there.
  • Delete. The podcast landscape is usually just a miniscule fraction of the public landscape. --Scimitar 13:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Google test for porn is really not reliable; look at the excerpts from the websites listed, most of them are nonsensical. Dcarrano 14:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Neologism. Also, I'm very confused. Somehow, the term was "made famous" in a movie from 1983, but "was first mentioned during a podcast". Either the iPod has been around for much, much longer than I was aware, or this entry is pretty bs-y. jglc | t | c 14:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 20:05, 11 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 --Allen3 talk 11:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

ACC_Climate_Control

This article is merely a commercial advertisement. (preceding

unsigned comment by JunkCookie
21:57, June 19, 2005 UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 11:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Acushnet Company

It even reads like an advertisement. Delete. Sholtar 04:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ad Dsmdgold 01:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm sorry, but this company seems notable. History21
  • Keep As a major employer of Southeastern Massachusetts with a long and notable history it should be kept. It just needs to be rewritten as to not sound like an advertisement. Mike (Unsigned 1st-3rd edit by IP 12.25.34.133. ~Mbsp)
  • Delete Advertisement, not encyclopedic. Djadek 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable sportswear manufacturer. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Can I please convince the deletionists to at least do some casual research before they point and shoot? per 12.25.34.133 who, anonymous or no, is right on the money (my mother worked for them for a while, and I heard about them constantly growing up) -Harmil 10:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-worked the aritcle and added some more detail. These folks have been making the #1 golf ball in pro golf for 57 years. How are they not notable, exactly? -Harmil 11:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of them and I'm not even a golfer. --Calton | Talk 11:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather see it become a start to the presently missing Fortune Brands article, until space issues force otherwise. Fortune Brands is an NYSE co.--this is just one subsidiary. Let's start big and work our way down. I've heard of Titleist even tho' I'm NOT a golfer, but I'm guessing Acushnet is only a small part of their history. Niteowlneils 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also looks like the first version was copyvio and should be dealt with accordingly. Niteowlneils 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This subsidiary is quite notable on its own, and keep in mind that Fortune Brands is just an umbrealla holding company. They own Tequila companies, shoe makers, office supply companies, lock makers, bathroom fixture makers, etc. Because of this weird diversity, I think it makes sense to have one article for the holding company and one for each major categorical business unit (such as Acushnet, which is the sporting goods division), and possibly even one each for the really well-known individual brands that we already have like Titleist, Jim Beam, Swingline, and DeKuyper. Yes, a company can be so huge and diverse that it can be worth several entries in Wikipedia. Take Ford for example, though I will grant that Ford is "F" on they NYSE where Fortune Brands has to slum with the two-letter "FO".... -Harmil 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the holding company stub, Fortune Brands has been created. I think when you see that page, and think about the fact that they employ 32,000 people world-wide, the idea of an article for this division will not seem quite so odd. -Harmil 04:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like an ad for a company I've never heard of. --BradBeattie 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - golf puts me into a coma, but even I know about this golf ball company --Mothperson cocoon 00:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Titleist is a brand even a non-golfer has heard of (or seen the ads for). Uppland 12:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 13:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC) very well, keep per the below. Radiant_>|< 09:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP You've got to be kidding me. A hundred year old company, one of the most important companies in the game of Golf, and someone is seriously considering deleting it? Titleist golf ball production has only been going on since 1932. Yes, it was bought by a larger company, but only after establishing a very notable history of its own first. Unfocused 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not an ad. It is about an important company. Fg2 07:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable company, not advertisment enough to make this delete-worthy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 13 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 KEEP.

NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Adidas 1

  • Delete:too little content ~ Dpr 6 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)
  • 'delete - dito, tempted to do a speedy deletion. andy 6 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, is now expanded, but still needs help with formatting and tone. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I made it into a more traditional stub. This is a pretty significant first, and I really don't see how it could be considered non-notable, even on the first day after its introduction. -Harmil 10:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, We have articles on Sharpie and other such things. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, if they put a microchip and an electric motor in a Sharpie, I'd write the article! :) -Harmil 15:57, 11 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 KEEP.

NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Africa (Toto song)

I finished this nom that was never listed here. No vote from me. --

Dmcdevit
09:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

delete/merge to Toto (band) - I think this small of an article is not necissary. in the main Toto article, there could be a mention of its appearance in GTA:VC, but this small of an article is not necessary. At least not for now. mysekurity 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is the criteria for a song if "Africa" can't make it? -Harmil 10:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. #1 song on Billboard charts in 1993 see [9] . Capitalistroadster 10:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not really much of an article, forgettable 80s song. JamesBurns 10:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Forgettable? The darn song still gets stuck in my head to this day Youngamerican 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleaup Gorrister 14:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redir. I like the song, but two sentences? Keep it in Toto (band) until/unless it's ready to stand on its own. Niteowlneils 14:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC) or as BD2412 said, the album.[reply]
That said, at some point we need to decide if WP's main goal is to be a timeless, universal encyclopedia, or just a db of today's pop[mostly Western]-culture (I wouldn't be surprised if we have more articles on fictional alien races from the StarWars extended universe than real human races/languages on Earth). If it's the former, I'd like to volunteer as the first paid full-time WP editor. If it's the latter, I may find something else to do with those 60-70 hours per week. Niteowlneils 17:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be assuming that real things and fictional ones are fighting over limited resources, which is not true in an unlimited electronic encyclopedia. WP should aim to be an encyclopedia of all culture, and western/pop culture should be kept not just on its own merits but precisely because it preserves wikipedia's potential coverage of non-western/non-popular cultures. The kids in Africa should be able to use wp to tell each other and the world about whatever songs they are listening to.
    Kappa 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
And how many dollars have you donated to Wikipedia to build new DB servers? And how many non-Western pop-cultural articles have you contributed to or voted to keep? Theoretical/idealistic and real-world limits are very different. And a merge/redir to the band or album article would allow the "...kids in Africa should be able to use wp to tell each other and the world about whatever songs they are listening to..." to do just that. Niteowlneils 20:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and hard to forget.
    Kappa 14:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as a notable song but only if expanded. Otherwise merge with the band article until someone gets around to writing a full article. 23skidoo 15:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge with an article on the album from whence it came. Notable song. --
    talk
    15:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable song, emblematic of the 80's. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Merge unless the album or band page is too busy for it, then keep would be acceptable. And damn you all for giving me an
    ear worm. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per capitalistroadster (Sorry, forgot to sign my vote Chuck 18:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC))
  • A notable song, but nothing here. Redirect, unless expanded into a semi decent article, in which case keep. -R. fiend 03:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and, I hope, expand. An important 80s song and worthy of an expanded article. Moncrief 06:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect unless expanded. -Sean Curtin 06:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • The song is older than I am, but I love it. Keep and expand. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left my brains down in Africa. Erm, I mean, keep, notable song. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable song of the 80's. --YUL89YYZ 20:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know a depressing large number of people who enter into ecstatic trances when this song plays. Xoloz 03:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable song, per Capitalroadster. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Great song, but is there really much more to be said about it? (cf. Billie Jean, another 1983 hit) Unless the article can be expanded to something more subtantial, it doesn't really seem to warrant its own entry. ----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aitsu

Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The brushback.com

Delete, self-advertising/non-notable website Atratus 10:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the Alexa ranking is 182,470. Not notable, delete. --
    Dmcdevit
    10:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 10:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, unless someone can prove otherwise. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 13:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per
    Dmcdevit -Harmil 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  DO NOT DELETE---this is a growing site that should be included
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 SSD (band). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Al Barile

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander raftopoulos

I'm sure Grampa Raftopoulos was a great guy, and it's too bad he died so relatively young, but he wasn't notable. DS 02:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable. Requiescat in pacem Alexander Dsmdgold 23:29, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not important Dr Ingel 01:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Malathion 2 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia isn't a memorial and the article doesn't indicate he's done anything noteworthy. I'm tempted to speedy for a lack of useful content. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 10:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, genealogy. --Etacar11 00:55, 12 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Jack

I sent this to vote because the article to me doesn't say anything extra "real" about this phrase. If it's a valid phrase, then a vote shall decide, no? Antares33712 21:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, found 628,000 Google hits for this article. DCUnitedRock23
  • Delete. If anything, the phrase should be "I'm alright Jack" or "I'm all right Jack". However, this might be better off in Wiktionary, if that handles phrases. As it is, the article struggles to say anything of value, and the usage sentence is very contrived. The only thing that might rescue it is some etymology. Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable lists it (using 'all right', along with a Naval equivalent ("Pull up the ladder, Jack, I'm inboard") and an Australian equivalent - "Jack system"). If you feel it necessary to keep, then I'd suggest that those snippets are added. Noisy | Talk 17:04, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • In the UK, it is quite normal for "alright jack" to be used to describe things other than oneself. "I'm alright jack" may have been the original example, but the phrase has migrated to become a general term, and usage as in "They don't care, it's a safe seat, the MP is alright jack" (in an informal context) is common. Hyphz
    • Wiktionary accepts articles on idioms, such as bob's your uncle, containing etymologies, examples of their usages, and explanations of their meanings. Uncle G 12:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary It'd be more at home there, instead of in the encyclopedia. --JB Adder | Talk 11:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable stereotype of an attitude.
    Kappa 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Very, very common British phrase of the post-war era. Perhaps should be moved to "I'm All Right Jack" with a disambig to the Peter Sellers/Ian Carmichael film of the same name. The film may be slightly better known outside the UK than the phrase and I have no real opinion on how the ambiguity should be resolved except that one of them should be primary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Radiant_>|< 13:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per TonySidaway. Xoloz 03:09, 13 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amanecer de sol

I hereby nominate this page for deletion.

  • (nomination by anon 152.163.100.202, but I second it - vanity. Denni☯ 01:43, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC))
  • Delete: POV, promotional --Tomunist 16:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable, vanity, pov. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A popular guild in Guild Wars". Delete. Meelar (talk) 14:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMC KOSHY

Appears to be vanity, I've pulled it of CAT:CSD and put it here, just to be sure. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English Twister

Vanity page for 18 year old wrestler - not notable --Porturology 03:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think it is a hoax, and even if it weren't, it is not notable. -- Marcika (properly listing the article on VfD.)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 08:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guildwars - Warrior

Game guide. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non encyclopedic. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non encyclopedic. The Guild Wars article already has a brief overview of this class, we do not need detailed guides for video games here. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:53, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson burger

Hoax. Search for "Johnson burger" idaho = 11 Google hits, none relevant [10] --Uppland 11:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete'. -- BMIComp (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless a proper reference source can be found it must be treated as a hoax. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ("Johnson burger" "Thomas Johnson") returns zero relevant links. —Tokek 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoaxier than a hoaxy thing. KeithD 15:29, 19 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ASERTH

Promotion/Original research. Quote from the linked website "was released in July 2005". If it gains any usage then it may be worth an article, but not yet. andy 11:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable, also gives no information whatsoever, seems more of a personal rant than anything else. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 13:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nominator. —Tokek 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much as I like this kind of things. Agree that it may be re-created if the layout spreads- LjL 00:43, 14 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spazz Inc.

Advertising/nn.

NSR (talk) 13:39, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Timeline Carter

Non-notable blogger, ZERO goggle hits for "Dave Timeline Carter} Gorrister 14:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Vanity. --Durin 14:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, nn, alexa 1,819,729 for referenced site -Harmil 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:52, 12 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 all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC) div>[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. dbenbenn | talk 20:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scannicchio

Delete: Appears to be vanity. --Durin 14:29, 11 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. Woohookitty 01:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bennett (manga artist)

