Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 26

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

The result of the debate was Delete Redwolf24 05:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell kohn

Vanity, and an advertisement for a company.

• Delete. Clear vanity. Forgot to sign, sorry.
  Agentsoo 00:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanity, ad. --
  TheMidnighters 00:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanity hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising, vanity. Forbsey 00:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, advertising. Gblaz 01:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Seems awfully enchanted. Ad. Probell 11:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd say it's more vanity than advertising. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity ad. Hall Monitor 19:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity/ad/spam. --Etacar11 23:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 08:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity, non-notable and random. Ashmodai 10:35, 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 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 Redwolf24 06:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley, outside of the

• Abstain. Would like to see this article expanded before casting a final vote. —RaD Man (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've not been able to find any via any Google searches. (Maybe she's known by another name?) In any event, I'm notifying the user who created the page that the article has been VfD'ed. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not averse to Page 3 girls having an article if there is something to say about them, but (as Joe Beaudoin Jr. says), there is nothing useful about her on Google so it is hard to see this article being expanded into something worth having. Would be willing to change my vote if the page is given some more useful information though.
• Delete No notability established. --
  TheMidnighters 00:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Easy to look at; hard to establish notability.
  T/C 00:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Fernando hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article's content is much the same as that of Anna Taverner was before the latter was deleted. Might be worthy of an article, but it would have to be better than this to merit a keep vote. Flowerparty ^talk 01:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Being a Page 3 girl is not enough in itself unless she has done other things to become notable. Capitalistroadster 03:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I believe that this page can be expanded and that there is no need to delete it for the time being7121989
• Delete — nn — RJH 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have to give articles time to expand. -- Crevaner 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted by multiple voters, simply being a Page 3 girl is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 22:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She is so sexy. Wikipedia needs more sexy girls. I'm serious. We have too many articles on SQL servers and Linux hashes. We need more sex. Please keep this. She is the sexiest girl I've seen in a long time.--Muchosucko 07:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and Expand. Ashmodai 10:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• For the reasons that I gave in
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anna Taverner, which apply here too, Delete. Uncle G
  13:53:54, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
• Delete for same reasons other page 3ers were. -R. fiend 15:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• MERGE into List of Page 3 girls 132.205.3.20 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no real claim to notability.--Pharos 04:19, 28 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. Redwolf24 06:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band vanity. no Allmusic page, couldn't find much of anything on Google.

• Most google hits for Secret Public seem to be about the Buzzcocks' fan club. Perhaps redirect, and add some info to that article. Pburka 01:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 02:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• see above, plus no assertion of meeting
  WP:MUSIC. Delete. Friday 04:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not verifiable. Robert A West 19:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 08:50, 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 Keep Redwolf24 06:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn corner store vanity, ad.

• Keep. Three hundred stores is sufficiently notable. Pburka 02:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

So any store is notable as long as there are 300 of them? Even if there's no other usefull/notable information concerning them? Just wondering if there's any Wikipedia policy for something like this. --

TheMidnighters 02:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's just discretion for this issue gren 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have to agree with Midnight...this is not notable. freestylefrappe 02:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's an official policy. I couldn't find anything on Wikipedia talk:Companies, corporations and economic information. But a company with 300 convenience stores must have hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of customers. To me, this level of exposure constitutes notability. Pburka 03:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, while Pburka makes a good point, it gets only 415 unique Googles. This is surprisingly few; I suppose this must be because it is of only very local consequence. However, to be of only local consequency and get hundreds of Googles is also fairly unusual. -Splash 04:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Pburka. --Pagrashtak 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- as long as article is careful about verifiable information and doesn't lean towards advertising. gren 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move → Plaid Pantry, keep as per Pburka. ^…Markaci 2005-07-26 T 07:41:40 Z
• Keep (and move to Plaid Pantry, as Markaci suggested). Now that I think on it, I've seen those stores very often in Portland. I imagine there is some interesting cultural and company historical information that could go in the article. I'll add it to my ToDo list, for when I get back to Portland. JesseW 07:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and rename, as above). The article is poor currently but could surely be expanded into something useful.
  Agentsoo 09:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as Plaid Pantry. Too many localized chains have articles to deny this one. To be encyclopedic they should have more information than a phonebook ad however. --Wetman 10:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm from the Northwest, and it's definitely iconic... compare to WaWa Predawn 18:24, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 06:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a