added by Morwen to VFD on July 11, not added properly before then

  • Delete While I have nothing against the topic, this article is not noteworthy and functions primarily as a personal advertisement. --Slac 9 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
  • Comment.Keep and Expand. Actually, I'm the guy who created the article, and I tend to be a critic of Steve Bennett; I also revised the Studio Ironcat article, so trust me, it's not advertisement. I had the article stubbed, as I was trying to find some others out there who have better knowledge than I of his pre-Ironcat years (he apparently worked extensively as an animator in Japan). He is well-known (and a divisive figure) amongst the anime/manga communities, so there is a basis for his entry.--Mitsukai 14:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, just revised the article. Still leaving it as a stub, since I think it can be fleshed out more, but didn't want to add too much (lest I inadvertently bias the article). A peer review on it would be appreciated. I also added the information on his newest projects.--Mitsukai 15:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your expansion, but I still hold my original vote. There are many other divisive figures and entrepreneurs in the comic industry who have tried to make a mark on culture and failed - and would appreciate a Wikipedia advertisement. --Slac 18:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, not trying to create an advertising for him (I'd be the last person to do so), but I can see where you're coming from on that.--Mitsukai 19:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not an advertisement.
    Kappa 14:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Abstain Delete I'm always on the fence about these low-notability artists. He's known, but doesn't seem to be terribly popular.
New info I just found: "We regret to inform you of the closure of Studio Ironcat, LLC. ... -Stephen R. Bennett IV" from Studio Ironcat Home
Any question I had before would have been based on the fact that his limited notability would grow over time.... at this point that's in serious question, and 500ish Google hits, notability does not make. -Harmil 15:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Harmil. Dcarrano 20:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. or merge back into Studio Ironcat. WP is not here to provide a "Wikipedia advertisement" to anyone. WP is to document notability, not create it. Jeesh. Niteowlneils 21:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable self promotion, as per Niteowlneils. JamesBurns 05:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, does not appear to be self-promotion, information is presented in a neutral and non-POV manner. Hall Monitor 23:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims for notability.  Grue  19:17, 14 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Penninsula airport

Delete. Word-for-word duplicate of

Monterey Peninsula Airport. I would have simply made this a redirect, but I don't see how it would be of much use. The article's name is misspelled and nothing links to it, so I doubt the redirect would ever serve its purpose. Wasn't sure if this qualified for a speedy deletion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I guess there are five possible wrong capitalizations...? Yeah, just delete it. Dcarrano 15:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. No harm there, as we know at least one person can't spell
    talk
    15:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Odd capitalizations that won't be found by Wikipedia's 'go button' logic won't help users find the real article.
    Monterey Penninsula Airport (note doubled 'n') probably would be a good idea for a redir, tho'. Niteowlneils 15:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete no value in this page, even as a redirect. -Harmil 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless it is already a policy to allow redirects from misspellings, I think it would be a bad precedent. People misspell lots of things in many ways -- we could soon be overwhelmed by variant spellings of article names redirected. Ground Zero 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always speedy clones that have no significant editing history (this had one version only prior to VfD) and this is no exception. IN case anyone is wondering why, it's to avoid having to do a tricky history merge at a later point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 11 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 Deleted as copyvio --Allen3 talk 20:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Heavils

"The Heavils are definitely going to make their mark in music history with the release of their debut album on Metal Blade Records due out early to mid 2003" If that's not blatantly copied text, I don't know what is. And... I think it's pretty fair to say that "the Heavils" have not made a mark "in" music history. jglc | t | c 14:49, 11 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 Speedy delete. Thue | talk 15:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Elbe

Patent rubbish

Manik Raina 15:06, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs

Almost a Speedy Delete for being patent nonsense. As far as I can tell, this is a made up term and the page appears to have been created as part of an edit war, by an editor who wants to move

petrol. Solipsist 15:11, 11 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 KEEP.

NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

The Broken Down Comforter Collection

Does every album of a band deserve a seperate page ? should this not be part of the page by band Granddaddy?

Manik Raina 15:15, 11 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 keep, merge recommended, but no consensus. --

t
05:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Finger joint

Not very encycloediac

Manik Raina 15:21, 11 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 keep, no consensus.

t
05:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Vladimir Petrovich Trubetskoy

Delete (see below): Can not verify; there's one page on the net with this person's name on it. Furthermore, the university's directory [11] does not seem to think this person works there. Also, the article contains virtually no content except links to other future articles. Lastly, appears to fail

WP:BIO. --Durin 15:28, 11 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 KEEP.

NSR (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

In flagrante delicto

Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log. --cesarb 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No content and slang.Howabout1 14:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the article needs improvement. Perhaps I'll put it on my todo list. →Vik Reykja 00:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Definitely, although as noted above it certainly needs some work.--Xinoph 01:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Important to know the origins of these commonly used phrases, even where the meaning has altered over the years --217.33.241.210 11:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)RaJ 12:02 18 May 2005[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it's defined in Black's Law Dictionary, so it's certainly not slang. A legitimate latin phrase in common English usage. - Jersyko talk 05:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a stub but on a legitimate topic. --Casey J. Morris 14:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a stub and needs work, but a most valid topic. I just arrived here because I need to link to this expression from another article. --J-Star July 8, 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Jersyko. Tufflaw 21:46, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Just realized that VFD is from April. Any reason why it's still active? Tufflaw 21:49, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
"Nominator forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log." articles are often tagged, but not added to the main Vfd page. Niteowlneils 16:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, other items on List of Latin phrases have articles. This one looks expandable - some famous examples might help - how about the Watergate scandal. -- Solipsist 15:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable and useful phrase which belongs in a dictionary, thought article should be concise and to-the-point. jglc | t | c 16:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable phrase. Capitalistroadster 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I could say in flagrante deleto, but I can't. Keep.DS 21:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable phrase. Xoloz 03:12, 13 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 merge. Scimitar parley 19:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecked Ship (Super_Metroid) and associated pages in Super Metroid

Forgot to add to the VfD logs, adding to today's log. --BradBeattie 15:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sub-articles for Super Metroid

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 20:45, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Betzefer

Unsure if band is notable or not (they are a group from Israel, supposedly), but their only release has come in 2005. Text is generally indicative of vanity, but I can't make a call on it. Can somebody please check the validity of this group? If not proven otherwise, the paucity of releases and meagre discography would call for a delete, I feel. jglc | t | c 16:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Tough call, no Allmusic page but 3,500 Google results for Betzefer "down low", among the results are interviews and reviews so at least some people find them notable, which is usually good enough for inclusion. I don't think they meet the criteria for
    TheMidnighters 17:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete - After consideration, should go by the books regardless, doesn't pass
TheMidnighters 20:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: many bands are signed. Few go anywhere. Also, regarding
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ampere (band), it seems as though the reason Ampere was kept was both for their being signed, as well as their inclusion of a well-known musician on the lineup. I'm still not judging Betzefer either way, but it seems that they do not - and being signed, in itself, does not fulfill the criteria for WP:MUSIC. jglc | t | c 18:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Well known musician? The name of this well known musician isn't present in either the
TheMidnighters 19:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
My bad. I was under the impression, after skimming over
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ampere (band) was that this was a reason for the supporters to say that the band should be kept. I agree with the deletions being consistent, leaning towards noninclusionism. jglc | t | c 19:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Simply put, neither pass
TheMidnighters 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
I am in strong agreement. jglc | t | c 20:19, 11 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkatan

Patent nonsense. This is vandalism by User:202.156.2.36. I think he refers to a street (Bangket Street) in Binjai Park, Singapore. Googling for "Bangkatan" reveals zero hits. Alex.tan 16:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy as article with little or no content. --Scimitar 16:38, 11 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 --Allen3 talk 20:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Cornus_of_Denmark

The list on this page has been in the "please expand" category for over a year now. It is, as has been observed, a list of some of the dogwood family. On the assumption that the climate is not dissimilar to the UK it is likely that they will all grow in Denmark. However it is not a complete list of cornus, nor even a complete list of cornus that will grow in Denmark. It is certainly not a list of native cornus. On these grounds I do not see why it remains and threfore suggest it for deletion. If I have misunderstood either the methodology of a vote for deletion or the grounds that should be used, I apologise in advance. Silver149 16:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
    Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links. (The brief version of the above). --Silver149 08:27, 21 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Soignee

Dictdef: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gblaz 16:46, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - worthless in this context (and not even spelled properly}. Deb 17:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. --PrologFan 17:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jaxl 18:27, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler Portraits

Delete. Wikipedia is not a picture gallery. WAvegetarian 16:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and ExpandThis gallery of Hitler portraits will be linked to the
    Adolph Hitler bio page for the numerous portraits. These portraits will strengthen Wikipedia and should stay. Endurance 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Nazi propaganda dealing with specifically Hitler paintings, but it must contain text not just images. Dunc|☺ 16:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • These portait images are all over the Internet and are not copyright protected. Endurance 19:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless this page is going to discuss portrayals of Hitler, I can't see how it is an encyclopedia article. And it starts a prescedent, which if followed would have serious server implications (a gallery for everyone). So delete (and if they are 'all over the internet' do we need them here?) --
    (?) 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete article and images.
    Wikipedia is not an image-hosting service. The images that have copyright tags on them are unfree images (no modification allowed), and I have no reason to believe that the others do not have this restriction. --Carnildo 20:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Useful and copyright-free ones can be added to Adolf Hitler, any others should be deleted. Niteowlneils 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The hitler article is 53 K. The pictures page took longer to appear than the hitler article. If you can not create a sub-article when your article is too long, what are you supposed to do? Copyright is a reason to delete individual pictures, not the whole page unless there is nothing left. These look like nazi propaganda pictures, so why would they be copyright now? Anyway, they make quite an interesting collection of how he wished to be portrayed, especially number 2.Sandpiper 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "article" per Carnildo. Image galleries are not encyclopedia articles. They belong on Commons rather than WP. Because these images are unfree, delete them as well. -- Jonel | Speak 02:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page (not the images). I'm pretty sure this goes against wikipedia policy in no uncertain terms. -R. fiend 03:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an image gallery is not an article. However, if it became an article with text containing artistic, social, historical and political criticism of the images I'd vote to keep.
    Wyss 13:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 00:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Unless the page discusses some more encyclopedic matter, eg how the portraits reflect on Hitler's public image at the time. --Ypk 02:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 14:08, 17 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People accept reality more when the society is the same

Most of this orphaned article sounds like original research. I can't imagine anyone searching for this material with this title. Joyous (talk) 16:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete bad title, rambling original research CDC (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonencyclopedic. Dcarrano 21:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. Friday 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:13, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolingue

Conlang. - Cymydog Naakka 17:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. --PrologFan 17:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, conlang. —Tokek 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely non-notable conlang. The "discussion group" for the language has only two members and was created just a few days ago. Clearly, delete. --Whimemsz 19:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, I concur. From their website: "still in the developmental and experimental phase..." yup. —Tokek 20:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable conlang, only 900 Google hits. --Carnildo 20:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think a lot of those results are unrelated. Google search for {eurolingue auxiliary|constructed|conlang|auxlang} returned only two results, and the second one appears to be unrelated. —Tokek 20:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable conlang. JamesBurns 06:54, 12 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 speedily deleted.

FCYTravis 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Chivichuss

Appears to be a hoax article created by IP with all other edits being vandalism. --Tabor 17:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete; no such place known to Google seglea 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied - "county in Yellowstone" - wtf? --
    FCYTravis 18:56, 11 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 merge. Scimitar parley 19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kbot

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 real consensus, using best judgement and merged into Total Annihilation. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:53, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

BLoD

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nepean Concert Band

Not notable as per

WP:MUSIC RMoloney 18:00, 11 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 speedily deleted.

FCYTravis 19:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Ellis Mclennon

Non-notable, vanity. Entire content: "Ellis McLennon is the greatest person that ever lived." Delete. Tokek 18:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Probably could have been speedied for nonsense. --Durin 18:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Jaxl 18:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted - Very short article, no context, etc. etc. --
    FCYTravis 19:04, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rod of rule

This article seems to be just speculation, and has no basis in Greek Mythology. The original page contained some wild theories [12] which were subsequently whittled down by edits. But, to my knowledge, the whole notion that Agamemnon had some sort of magical staff called the "rod of rule" isn't correct. So this page should just be deleted. JW1805 18:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 21:13, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • A Google search for agamemnon "rod of rule" -wikipedia yields 4 hits, 3 of which are Wikipedia mirrors, the last of which is a Project Gutenberg text of a collection of Old English plays. Agamemnon and rod of rule do not appear in the same play in that text. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is a fabrication. If not, a source needs to be produced for it. Delete, unverifiable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - reasons above. --
    TheMidnighters 21:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete UnHoly 00:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone provides a source. DanMS 04:00, 14 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

66.6.66.6

Non-notable and non-encyclopedic IP. Unless there was some sort of very public flap over its use (if there was, Google doesn't know about it) I see no particular reason why this needs an article.