• Delete per Joe. freestylefrappe 02:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete being a Page 3 girl is not notable in itself and a Google search couldn't establish other claims to notability. Capitalistroadster 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no standalone encyclopdic value. -Splash 04:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- spike it! DavidH 05:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Another non-notable that is unlikely to see any significant expansion.
  Agentsoo 09:38, 26 July 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. Redwolf24 06:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very small time. Fourteen google hits says not notable. Denni☯ 02:16, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. freestylefrappe 02:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also: severe question mark over Brittain Fraley... an avid swimmer? Flowerparty ^talk 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Brittain Fraley is listed farther down.
• Delete. nn vanity.
  Agentsoo 09:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. nn. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:15, 26 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. one of the keep votes was discounted as his only edits. Redwolf24 06:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a scholar of Christianity. I've tried various searches on Google and much of this is unverifiable (also, it smells strongly of a vanity production). -- Hoary 02:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. freestylefrappe 02:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete has a broad resume but simply not notable enough in any one area. --
  TheMidnighters 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. ONE relevant Google. I tagged it as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 03:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little too quick on the trigger finger, there, Lucky. The article does assert notability of a sort. android79 03:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • What did you search for? "Brent Walters" picked up about 600 hits for me. -Splash 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got about that same number, but only the first one on the list seemed to have anything to do with him. I couldn't find anything else. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. android79 03:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, things like "Brent Walters" "Centre(er) for..." get no google hits at all, and just his name gets some 600, but not all are his. Would appear to fail the
  WP:PROF test. I wonder why his TV appearances haven't generated more note; normally that'd help him squeeze past the prof-test-Splash 04:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep, notable enough.
  Kappa 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep, might be notable enough. Would change to an unqualified keep if references were added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 23:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. A Google search for "Brent Walters" and "Nicene" yielded 17 hits and "Brent Walters" and "Didache" yielded 20. That's more than one, but still pretty low. However, his 1991 book on the Didache did have some favorable reviews and no negative ones that I saw. Given the apparent recognition he has within narrow focus of his scholarship (ante-Nicene), I'll give an article on him the benefit of the doubt, barely. The lack of details (name of his book and other publications, where he went to college, etc...) lead me to believe that this is not self-promotion, contrary to Hoary's conclusion. DS1953 04:43, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. While a search on either Yahoo! or Google might not produce many noteworthy results, typing "Brent Walters" along with terms such as "Didache", "Church", "Christianity", "Nicene" will certainly result in more hits. Also, there were results when I typed "Brent Walters" and "radio" into a Yahoo! search. It quickly showed that he was in fact on a radio show as a guest. Lack of hits on search engines can likely be attributed to the obscurity of his scholarship, as mentioned above. (ie: how often does the term "Didache" even get mentioned in any church?). Nonetheless, a quick search of amazon.com quickly produced a title published by him along with some very positive reviews. He was also quoted in at least one other book as a scholar (once again, through an amazon.com search). --Wenwen2099 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 08:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or maybe mention in an article on Centre for Early Christian Studies. This, methinks, is vanity. -R. fiend 15:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete average professor CDC (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, borderline notable. Hall Monitor 17:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. 67.117.148.242 (talk · contribs) removed all but two delete votes from this discussion. android79 23:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN/vanity. --Ragib 23:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 06:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn band. "Véronique Diabolique" (w/ é or e) gets 173 Google hits. It also has a redirect at Véronique diabolique. Delete - DNicholls 02:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable. This was speedy deleted by an admin and then restored by an admin earlier today. IMO, this should have been speedy as notability is not determined. Bollar 02:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bollar, the criteria for speedy deletion say nothing about notability. You may wish to attempt to have this changed. However, it will be an uphill battle, as lack of notability isn't even mentioned as a factor that may lead to deletion via VfD. Please see Importance. -- Hoary 03:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • While we're on the topic, there is a criterion, A7, that refers to notability, but it applies only to "real people". There is a continuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C about the bands side of things. -Splash 04:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it doesn't satisfy
  WP:MUSIC. -- Hoary
  03:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability as per WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 03:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Unfortunately, the attempt to place band vanity articles into the speedy category failed, so this is the right place for this article. I will also respectfully disagree with you, Hoary. Article criterion #7 says "(a)n article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" is speediable. That pretty much has to do with notability. Denni☯ 03:19, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. I thought band vanity was part of the new criterion. I'm glad to learn that it isn't not because I like band vanity articles, but so I don't tag them incorrectly. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure looks like a hoax. Hoaxes can be speedied (depends). At any rate, this is close to just nonsense. They're a French band, but they're not French. They have no records. They wanted to reach out to a twin sister somewhere (but not near) with the music? No one else's "Internet ha-ha" detector is ringing? There are enough internal inconsistencies for me to have gone along with a speedy (but not to fight for it). Delete in any case. Geogre 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 08:53, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 06:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity.

• Delete. Vanity. Flowerparty ^talk 02:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above.
  Agentsoo 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Abstain. Truly less important than some drummer of a band that hasn't had a hit yet? --Wetman 10:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some dude. In my hierarchy, at any rate, we have significant organizations that require articles, and then there is a much smaller subset of significant individuals whose participation in such a group makes them in need of biography. Please note that the most significant and wonderful organization in the world does not lead to biographies of every person in the organization. A biography is required when the biography itself is notable, when the person is known outside the organization. Otherwise, you'd say something of the person in the article on the organization and simply redirect the name to that article. In this case, we have an organization that is not significant enough for an article and some dude in it. Geogre 17:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• In the unlikely event that Westlake Data Corporation gets kept, merge with it. JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as nn. Denni☯ 23:37, 2005 July 26 (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 Redwolf24 06:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nn, (nearly private) belief system. Nets a grand total of 45 Google hits for Imovinn, and two for Truths of Imovinn (no quotes). Basically promotion. Delete- DNicholls 02:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Imovinn.--DNicholls 03:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

It might also be noted that both entries contain big chunks of copied text from the promoted site.--DNicholls 03:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Wikipedia's policy to discriminate against religious belief systems simply on the basis of numbers? Yes, much of the text has been taken from the organization's web site. As it has adequately been described there, I saw no need to reword the descriptions. - Luna Faye

With all due respect to your beliefs, this is just a matter of whether this is an encyclopedic entry. WP is not a place for advertisement, or advocacy, and there must be a bar set for notability, as it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lastly, depending on who is writing this, it could even be considered original research. If the belief system becomes notable, I don't see an impediment to its inclusion, but it's just too soon. Thanks and all the best to you. --DNicholls 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can prove notability and/or cite some legitimate references. Don't take it personally, Luna Faye.
  T/C 03:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Notability not established. android79 03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn jamesgibbon 14:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would you consider "notability or legitimate references"? The Pæthieon of Imovinn is Incorporated by the state of Ohio, and is in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal 501c3 statute. I happen to be ordained by the Church of Spiritual Humanism and the Universal Life Church, and am registered with the state of Ohio to perform services in all Ohio counties. I hold Doctorates in Divinity and Metaphysics, and am a Certified Reiki Master. How much more "legitimate" would you like? - Luna Faye

• Delete Lots of things are incorporated by the state of Ohio, but they are not all notable. Perhaps it's not entirely fair to rely on numbers - but numbers are, at the end of the day, the best way for the Wikipedians to judge impact, and impact is what speaks to notability, in my view. And yes, the internet-ordination-giving Universal Life Church is notable, though I wouldn't know if I would say that about the Church of Spiritual Humanism - Google indicates that far fewer people have even heard of it, its impact is likely less. But this is beside the point, Luna Faye. The notability of your religious affiliations won't convince people that another religion, which you are also interested in, is notable. If Billy Graham, George W. Bush, and Jesus got together and started a new relegion and, for whatever reason, relatively few joined or talked about it or cared, then it wouldn't be notable. Sirmob 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the internet-ordination-giving Universal Life Church is notable: Ooh, thank you; this means that my ordination is notable. Wanna be ordinated too, Sirmob? (This may serve to impress the pious.) Costs nothing, takes only three minutes! Just click HERE, and then on the yellow tab "FREE ONLINE ORDINATIONS > MORE". -- Hoary 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And yet Spiritual Humanism does have a Wikipedida article and external link, though being considered less than notable? So precisely how many members does the Pæthieon of Imovinn require befor being consered "Notable"? - Luna Faye

Actually, you'll notice that's the abstract term, which is notable, not the church. The church is just linked.--DNicholls 04:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, precisely how many members does the Pæthieon of Imovinn require befor being consered "Notable"? - Luna Faye

• For me, it's less about numbers, and more about impact on the world at large. Your group might be important and interesting to its own members, but otherwise, no one is likely to care. Show us some
  Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you should not attempt to use it to promote your beliefs. android79
  04:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable, but more importantly, the "List OF Truths" is a POV in itself. Hamster Sandwich 04:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To claim you and your belief system are being discriminated against in this proceedure is offensive. Hamster Sandwich 04:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two OUTSIDE articles that I had nothing to do with: Chronicles of Avalon http://www.chroniclesofavalon.com/current.html

Traditions Magazine http://www.traditionsmagazine.com/features.html

Be offended all you want. To claim that a belief system is not notable simply because it is new or does not have vast numbers of members simply is discrimination. This is not upholding the idea of "free, open content, community-built encyclopedia" that Wikipedia claims.

• • Comment Luna Faye misunderstood my use of the word offensive. I meant it in the sense of one attacking another for disagreeing with their POV. I felt Luna Faye was being offensive by their implication that the discussion and reasoning for this topic to be considered for a vote for deletion was discriminatory. Luna Faye has however, indicated that they are comfortable with offending people. Good Luck, in your future endevor! Hamster Sandwich 05:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please tell me in no uncertain terms, since people can't seem to agree on what makes something notable, how many outside articles, or members Imovinn will require, so that I might know when to resubmit the article? - Luna Faye

• As I said, WP is not an indiscriminate collection of info. There's no strict number, but as a general rule: when it's time for someone to submit an article for a religion, it won't be the founder submitting it. (And I am trying to say that in all charity, excuse me if it sounds harsh.)--DNicholls 04:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good first rule of thumb. As I said, from my perspective it's rarely really about numbers, numbers are just often a good indicator of underlying impact. And I don't think additional sources exactly quoting you or written by you are ever going to count strongly towards the total. Sirmob 04:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no concrete number. Inclusion is determined by community consensus. We have set standards for some things, but not for religious groups (or so far as I am aware). I will have a look at your references at a later time. android79 04:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Quote "when it's time for someone to submit an article for a religion, it won't be the founder submitting it." Well that doesn't make much sence. Who better than the founder of something to understand and describe it's ideas and principals? - Luna Faye

Answer: An objective, disinterested, outside observer. We don't want Oprah writing the article about Oprah, for example. As harsh as that might sound, we dedicated Wikipedians apply the same standard here. If you are a scientist, a religious movement, a politician, a corporate executive, or a professor, your impact and accomplishments have to be well-enough known for other people to write about them. Read the

What Wikipedia is Not

guidelines for more info.

Honestly, no one is discriminating, except in the sense of making choices. It is no reflection on the validity or worthiness of the religion as a belief system. When we say not notable, we mean it hasn't had a broad effect on the world yet, and one of the Wikipedia guidelines is that you don't get to use this encyclopedia to help it achieve that notability. DavidH 05:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps someone without bias or personal interest who can write a fair, objective entry rather than copy and paste material from their promotional website? --
  TheMidnighters 05:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as promotion for insignificant "religion". -- Hoary 05:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a promotion for any philosophy. This is not a report on an existing entity. Nothing encyclopedic about this article. --Wetman 09:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If anyone can write a page about their religion which we are not permitted to delete on the grounds of political correctness, regardless of notability, then we might as well have a new page for every person on the planet. However I would be open to this page reappearing if the religion gains any kind of notability outside its followers on the Internet.
  Agentsoo 09:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified)--
  (?) 12:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete just like not every law firm and doctor's office, filled with perhaps notable intellectuals, deserves an entry. Just because it's a "religion" doesn't give it special standing. Mmmbeer 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Just a big list o' beliefs. This is non-discursive, not an article. Are these beliefs significantly discussed and documented by outsiders that an encyclopedia needs to explain these matters? If so, it should be easy to demonstrate newspaper, religious journal, and Google hits that will allay concerns. What would not happen, though, is a list of apocrypha. Geogre 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, microfaith without demonstrated external significance verified. Policy proposal: Modify Doc Glasgow's proposal to read "Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified 'by the government')." Otherwise we'd be putting articles in every time somebody gets ticked off and kills the cult's founder. Barno 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Eminently sensible. There should be some limits, after all. I second the motion. Hamster Sandwich 03:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn faith. JamesBurns 08:54, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 06:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In conjunction with

It might also be noted that both entries contain big chunks of copied text from the promoted site.--DNicholls 03:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Wikipedia's policy to discriminate against religious belief systems simply on the basis of numbers? Yes, much of the text has been taken from the organization's web site. As it has adequately been described there, I saw no need to reword the descriptions. - Luna Faye