FCYTravis 18:51, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_DiRenzo

Vanity /non notable Gunmetal 19:19, 11 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 --Allen3 talk 20:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jarden Corporation

This was marked as a speedy delete candidate, but isn't really. I intentionally mangled the external links because they were un-useful and spammy. No vote from me, however. CDC (talk) 19:57, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Walking Club

Non-notable student organisation. I was in walking club at uni too, and these guys do exist, but they are simply not notable. Dunc|☺ 20:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Scimitar 21:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 21:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable student club. JamesBurns 07:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clicking on this link represents 3 seconds of my life that I will never get back. Youngamerican 15:22, 13 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 --Allen3 talk 19:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hagfish fiber

Hoax? Search in http://www.altavista.com for "hagfish fibre" and "hagfish fiber" shows nothing except Wikipedia echoes. I know some biology: talk of making fish slime into tough fiber is SILLY. Anthony Appleyard 20:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not a hoax - I've read articles on hagfish slime before; it's a fascinating substance which, yes, has some horribly nasty vicious tough fibers permeating it. Don't think it's notable yet, though, so I vote delete - for now. DS 21:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep...for now. See if anything else comes up. (But keep the VfD sign up as long as new, truthful information hasn't come up yet.) 68.14.25.141 02:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

simply the knowledge of the uses of 'hagfish slime' would be useful. perhaps changing the presentation of the article so as to imply that the findings are few would do.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 08:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here Is a Question

Forumcruft, mostly. Doesn't even have a website. And the capitalization is wrong, too. Nifboy 21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- agreed. CDC (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. --PrologFan 21:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable forumcruft. JamesBurns 07:09, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ez publishing

Advertising; no evidence that this is an encyclopedic company. CDC (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertizing. --PrologFan 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed. Gwk 21:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I specifically wrote this article to be included on the List of U.S. Companies. There are a fairly wide variety of companies on this list, some of which are not famous. Why do you favor large corporations over small businesses for listing? We are a U.S. company. That seems to be the criteria. Thanks. manatee123
  • Delete - advert. Manatee, just being a company is not enough; you need to do something notable. Naturenet | Talk 21:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many if not most of the companies on the list have only one notable thing about them: they are large corporations. Frankly, most are quite uninteresting. Only a very small number of the companies on the list have actually done something notable (e.g., Apple). Thanks. manatee123
    • Whether or not the list of companies has a bias in favor of large corporations, the fact is that it is Wikipedia policy to not include things that are not notable. Besides that, Wikipedia policy also does not allow advertising and the article is clearly written as if it were an advertisment. Gwk 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article states basic facts and is less promotional than many of the current company sites taht are currently on Wikapedia. Very few of the companies that are currently on Wikapedia have done *anything* notable at all. The *only* thing they have in common is size. Most of them are large companies. This seems unfair that large companies -- boring ones at that -- get to have entries on Wikapedia, yet our small company cannot have an entry. manatee123
        • If you want to debate the policies of Wikipedia, you can do that on my talk page. As to this article, I leave it to the community to form a consensus. Gwk 23:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want to debate policies but am merely saying that my page is no less in line with policies than the current entries that are cataloged in "List of United States Companies".manatee123
  • Delete. Vanity page. Can't even properly spell "wikipedia". --Vizcarra 23:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a careless spelling error but am well aware of how to spell wikipedia. It is kind of rude to call attention to petty errors. manatee123
  • Delete, ad for non-notable company. Dcarrano 01:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sorry Manatee, but Wikipedia is not here for you to advertise on. —Stormie 11:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 19:55, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

John D. Curnow

Appears to be not notable at all. I can't find anything about him on Google. --

Hottentot

  • Delete. Probably a hoax. Gwk 21:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability unverified. --Etacar11 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to find any sources with google. Unverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 13 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.


It's very hard to find out how a person is to defend themselves in Wikipedia. This may be the wrong place, and if it is I'm sorry. My name is John D Curnow and I'm not a hoax, as one person suggested. I was one of the first people to record bird songs in the midwest. My tapes were sold by the Audubon Camp here in Wisconsin. The NASCO Corp of Fort Atkins, WI sold my tapes to high schools all over the US and Canada for ten years. A copy of my book "Plant Communities - Ecological Studies Of The Upper Midwest" was copyrighted and sent to the Library Of Congress. I was also awarded the outstanding alumni award from the University Of Wisconsin-Platteville and I did teach from 1951 - 1999. I may not be important enough to be found in Google and I can accept that, but I'm certainly not a hoax! John D Curnow

  • As the closing admin, I can say that the discussion was fairly straight forward on this article. The
    WP:VFU, including your references as part of the request. --Allen3 talk 16:45, 26 September 2005 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Circuit

As always, I could be wrong. Vanity? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. Gwk 22:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable local business. Dcarrano 01:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable bar. JamesBurns 07:18, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

plod

Hey, this should definitely be kept, because "Plod" is used in "Life on Mars" and a lot of folks don't know the origin. I had to look it up.


Neologism and/or vanity nickname (see Matt Nedrich before it gets speedy deleted) --Gunmetal 21:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, speedy if possible Melaen 21:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity neologism. JamesBurns 07:21, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WOB

I did not find anything from google to match this description of WOB. Please comment. (hmmm foo bar?) Feydey 21:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably nonsense. Gwk 21:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears at this time to be nonsense. Dcarrano 01:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense WOBbing us of our time. JamesBurns 07:23, 12 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 keep. --

t
05:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

List of modern remakes of Shakespeare

Is this really necessary? Gwk 21:56, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermaphrodude

Neologism - delete or merge somewhere --

(?) 22:02, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask peeves

  • Delete Advertising. It's funny that the registered owner of AskPeeves.com and the IP address of the user that edited this are from California. -- BMIComp (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad. Jaxl 22:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete And putting Ask Jeeves and other web site entries is not advertising? Wonder if they have a rival encylcopedia page on here. (Unsigned by 69.110.138.75)
  • Delete. Website ad. hydnjo talk 00:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad, nn, not even an URL. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Eliezer 09:44, 13 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 Keep

NSR (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Angela Jia Kim

The situation is similar to the Jiyang Chen which has been recently readded and should also be deleted IMO. --Missmarple 20:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The creator blanked it. I vote Delete. Bart133 (t) 23:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Well, it's not blank now, and Angela Jia Kim appears to be a fairly notable pianist -- she released her debut album Dances and Fantasies in 2003 and another one, titled From Vienna To Paris in January, 2005. She has won the 1997 award for Best Interpretation of French Music by the French Piano Institute in Paris, as well as the 1991 grand prize at the Mozart Festival Competition in Illinois, and she's doing a 27 concert tour of in 2004-2005 across the United States. (Or maybe she's finished already, I'm not sure.) She's most certainly notable -- she's an internationally recognized, award-winning pianist, as these links tell us. The article's not in a great shape, sure, but that's a separate issue. I'm kind of baffled -- why would she not be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- Captain Disdain 13:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I reorganized the article and wikified it. Reads better now, I think. -- Captain Disdain 13:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's not "famous" in the media sense, but is certainly notable. WBardwin 20:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • By your link, do you suggest she be kept in "a strong central tower which forms the heart of a castle"? -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google turns up her website [13]. Gwk 22:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines having performed a national concert tour of the US in 2004-05 plus having recorded two albums. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Captain Disdain. -- Jonel | Speak 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it was probably blanked becuase the author was scared and intimidated by missmarple Yuckfoo 18:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She's known here in China, but maybe add her birthday?Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:57 Beijing Time
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Gluemeat since the content has been merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't We Real

This article has a clean-up request on it, but frankly I don't think it's worth the time. It's clearly a vanity piece and the topic doesn't meet the critera for significance.