With all due respect to your beliefs, this is just a matter of whether this is an encyclopedic entry. WP is not a place for advertisement, or advocacy, and there must be a bar set for notability, as it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lastly, depending on who is writing this, it could even be considered original research. If the belief system becomes notable, I don't see an impediment to its inclusion, but it's just too soon. Thanks and all the best to you. --DNicholls 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can prove notability and/or cite some legitimate references.
  T/C 03:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Notability not established. android79 03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• What exactly would you consider "notability or legitimate references"? The Pæthieon of Imovinn is Incorporated by the state of Ohio, and is in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal 501c3 statute. I happen to be ordained by the Church of Spiritual Humanism and the Universal Life Church, and am registered with the state of Ohio to perform services in all Ohio counties. I hold Doctorates in Divinity and Metaphysics, and am a Certified Reiki Master. How much more "legitimate" would you like? - Luna Faye
  • The discussion is not about the legitamacy of your personal credentials but the notability of the subject matter, and as it stands I don't think the articles establish enough notability to warrant entries. Delete. --
    TheMidnighters 04:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But do you really want to make an issue out of the legitimacy of your personal credentials? Before doing so, you may note that I too am ordained by the Universal Life Church. (So can anyone be; it takes three minutes and costs nothing.) Incidentally, please sign your comments; you do this by hitting the twiddle key four times: ~~~~. -- Hoary 05:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vote for the reasons I mentioned on
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Truths of Imovinn. Sirmob 04:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not Notable. Also POV (see par. 4) In addition, an organization "in the process of being recognized as non-profit under the fedreal (sic) 501c3 statute" is not the same as actually having been granted the status of a non-profit organization. Could be construed as an advertisement. Also, as per the above arguments DNicholls and Fernando Rizzo. Hamster Sandwich 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, promotion of "religion" of negligible significance. -- Hoary 05:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all microfaiths (until their leaders have been crucified) --
  (?) 09:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As above.
  Agentsoo 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per above. Mmmbeer 14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons already given jamesgibbon 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Original research is a deletion guideline violation. Thus, Wikipedia is not the place to announce your religion, to negotiate ultimate truth, or to proselytize. In the case of religion, philosophy, and all else, it is discussion and documentation outside of the participants that will generate the need and the possibility for an article. Geogre 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put. I hoist you on my cyber shoulders.Hamster Sandwich 18:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre and the "Truths of" VfD. Barno 00:13, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no google hits, looks like a vanity page, would be a userfy, but it's by an anon IP. --Etacar11 03:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we temporarily userfy it anyway? Seems like a regular wikiworker, if it's the same person. Barring that, Delete.--DNicholls 03:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you userfy if the creator is an anon? --Etacar11 03:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sprawling, rambling vanity. Unfortunately makes a claim to notability in the last paragraph, so IMO it can't be speedied under CSD A7. android79 03:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --
  TheMidnighters 03:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete vanity. Why do people go to all that effort (even Wikilinking it) without reading the guidance first? Right there in the box at the top of the page... -Splash 04:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear and present vanity. --
  FCYTravis 08:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Just a shame it can't be speedied.
  Agentsoo 09:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, it's tosh jamesgibbon 14:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable vanity. Hall Monitor 17:22, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable high school clique. Gazpacho 03:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No Google results for "Millard Fillmore Gang" [1] and the concept of a gang dedicated to the memory of President Millard Fillmore seems implausible. Capitalistroadster 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable nonsense -Harmil 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, and they don't even link to their supposed avatar, Millard Fillmore. He'd be pissed! Hamster Sandwich 03:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-verifiable, almost patent nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 08:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But maybe one for BJAODN? Raised a giggle in a few places.
  Agentsoo 09:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Bogus hoax vanity nonsense. --Wetman 09:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though with a heavy heart. Am I the only one who absolutely loves the idea of a gang inspired by Millard Fillmore? RidG (talk) 18:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/joke. --Etacar11 23:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in agreement with CR and HS. As an Upstate New Yorker, I hoped for better than this. From the article, commenting on the former gang's dissolution: "The only way Millard Fillmore would have wanted power [to shift hands] would be through unfortunate death." The closest that we can come is deletion. Barno 00:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. This one's great. --Idont Havaname 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Idont. BJAODN. -- Pc13 18:52, July 27, 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 speedy delete. – ABCD✉ 03:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Burrowes

Vanity. Delete. AlistairMcMillan 03:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as clear vanity, as well as the image. --
  TheMidnighters 03:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I wasn't sure about procedure for the image since he uses the image on his
    User page and he has made (what I'm assuming are) useful contributions to Warrimoo, New South Wales. AlistairMcMillan
    03:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, didn't realize, should have checked. --

TheMidnighters 04:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy under
  CSD A7; notability not asserted. Already userfied. Leave the photo alone, since it's on his user page. android79
  03:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable. Seems like a nice enough lad. Come back when you're famous, kid! Hamster Sandwich 04:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy no assertion of notability. -Splash 04:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not speedy because making short films is possible claim of notability. However, no evidence is presented that those films have been shown outside his immediate circle of family and friends. Userfy if he is a contributor. Capitalistroadster 05:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; already userfied by the creator. NatusRoma 05:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I too am not convinced about the eligibility for speedy. But already userfied so no big deal.
  Agentsoo 10:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:47, 26 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. Redwolf24 07:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon the content of the article, this musician does not meet the criteria at

• Why, those are very good reasons to Delete--DNicholls 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeedy they are. The Roosevelt Symphony Orchestra only collects 4 hits, too. Delete. -Splash 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Conclusive nomination.
  Agentsoo 10:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn trombone player vanity. --Etacar11 23:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 08:56, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An Everquest player. Yes, that's all. Really. I mean it. But I am unsure if I can speedy this, so I'm bringing it here, and then can use the result of this Vfd for future judgement. So vote wisely, for The Avatar is wa--no, wait, wrong game. :) Garrett^Talk 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unfortunately not speediable. Nuke the picture, too. android79 04:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not speediable since it is not about a real person, as CSD A7 (regrettably) insists. There was a proposal about online characters but it managed to fail. -Splash 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I would have counted this as about a real person, since "Neruj" is an Everquest player as well as the character (but I also see an assertion of notability, so no speedy because of that). --
    t
    05:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. - Thatdog 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear delete. Just short of speedy.
  Agentsoo 10:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn evercrackcruft. --Etacar11 23:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn fancruft. JamesBurns 08:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Articles about RPG player characters are not fancruft. You see, fancruft is of interest to fans. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yikes. A Zek PKer who quit when SOE changed the rules to disallow ganking newbies under level 5. Can we just redirect this to
  assclown? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete NN. Ashmodai 10:45, 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 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 Keep. Redwolf24 07:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon -- remember that? Back when your parents were your age -- er, no, a bit further back than that -- it was an amusing magazine. Then the name was applied to a succession of movies that usually got terse descriptions such as "bomb" or "dud".

So what's this about then? A film that hasn't been issued, starring Paris Hilton. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; wait till this is released. -- Hoary 04:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

PS Gosh, this really turns out to exist and to be coming soon. I must have misread "2005" as "2006", or perhaps I even more sleepily misread my position in the space/time continuum as 2004 rather than 2005 (I had a hard night last night): either way, I got the impression that the celluloid muse was promised to grace us with this opus over a year from now. I take it all back. The IMdB synopsis makes the film sound terribly thrilling, and I bow to Capitalistroadster's judgement when he says (below) that it "has a notable star in Paris Hilton" (my underlining for emphasis). So keep! Millions of readers of WP want to know! -- Hoary 09:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it has an entry at imdb -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417056/combined, and there have been a couple of news items about it (although really more about its cast) -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417056/news. See also http://movies.hsx.com/servlet/SecurityDetail?symbol=PLEDG, http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=10221, and http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/526/526381p1.html. John Barleycorn 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hamster Sandwich 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This film already gets over 4500 Google Hits [2] has been filmed and in post-production for release later this year and has a notable star in Paris Hilton. Trailers are already in cinemas and online. Verifiable and notable. If we delete it now, it will simply be recreated in a few months time. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We don't delete an article on a movie because you don't think it's funny. --malathion ^talk 06:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this and your crystal bawls. —RaD Man (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or stop the movie from being produced -- either will do. gren 07:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per John Barleycorn. ^…Markaci 2005-07-26 T 07:44:19 Z
• Strong Delete Per
  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally (this is not grounds for deletion), there is no information here besides the IMDB details. Halidecyphon 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per John Barleycorn -newkai | talk | contribs 12:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing noteworthy in the article and unlikely to be until the movie is (ever) released. Garglebutt 13:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is precedent for articles on unreleased (but confirmed) films, and this one seems to be pretty much a done deal. 23skidoo 14:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, concur with Hoary's change of mind jamesgibbon 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not much encyclopedic about it now, but it's scheduled for a November release; it'll just be an unnecessary duplication of effort to re-create it then.
  T/C 17:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Please try to maintain your enthusiasm, i'm sure this will be the best movie ever, but no reason to squat on a page, just wait till its out.--Kilr0y 22:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anonymous creator and "keep" voters are "squatting on a page" in one sense for the next several months. Some of the "delete" voters are "squatting on a page" in another sense in their voting. I wish there were more than the iMDb (however that's capitalized) to go from, but that and precedent are just enough to make me vote keep. Nothing noteworthy is likely to exist after the film is released, unless the kid asking about nudity in the IMDB forum gets his wank-wish. "Nicky Hilton" is listed as being cast as "Unknown". That shouldn't change. Barno 00:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete speculation - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 08:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep rather than recreate the thing four months later. Ashmodai 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - misuse of crystal ball argument must end.
  t c 11:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. --*drew 07:32, 29 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 and Redirect Redwolf24 07:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant of a lot of articles, most notably Mario. Merge, if anything, and delete. K1Bond007 05:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I would vote merge, but I don't think there's anything in this article that doesn't already exist in the proper place. --Pagrashtak 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Pagrashtak. --Maustrauser 05:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  Luigi. - Thatdog 05:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect for those who somehow come upon a misspelling like this...to either Mario Bros. or Mario -- having redirects lessens chance of being created again. gren 07:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. There may be a few bits of info here worth merging; for example, the picture of Charles Martinet. He's not quite notable enough to get his own page, IMHO.
  Agentsoo 10:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Actually, Charles Martinet already has his own article, complete with picture. --Pagrashtak 13:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no redirect, in agreement with Pagrashtak's two comments so far. Barno 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everything on this article is covered elsewhere.
  Binadot 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect Merge Mario bio with Mario page and Luigi bio with Luigi Page... --Mjvan12 02:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing to merge. JamesBurns 08:59, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is just a joke on a TV show that is of no lasting interest. I'm not from the US, so forgive me if this is, in fact, an encyclopedic joke. -Splash 05:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although I immediately knew what this article was about when I read the name. This is a one-time joke on one episode of The Daily Show, not encyclopedic. I hope you meant that the joke had no lasting interest and not the show itself, or else I'm offended ;) --Pagrashtak 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely put...that's exactly what I meant!! -Splash 05:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete jokesterism. Hamster Sandwich 05:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I just saw this last night and laughed my a** off. unsigned by DavidH--DNicholls 06:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there's nothing wrong with this, if there is a wikipedia user that actually wonders whether or not there was a Rufus Pfükke, I believe wikipedia should provide the truth to anyone dedicated enough to think to use wikipedia to answer a question unsigned by 152.163.100.70--DNicholls 06:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I can't tell you how long I searched for Rufus Pfükke on Google tonight! It's silly to not have it. It's a potential serious question. If edited to further seem serious, it could be a valuable page. unsigned byY2kevbug11 --DNicholls 06:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am getting zero google hits. Martg76 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 13th edit (he is creator of this article). And if it doesn't show on google he couldn't have spent too much time looking for it. -R. fiend 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn and opens an unwieldy precedent. --DNicholls 06:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to The Daily Show] Snargle 07:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into The Daily Show. I've copied it into there, the only thing left is to apply the redirect when the VfD is over. JesseW 08:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I don't think this is important enough to be one of five items under "Notable stories and events", let alone the first listed. If the consensus of this vote is delete and not merge, I propose deleting it from the Daily Show article. If all jokes of this magnitude or greater were given equal space, the Daily Show article would take up hundreds, if not thousands, of pages. --Pagrashtak 13:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on, how many people do you think actually looked up Mr. Reameduptheass? Pfükke sounds like a real person. There are certain jokes that attract a level of curiosity that would warrant at least a simple explanation. Now we are complaining about the SIZE of the potential encyclopedia? Is the internet full? Thousands of pages on just one topic would be a true research oasis.--Y2Kevbug11 11:17:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not complaining about the size of the encyclopedia, I am complaining about the size of an article. My comments above are intended to counter the proposal to merge. My argument is that is if we are compelled to include Mr. Pfükke, then we must also inslude Mr. Reameduptheass and Mr. Shaft and anyone else mentioned. Now look at the size of the current text for Pfükke and multiply that by three to include the other two I've just mentioned. This is conservatively small, as this was just a small part of a longer segment. Now, multiply that size by the number of segments on a typical Daily Show episode, say three to pick another conservative number. Now multiply that by the number of Daily Show episodes that have aired since its first episode in 1996. What we arrive at is too lengthy for an article, hence merging is not a viable option in my opinion.
        Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, though, as this argument may be completely moot. I believe the central question is (or should be): Is Rufus Pfükke encyclopedic? A fictional name invented for a one-time joke on an episode of a comedy show. Not notable, not encyclopedic. --Pagrashtak 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is to my mind deeply unencyclopedic to set the precedent for adding every gag on a comedy show to its article and creating a redirect for that gag. Whilst it is permissible to force the redirect, as you have during the VfD while the discussion continued, it is not the done thing. Now, the VfD is basically redundant along with all the non-redirect votes that had been cast. -Splash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Daily Show. Well handled, JesseW.