Fernando Rizo
04:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Apparently, the comic is on "hiatus". Official site forbids access. [14]. Google search reveals perhaps 100 relevant results. [15]. There's no discussion on the talk page so I removed the notice. --Barfooz (talk) 04:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Gluemeat and Redirect - Although the comic is no longer running, it is available [16], so it still counts as a valid web comic endeavor and worthy of note on Wikipedia. However, it is hosted on the same domain as the author's primary comic [[17]], so I feel it is subordinate to the other work. Thus, I propose that it become a subsection on the Gluemeat page, with a redirect from Aren't We Real to Gluemeat. Gemini6Ice 28 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)
    • Redirect - Merge already accomplished. Gemini6Ice 8 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is a vanity piece and not signifigant.
  • Delete non notable now defunct web comic. JamesBurns 07:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gluemeat. Dcarrano 00:48, July 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 19:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neil Martin

This subject is not notable. Deb 22:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another Tory boy, big ego, little to show for it, delete Dunc|☺ 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete evidence of notability not in article. Friday 13:24, 12 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 --Allen3 talk 19:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Godzilla Vs. Deathra

no google evidence of it's existence Melaen 22:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a new Godzilla series underway, and it's possible this is simply mistitled. I can't really vote on this unless someone better versed on the franchise can confirm or deny this film's existence. The fact it has yet to film isn't grounds for deletion as we have plenty of articles on planned movies. 23skidoo 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Link within article details a director's desire to make the film... he doesn't have the money though. Delete, for every movie that actually comes out, there's literally thousands of people pitching one. Dcarrano 00:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
now it is a redirect to Godzilla 3D to the MAX --Melaen 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 07:29, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4info

Delete this; looks like a press release --JonathanZ 6 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertising. --
    YOЯ
    8 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for non-notable product. Dcarrano 00:56, July 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 19:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

WeBuilder 2005

Advertising, non notability Melaen 22:23, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arun the He-Man

Finishing incorrect vfd tagging. No vote. --
Dmcdevit
22:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep.

NSR (talk) 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Freewebs

Article on a subject I just deleted through vfd process, see

Francs2000 | Talk 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

And the previous VFD was because the article was advertising/spam... this one I couldn't call advertising. TheCoffee 07:51, 13 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 no consensus, so kept.

AwesomeFunny

Delete - self-promotion NAF 03:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please sign your votes, and don't remove the VfD notice, it's considered vandalism. Your vote will count largely according to your contribution history, and that did not help it at all. Andrewa 17:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriate to remove comments by other users. Its looked at as bad form. Also, I don't believe anonymous votes even count for deletion debates. Further, articles may be brought up multiple times on VfD, so there's no need to remove the tag just because it has been on VfD before. EvilPhoenix talk 21:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to break Wikipedia, but the comment was addressed to me so I felt I had the right to remove it. I'm also sorry I don't sign my posts, but that's my style. I don't see why I have to sign them, I've seen other people vote anonymously. Also, I'd rather people didn't sign them for me: you can check the history page to see who the editor is.

Comment: I think they do count, but I don't think they count for much. VfD is a bit different to national elections and the like, in that it's difficult to police someone creating a new userid each month, for example, and contributing (and voting) under each. So the admins in practice weight the votes in a quite subjective (and I believe intelligent, fair and reasonable) way. And it works quite well enough. Part of the theory behind this is that borderline votes like this one don't really matter a lot. The credibility and integrity of Wikipedia are not at risk at all here either way, regardless of what some may think. No change of vote. Andrewa 07:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evidence for the article's claims of notability is lacking, and those claims are weak even if they were established. WP is not a web directory. Quale 07:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this has already passed through vfd (no consensus, but I still feel it should be kept. RickK, in response to your last comment: I find it unusual that I would have heard of it since I don't cruise the 'net for humour. It's not the best reasoning, but I figured if I've heard of it, it must be at least slightly notable. How to Kill a Mockingbird was pretty popular.).
    ² 20:54, 19 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 no consensus on an old vote started in April.

FCYTravis 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Bart McQueary

Delete- Bart McQueary is all hype; an expert self promoter who's turned the non-issue that is his crusade into a newstory through irrelevant inflammation. His biggest accomplishment to date is being a part of a larger lawsuit by the ACLU against a Ten Commandments monument; but that's not even his claim to fame. His claim to fame is that he's a hanger-on to Fred Phelps; if McQueary gets a page here, then all 200-some-odd other members of Westboro, who participate in the exact same activity, also need entries.

  • This nomination was made by 70.241.25.240, who has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep.

I see nothing wrong with someone adding entries for Margie Phelps, Shirley Phelps-Roper, Benjamin Phelps, Carl Hockenbarger, or anyone else associated with Fred Phelps for that matter.

Your reasoning seems to be that because he is a shameless self promoter that he is not deserving of an article discussing his rather interesting life.

Your argument does not hold water. 68.217.162.167 05:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This user has made no edits not related to this nomination. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - Your reasoning for wanting the article deleted almost seems like some sort of personal hatred. There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is. For that matter, most of Hollywood is comprised of attention seekers. Not to mention Washington DC.

I can see no legit reason to delete his entry.

209.42.140.166 21:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • This is this user's first, and thus far, only edit. Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok then. Do me a favor and go to Melsondorph the Powerful and vote to keep it based on the criteria you just mentioned (There is no telling how far this guy is going to go and his life deserves to be documented in this tome of knowledge that is Wikipedia. If for no other reasons than what you have mentioned - he is what he is).

By the way, what makes you think I hate McQueary?