  Agentsoo 10:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to Daily Show One cannot create an article for every funny bit on the Daily Show. MicahMN | Talk 16:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that move keeps the original article and merges the content to
    GFDL, which I why I find the forcing of this by already merging the content somewhat annoying. -Splash 17:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete non-encyclopedic joke. Martg76 20:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This really is a non-encyclopedic joke, and isn't even notable within the context of The Daily Show. Quale 22:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Daily Show.
  Binadot 01:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn joke. JamesBurns 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. I'd also like to point out that e.g. German speakers don't immedeatly understand the joke, so maybe some tiny explanation on the English pronunciation of the name would be helpful (although it IS kind of obvious). Ashmodai 10:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no merge. It's a single joke mentioned once, and unlikely ever to be referenced again. Unless we want the Daily Show article to mention all their jokes (and there are quite a few) this really should be deleted. If being "pfükked" actually makes it into the lexicon we can recreate it then. I ain't holding my breaht though. -R. fiend 15:50, 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 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. Redwolf24 07:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it admits to being a neologism in the second section: was used in a small blurb in People magazine...It has time soon enough to be picked up by the public. -Splash 05:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless anybody has actually heard any member of any of the bands mentioned in the article have referred to their music as such. Then I'll change my vote. Hamster Sandwich 05:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Save Hot Hot Heat is considered neo-new wave. Google it. See this link [[3]].
• Keep. The term has some currency; googling for "neo-new wave" yields 4000 hits. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Vote revised below. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to say: only about 450 of them are unique. Which suggests that some outlet(s) uses it loads and it isn't much around elsewhere. -Splash 05:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, good point. I'm changing my vote to delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep being of recent coinage doesn't seem like enough to delete it. It otherwise looks like a OK article. Splash, can you point me to some policies, guidelines, or discussions that talk about neologisms. I might change my mind.Delete Thank you, Splash. Those are quite convincing; the article doesn't say "Neo-new wave is a style of music", it says "Neo-new wave is the name of a style of music." We don't include articles on names for things, we include articles on concepts. JesseW 08:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC) 23:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most importantly, there is
    WP:NOR, which helps to cover made-up terms: you can't make them up and then put them in WP, because they'd be original dicdefs. Also, the whole 'neologism' thing is used extensively in VfD; take a look through any day's debate, and you'll see neologisms being deleted because they are neologisms. Oh, and don't be fooled by a few hundred Googles; any made-up word can collect that many — we don't want it unless it has so much attention is is encyclopedic at the moment: becoming so in future means the word should only get its article in future, and then only if it has more to say than a dicdef. -Splash 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak keep. Seems like a term on its way up, in popularity terms. Would be prepared to change my vote if Wikipedia is shown to have strict rules on neologisms, but I see no objection to them once they reach this level of popularity.
  Agentsoo 10:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See my response above: we don't keep neologism until they are established parts of language and only then if their article is more than a dicdef. -Splash 16:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've heard my hipster friends call bands "neo-new wave", but god knows my hipster friends are only notable for their odd fashion sense, and not for being barometers of English usage. If the term ever becomes widespread, re-create the article.
  T/C 17:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge with New wave music and redirect. — mendel ☎ 19:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete imaginary music genres. Note that exactly zero of the bands listed as examples use this term in their own articles. See
  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism. Ashmodai 10:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The page was just blanked by its original author. --Icelight 22:19, July 28, 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. (See [en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bejesus Bejesus at Wiktionary]) Redwolf24 07:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged for speedy ("wiktionary if anything"), but not patent nonsense I think, unfortunately. Nevertheless, it is a slang dicdef, and we don't want those. (It is not currently in Wiktionary, btw.) It is already in Wiktionary, so there is no need to Transwiki it; I was mistaken. -Splash 05:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It actually is a little nonsense, that bit about "scientific discoveries" demanding a "more accurate meaning", obviously a joke page. Side note - I wonder if it should it be BeJesus? --Pagrashtak 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tonight i was sitting around wondering where the word bejesus came from. i looked on wikipedia and it wasn't there! but it was on the internet in other places. so i figured i would educate wikipedia about bejesus. (from 66.235.2.229, creator of Bejesus article) --Pagrashtak 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree. I've added some more to the definition of Bejesus as proof of my devotion. (from 66.235.2.229, creator of Bejesus article) --Pagrashtak 05:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Tranwiki as per Che Nuevera. And Pagrashtak, nice work on the article ! As someone with many Martimers as relatives, I can assure you its a word that is used constantly. ie "Where in the bejeezuz (bejesus) did you get that plug ugly jacket, by (boy)?"or "Ya scared the livin' bejeesus outta me!) and other various permutations thereof. Hamster Sandwich 05:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't know what you're all talking about, it is at Wiktionary, see
  t
  07:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from wikipedia -- if it belongs somewhere else put it there, if not, don't. gren 07:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I say keep it. I think this is in fairly wide use, and is informal but not slang.
  Agentsoo 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We have a dictionary. You even named it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What person/concept/place/thing/event is known as "bejesus"? What person/concept/place/thing/event would an article entitled "bejesus" be about? Uncle G 11:37:00, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
  • We also have
    Wikipedia:Neologism; we don't hang on to invented words unless there is an encyclopedic article to be written about it. -Splash 16:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An article on the word is currently in Wiktionary. I can find no person/concept/place/thing/event for an encyclopaedia article entitled "bejesus" to be about. That leaves redirects. I'm not convinced that the obvious redirect, to Jesus, would be suitable. A redirect to interjection would not be not correct as per the Wiktionary entry. This isn't a profanity and it's not quite an oath. A redirect either to euphemism or to minced oath is the best possibility, but I'm not convinced. Weak delete. Uncle G 11:37:00, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
  • I do apologise; I must have misspelt it somehow. -Splash 16:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no need to apologise. My intention was to draw attention to later developments, that people making the more recent "transwiki" votes appear to have missed. You were not mistaken. What you wrote was correct when you wrote it. Never underestimate the speed of McBot. ☺ Uncle G 17:39:18, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
      • Ah, yes. I guess this is all my fault. I wrote "I don't know what you're talking about" a little jokingly, since I had just transwikied it seconds before. Erm... ha ha...? --
        t
        21:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete - move along there, nothing to see --
  (?) 12:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - slang dicdef / Alarm 16:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, then Delete. Ashmodai 10:58, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an imaginary person in correspondence virtual wrestling games. Doesn't really merit an entry. Probably a vanity post too. Mike 05:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• A thousand times delete, as above. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anime fan-cruftery. Hamster Sandwich 05:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously.
  Agentsoo 10:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm one of the few remaining fans of correspondence virtual-anything games. For instance, I'm playing a play-by-mail/e-mail game of Breaking Away, a game of team bicycle racing such as a sprint stage of the Tour de France. Nonetheless, I'm not sure any of this character's wrestling "e-federation" has encyclopedic importance, and by WP policy and precedent, no player character in games should have an article kept unless it somehow becomes very well-known through widespread coverage by major media. Delete, throwing out of the ring. Barno 00:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn fancruft. JamesBurns 09:02, 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 delete. Woohookitty 07:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dungeon Siege Movie

Delete although IMDb does find "Dungeon Siege", its description appears unrelated to this article, although there is a remake expected in 2006. That alone would be a bit crystal-bally, however, if there is an article in the future for this film, the current offering is not the place to start. -Splash 05:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty damn close to patent nonsense (w/ the level 9 wizard).--DNicholls 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously, but surely BJAODN territory. The Level 9 wizard bit is rather comical.
  Agentsoo 10:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Interesting cast -- Jason Statham, Mathew Lillard, Burt Reynolds, Leelee Sobieski, Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies? Wow. Still, the only information about a release date is Canada is 2006, no US release date at all. Once there is a firm release date, I will vote keep. Until then, I vote weak deleteJohn Barleycorn 21:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although it scores a laugh. Ashmodai 11:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  Daily Variety reports today, incidentally, that Claire Forlani has been added to the cast of the film, which is currently being shot in Vancouver. carmeld1 03:21, 28 July 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. Redwolf24 07:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was marked for speedy deletion as band vanity, which, of course, is not a criterion. --

• Delete Band-itry, even the author aknowledges its innapropriate. Maybe his agent told him to do it. Hamster Sandwich 06:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, self-admitted vanity. — JIP | Talk 06:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --DNicholls 06:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I added an allmusic link -- probably still vanity but they are published and if kept should be moved to The Navies or Navies (band) -- not sure what notability requirements are for musical groups besides being published. gren 07:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, they had a national tour or two [4], so they satisfy
  Kappa 13:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 09:03, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 07:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vanity, Ad, non-notable cohesion | talk 06:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 06:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn, probably vanity too.
  Agentsoo 10:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite. Google results > 43k for "Project Dogwaffle" (with quotes) Ashmodai 11:06, 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 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. Redwolf24 07:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These people are all NUTS.

Non-notable blog that seems more like an advert. Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 06:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 06:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable, advertising. --
  _{tɔk tə mi} 06:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, maybe this is vindictive but when I saw "Anti-Semitic Leftists at "Wikipedia" Delete Joobo, Accept DailyKos" on the site I decided I wanted to be both anti-Semitic and leftist. In other words, not notable and whiny gren 07:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, just visited the blog and saw his edits to Daily Kos... Prehaps this guy needs to be enlightened on WP:Civility and just overall good manners =) I mean, for a wise guy, he's not very wise. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Civility aside, I went to his blog, read his "wisdom" and was thouroghly appalled. Tinfoil-hattery at its most preposessing. SPEEDY this if possible. Hamster Sandwich 08:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even although I'm not one of Wikipedia's "Anti-Semitic Leftists" (as Joobo's site now accuses us of being) --
  (?) 11:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable blogger.Capitalistroadster 12:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blogger vanity. JamesBurns 09:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These creeps ARE both anti-Semitic and Leftists. Losers, all.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Redwolf24 07:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity and advert for a bunch of amateur filmmakers. Delete. Indrian 06:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete violates a handful of what WP is not.--DNicholls 07:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad and nn. --Etacar11 00:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:04, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 07:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Nintendo Hard is an adjectival phrase used among older video game players when refering to games that are extremely challenging to play, or even unbalanced against the player." I removed a speedy tag from this article because it doesn't meet the criteria, but I agree that this neologism was probably made up on the spot. Rl 06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A dicdef we shouldn't transwiki.--DNicholls 07:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or -- redirect to Battletoads... but then again Mario was hard for me :( gren 07:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The system works! Snargle 07:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an actual expression commonly used in the referenced gaming community. The original author was not very concise and used poor style, as well as jargon that could be perceived as nonsense by a reader who is not familiar with the subject. I cleaned the article up a bit so it is easier to understand.

References:

"This game is hard. Like, old-school Nintendo hard (appropriately enough). Like, sub-second-timing- with-a-four-pixel- margin-of-error- and-dying-restarts-the-entire-section hard." (http://cpe000103c34069-cm014300001653.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com/weblogs/ben/media/games)

"Actually, Zelda II is just plain hard. Not 'challenging'. Not 'difficult'. It's, as we say, 'NINTENDO HARD'.(http://gabtable.stalo.com/viewtopic.php?p=8123&sid=0f430ef53115e8a939ad5c9bb0a750de)

Freerick 10:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It apparently (as shown above) has been used in a couple reviews, but that doesn't make it significant enough. A Google search will get you about 1,700 hits, but none of the first few have anything to do with difficulty level. (They're all about a Nintendo Hard Case, "the economic downturn will hit Nintendo hard," etc. Really the reviews are just saying that a game in question is hard for Nintendo's levels. Like Rl says, it was probably made up on the spot. -newkai | talk | contribs 13:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a dicdef, but transwiki because I'll believe it's legitimate jargon. Sirmob 13:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm an avid gamer (almost exclusively Nintendo consoles), and I've never heard or come across this phrase without deliberately searching for it. I don't think it's established enough for an article, although I know what the author means. --Pagrashtak 15:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm a fairly avid gamer myself, and I've never heard this. It's a dicdef and caveman-cruft anyhow. Nintento hard. Article delete.
  T/C 17:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, never heard of this. K1Bond007 22:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one level harder than Nintendo Hard, no transwiki since the consensus is this isn't widely used even among the console's users. Barno 00:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn phrase. JamesBurns 09:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I imagined "nintendo hard" is what gamers get when playing Nintendo. -R. fiend 15:56, 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 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. Redwolf24 07:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds an awful lot like original research to me. (

• Delete And nonsense beside.--DNicholls 07:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, original research, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cut and paste nonsense. Probell 11:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, functional vanity, not an encyclopedic topic. Robert A West 19:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism, non-encyclopedic.Mmmbeer 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:06, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Manshel

• Delete. NN looks like a vanity piece A curate's egg 07:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And ew. That hurts to look at.--DNicholls 07:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the above. 19:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now that's a wall of text. humblefool® 02:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a delete to me. No significant Google hits. I get a lot more hits than he does, and I am not a notable person. DanMS 01:36, 31 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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Making Charles Law tubes

Finishing this old nomination. --

t

07:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Was a redirect to Making Charles' law tubes, now in Wikibooks -- Egil 04:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 08:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have sworn orphan redirects were speedies. Robert A West 19:36, 26 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 just comes under consensus to delete (9 for deletion, 5 against) --

Francs2000 | Talk 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

Clerical error

If this is factually true, it belongs elsewhere, at Pearl Harbor perhaps. This is not a viable stub for an encyclopedia article. --Wetman`