  • Delete not notable, possible vanity Dsmdgold 19:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

This man hasn't made any sort of "mark" on the world, nor is it likely he ever will. The reasons given to keep it are wrong for this very reason. If there is a page on this nobody, there should be a page on every other nobody that's out there.65.71.125.180 04:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong KEEP I personally do not like him nor Fred Phelps, nor their "religious organization", however thats not why we keep or delete articles on an encyclopedia. He is an important figure head for the "movement" and represents a portion of our society, which he is very notable for. We have to record good and bad topics, otherwise we are destined to repeat the same mistakes. <>Who?¿? 22:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong DELETE He's disappeared off the face of the Earth now, and what he did while he was around was nothing to write home about, except try to (unsucessfully) emulate Fred Phelps; and it's in serious debate whether or not he event meant what he said and did. If McQueary comes back out of whatever hole he disappeared into, and does something noteworthy, ACTUALLY NOTEWORTHY, then I wil be the first to put his article back on Wiki. Until then, he's just another wannabe; does every wannabe get a page? No one outside of Harrodsburg knows who this man is, and plenty of self-gratification articles have been deleted from Wiki before. What makes Bart so special? Mistergrind 23:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment whether or not a figure is still alive, or even around, is not an issue of noteworthiness. Even the people we cannot tolerate, are noteworthy to the thousands of people they influence, however, intolerance alone is yet, not an issue of encyclopedic value. <>Who?¿? 01:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleyte of course McQueary's "existance" as it were has no bearing on his status; Wiki is full of information on dead people. What matters, though, is that his barely noteworthy actions have apparently ceased. It may have been an excuse to keep the page going as long as he was still active, therefore prolonging the possibility that he may do something noteworthy, but now he's gone from the public eye, gone, it would seem, altogether, and he took with him any present hope of being a valid entry into Wiki. He has not affected "thousands" of people; it would be a long stretch to say that more than a few hundred people have ever been affected by him in any way, shape, or form. If McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.70.243.35.89 22:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of keeping with format, John Wilkes Booth is both dead, and his actions have definately ceased, but that one noteworthy action is very encyclopedic. Again, to one, a persons actions may not be noteworthy due to intolerance, that does not say it is not to another. Personally, NOT a supporter. <>Who?¿? 04:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment What is your obsession with changing my words around and trying to paint me as someone who wants McQueary deleted for intolerance? I have never stated that. One of my pride and joys on Wiki is the work I've done on the Fred Phelps page (another page you have made repeated attempts to sabotage). But the difference between a man who changed the course of history my murdering the leader of a country, and Bart McQueary, IS THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING NOTEWORTHY AT ALL. There are people in every city in the USA standing on street corners with signs like McQueary's, preaching the same things as McQueary. Phelps belongs in the article because of his noteriety; he's been on CNN, worked with/for Al Gore, possibly was involved in a girl's death, has been the topic of a nationally read book, and, despite your fervent denial of it, leads a cult. McQueary is none of those things; he's a street-corner prophet. If McQueary is allowed to stay in, then I must insist that you restore another article of mine that you were instrumental in getting deleted, about a local band in Tulsa. They have the exact same level of noteriety as McQueary, and in the realm of music, have accomplished just as much as McQueary has in the realm of religion. Again, I say, if McQueary is allowed to stay in Wiki, then entries must be made for every garage band that has performed at venues and has a webpage, for every independant filmmaker that has had their work shown at any festival, for every writer trying to submit their manuscript, for every person who has quarreled with the government or filed a lawsuit.70.243.35.89 19:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't feel this is the place for this type of conversation, however, you do not have a talk page, per say. I have no obsession with you nor this article. I do not mean to twist, contort, or demean your comments or vote. It "seemed" your comments were of a more personal nature, and I just wanted to stress the fact that we cannot delete articles we have personal feelings against, nor keep the ones we are in agreement with. With the little research I did on the topic of the article, it was easy to find many supporters and readers of this person. Whether or not there are "hundreds" or "thousands", it seemed he had quite a few followers and readers, with or without reguard to Fred Phelps. I fealt that the person was notable enough, for inclusion, on that basis alone. As far as your band, which I do not recall, or other garage bands. It is common not to include such bands, as they are very many, and notability seems to go hand-in-hand with recording status and the ability to cite references, other than blogs. I am no expert, I just do research to attempt to establish such, I am only one voice on Wiki. Please do not take my comments on article bias as a personal attack or reprimand, as I did not intend it that way. <>Who?¿? 19:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE

Seriously, who knows who this guy is other than the alleged terrified people of that redneck town he's plaguing? Seriously, who? (Unsigned comment)

Delete

Upon further review of the page, as well as the wikipedia deletion criteria, it is obvious that this page should be deleted- as it contains serious bias, and passive aggressive attitudes.

Weak Delete In terms that this guy is just sort of an interesting figure, and there are lots of people on wikipedia who are just so of strange tangenial figures without much real purpose or accomplishment. But he is just a cultist, and not every two bit nut gets his own webpage unless he makes it himself or herself.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bart diet

Delete - fails the google test, I've never heard of it, nothing links to the page; just cluttering up wikipedia --Sherurcij 08:58, May 24, 2005 (UTC) Delete. Neologism. --SuperDude 03:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete but maybe I will try it. --
    YOЯ
    8 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)
  • Delete Misleading. I came looking for the diet of Bart Simpson.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Wiest

Vanity, self-promotion, prediction WCFrancis 22:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definately vanity. Gwk 22:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. —
    Cleared as filed.
    22:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:33, 12 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Fricke

non notability Melaen 22:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand, notable rock critic. Dcarrano 01:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Dcarrano said. I've actually heard of him, he's written some books on bands. --Etacar11 01:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, notable writer. Friday 13:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but direly in need of expansion, notable writer on alternative music. Curt Woyte 10:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 merge to Mortal Engines. -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batmunkh Gompa

NN, D. ComCat 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)

  • merge into Mortal Engines. mikka (t) 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 1 July 2005 03:56 (UTC)
  • Having read the article, I'd prefer keep (the city also features in a small way in Predator's Gold), otherwise Merge and keep the redirect. I see no good reason to delete the material itself, which is an excellent summary of an important location in a popular, award-winning book. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 6 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
  • Merge into Mortal Engines. Dcarrano 01:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear Silber

Vanity. "Bear Silber" music gets zero Google hits. "BearSilber" gets only 23, none of which bear any apparent connection to this article's namesake. Denni☯ 03:32, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Please refer to [18]. It's not vanity, it's biography.
  • Delete. Currently, I cannot find any third party references to verify this and/or to prove that this person passes
    WP:MUSIC. I get zero hits on Amazon and IMDB. Zzyzx11 (Talk)
    04:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • He falls under this:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

No, you still have not proven that "the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." In other words, please provide credible third party references to back up your claims. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, nn. I guess savage internet guerilla marketing means spamming Wikipedia nowadays. jni 11:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, musician vanity.
    talk) 23:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete unless evidence requested by Zzyzx11 is given. Dcarrano 01:10, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot find any valid resources that substantiate information.
    Runix
    19:54, 15 Jul 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Creagh, Amos Badertscher, Mark Abrahamson

Delete. Three photographers who... um... well, that's about it, three photographers. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. --

talk
22:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanities. Gwk 22:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Keep"" Mark Abrahamson & Michael Creagh - 50 names on photo list are bogus, these 2 I've heard of. Read recent article about Creagh in Retail Ad World User:Fashion101 4:08, 12 July 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bioentanglement

No original research. Google turns up 5 results for the phrase, including the wikipedia article. None are reliable sources or peer-reviewed journals. GeeJo 22:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Gwk 23:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fringe "science". Only very well known quackery is encylopedic, IMO. Friday 14:03, 12 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. (4.5 deletes, 1.5 merges) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:25, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Downer (song)

The song does not appear notable, simply a bit of trivia. Certainly this could be either excluded with no great loss or merged into one of the album articles. My own opinion is that there's no reason to keep it. Delete. Mr Bound 23:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge. Agreed not notable. Gwk 23:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Incesticide. Dcarrano 01:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable song. JamesBurns 07:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need articles about every song on an album, and we don't really need redirects to the album either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 27 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. --

Francs2000 | Talk 02:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

Proactionary Principle

Neologism, still warm from the oven. Denni☯ 2005 July 6 23:45 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ran through 5 days' vfd with no votes. Back to the front of the queue... Dunc|☺ 23:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable unless someone can provide a reference that anyone other than the creator of this neologism has paid any attention to it. Quale 01:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. But put the information somewhere else. Something like a "concepts in transhumanism" page that can aggregate blurbs like this, which seem to be a lot of the specific transhumanism things, more see also links than content. Arturus
  • cit is an important concept. Wikipedia has an entry on the
    Precautionary_Principle, this article provides a needed balance. pgptag
  • Keep. Alfio 10:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BrentN 17 July 2005. Important part of the debate on science and policy.
    • This user has only two other edits. Denni☯
  • Keep. Vergil 42 BC. "fortune favors the BOLD."
    • *This user's only contribution is to this VfD. Denni☯
  • Keep. The precautionary principle emphasizes the potential costs of innovation, and its advocates favor pre-emptive restrictions on new technology based on the _potential_ harm that the new technology may cause. The proactionary principle emphasizes the opportunity costs of _not_ innovating, and it's advocates favor restrictions based primarily on _demonstrated_ harm. Although a neologism of relatively recent vintage, it succinctly names a large body of thought in opposition to the precautionary principle, that has heretofore, to my knowledge, gone unnamed. Crasch 15:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article may need some NPOV work, though. --NeuronExMachina 20:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Delete nn neologism. Ken 00:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request
). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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!) 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hermaphrodude

Neologism - delete or merge somewhere --

(?) 22:02, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul quinn

Not quite {{nonsense}}, but it comes rather close. Seems to be vanity. --Canderson7 23:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Googling "Paul quinn" Ballycastle mayor[19] reveals that it indeed is nonsense, or hoax. Delete. Dcarrano 01:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/probable hoax. --Etacar11 01:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep paul quinn has recently been voted mayor of ballycastle it is all complete fact! Jim Hill Ballycasyle Resident (Unsigned vote by 62.252.192.9, this IP previously blanked this page)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go Back to Mother Russia

del. nonnotable joke. mikka (t) 23:38, 11 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 16:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skcuslled

Zero search results for Skcuslled or Croboystein on Google. I think someone's just making nonsense up, but I figured there was always the off chance I was wrong. Delete unless someone can prove otherwise. g026r 23:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is nonsense, and it probably comes under speedy deletion. Gwk 23:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Gwk. -- DS1953 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:42, 12 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 speedy delete. – ABCD 16:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The croboys in D'ni

  • Non-notable, unencyclopedic. 0 google results. --Tothebarricades 23:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant hoax; anon writer is contributing a series of similar hoax articles, google doesn't get any hits for any of them, and some have been speedily deleted.--Scimitar 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Garbage hoax article. Gwk 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Jaxl 00:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nonsensical; hoax. --
    Natalinasmpf 00:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Nonsense, hoax. jni 05:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:43, 12 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Tracts

There are literally thousands of tracts produced cheeply by hundreds of organisations - this list is unmaintainable and would be largely unverifiable. A list of historically significant ones perhaps --

(?) 23:53, 11 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antievolutionist

Neologism, POV. --Tothebarricades 23:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Provides information on a term covering many groups --206.45.181.141
  • Delete. Neologism. Article claims "Supporters of Evolutionary Theory use this term in the same way antievolutionists use Evolutionist", but I don't believe this is true. Quale 01:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN neologism. --Scimitar 14:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering the topic, this page is weirdly NPOV (or close), but still neologism. Xoloz 03:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. Rintrah 15:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joke137 23:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dragonfiend 03:50, 19 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in the United States

Reason why the page should be deleted: Because Wikipedia is not a soapbox for America bashing and the page contains mostly essays of original research. (unsigned comment by Bertly).

Note: This address is an AOL proxy. While the address has made quite a few contributions, it is impossible to determine how many the user has made, or to determine if this vote is valid. Pakaran 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could do with a bit of a tidy though. Terwilliger 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this nomination seems invalid to me too so speedy keep it Yuckfoo 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down. Last time I checked it was not policy to yell at or ban newcomers the moment they complain about an article. As for the article, I think the intro is a bit jingoist myself. Gazpacho 02:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least the new user managed to state a ground (OR), so I'll assume good-faith. Of course, an obviously enclycopedic topic, and the ground is quite wrongly applied. Xoloz 03:27, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_11&oldid=1081092074"