• Delete--DNicholls 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, viable stub.
  Kappa 13:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge any useful content to Pearl Harbor as this is not a logical endpoint for a search. Garglebutt 13:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a very common phrase, I don't see the argument for it not being a viable stub. --Pagrashtak 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but eradicate unsubstantiated info. I've studied the subject a fair amount and I've never heard anything along the lines of the anecdote referenced therein. Unless someone can point to a reference for that, I'm going to excise it.
  T/C 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete/Merge Dictionary entry with a garbled anecdote. Assuming that PBS's research and my recall are both correct. IIRC, the intention was to declare war with only minutes of warning, as was done at Port Arthur, and the delay was caused by the need for manual decoding, not a clerical error properly so-called. I can put researching, sourcing and adding to the appropriate article on my personal agenda. Robert A West 19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think a merge with Pearl Harbor is appropriate, as the phrase only relates to it (very) tangentially. As for an argument as to why it's not a viable stub: this is merely a phrase. It's basically a dicdef, with loosely connected information following it. Such articles seem to fall under: Wikipedia is not a dictionary (esp. list of definitions), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (esp. loosely associated topics), and possibly even original research (esp. secondary sources).--DNicholls 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it your opinion then that this article is incapable of expansion beyond the definition? --Pagrashtak 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without slipping into the above mentioned categories, yes. --DNicholls 22:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a dicdef and an only-tangentally-related anecdote that I'm sure is already part of
  Pearl Harbour --Carnildo 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unless someone writes an encyclopedic (and non-Pearl-Harbor-related) article on clerical errors PDQ. --
  _{t?k t? mi} 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If any of it is to be included in a Pearl Harbor article it should not be redirected. -R. fiend 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a useful page, with a good definition -the removal of the Pearl Harbour example, however, may be justified. Nihiltres 21:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The Pearl Harbor stuff is just nonsense. Anyway, I think this might have a potential to be a real article but I'd need some substantial expansion beyond a dicdef to decide.--Pharos 05:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not encyclopedic. -
  brenneman^(t)(c) 03:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per DNicholls --Allen3 ^talk 09:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Deletion carried out by Woohookitty. android79 05:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

United States Senate Simulation (USSS)

nn game. vanity. ~100 google hits. DNicholls 07:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NN game.--Maustrauser 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above cohesion | talk 07:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but possible to ehance
  Government simulation instead. Eclipsed 07:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I vote delete. I'm exercising my non-simulated senatorial authority. Mmmbeer 21:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Filibuster , oh wait. This isn't a simulation ;-P delete. Karmafist 05:58, 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 delete --

Francs2000 | Talk 14:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

Vladimir Sklenar

Does not seem notable. Neither the article or the links suggest it, at least to me. I've asked the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry if they know anything about him. Hopefully they will chime in here. It's also only by one, anon, author, in 2003. And unchanged since then. Delete JesseW 07:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Full professor in a country that does give that title easily... Still, it is very hard for the average reader to guage anything from this article—it needs soooo much work, including writing the necessary articles to explain his research interests. I'll go for delete unless substantially improved. Physchim62 11:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at the moment, but I suspect that the article will be recreated once Wikipedia contains a critical amount of information to properly describe the research interests of this person. --HappyCamper 12:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, please. ~K 15:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. There are plenty of chemistry professors with an article in WikiPedia, who I have never heard of. I can't tell just whether professor Sklenar would be less important than, e.g.,
  Professor Ronald MacDonald and all those others. Wim van Dorst 21:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • Comment Ug. Well, the idea of Wikipedia is that you should be able to tell they are important, that's the point of requiring notablity. However, this article is clearly no more clear about notablity than any of those. I don't know whether to vfd all of them, or change my vote on this one to keep. Ug. On the other hand, its better to know; so, thanks so much! ;-) JesseW 00:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the idea of wikipedia, and neither is "notability". Wikipedia is a collaboration, and editors should be able to add significant information without having to jump through hoops to prove how "notable" everything is.
      Kappa 06:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep, full professor, per Phsychim62 assessment.
  Kappa 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep if expanded. Some notability. JamesBurns 09:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being a chemist in itself doesn't cut it. If the article is expanded and shows why exactly this guy deserves mention in an encyclopedia any more than the next guy I might change my vote. -R. fiend 16:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I met the guy at a conference. He contributed a lot, but not anything of encyclopaedic magnitude. --62.254.128.5 21:42, 29 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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc bauer

Finishing this old nomination. --

t

07:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is a vanity insertion by the artist, as User:DaVince, who has made no other edits save those to insert this promo, essentially an ad.

• Delete --Wetman 00:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Not Notable comedian. And this is after I saw his web-site. Hamster Sandwich 08:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn artist vanity. --Etacar11 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 09:08, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapssak

Vanity, term not found elsewhere Eclipsed 07:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--DNicholls 08:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, zero google hits makes notability difficult to establish.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 09:09, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kubinec

Finishing this old nomination. --

t

08:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

-- lecturer at a university, non-notable. --Sgkay 07:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. --Laura Scudder | Talk 07:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Muhgcee 15:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Mark's a cool guy, but non-notable. Salsb 03:09, 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 Keep.

Coon (disambiguation)

• Delete. This is not a disambiguation page for various Wikipedia articles Coon, merely a sly chance to air a slur. --Wetman 07:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I rewrote it some (and made the ethnic slur wikilink go to ethnic slur, not the list--edit:blast, guess it goes to that anyway). I have to respectfully disagree. Even if it was, just because it isn't pleasant doesn't mean it isn't the case. The first two versions of the word are in current use, at least, and the last is an actual brand.--DNicholls 08:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, concerning the redirect of coon to raccoon, we could make raccoon the first choice (redirect) and include there a link to the disambig page. Although it might do to consult on that talk page first.--DNicholls 08:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all those terms are uses of the word. I agree that Raccoon should be the first choice as per DNicholls. Hamster Sandwich 08:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of DNicholls' edit.
  T/C 10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I created this disambiguation article specifically because there was a comment on Coon cheese in the nigger article without any background on its validity as a trademark and it has been a subject of occasional debate in Australia. I don't agree with having Raccoon be the first choice however as I've never even heard of that abbreviation until now. (The US is not the centre of the universe guys!) I would argue that very few people would search for Coon to find Raccoon. I vote for leaving the article as is in terms of linkage. Garglebutt 11:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Re the 'coon' equal or not equal to 'raccoon', what about the word/phrase 'coon dog' ? To which meaning do you imagine it refers ? --Simon Cursitor 09:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the light of the recent edits.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep useful disambiguation. Capitalistroadster 18:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like a pretty standard disambig page to me. slambo 18:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Those unfamiliar with this term could easily be confused by a reference to it, and turn to Wikipedia for help. -leigh (φθόγγος) 21:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Coon. I'm under the impression that in the absence of a "main entry" article, dab pages should go without the "(disambiguation)" notice in the title, rather than having what we have here — Coon redirecting to Coon (disambiguation). (But certainly keep, as a useful dab, regardless of ethnic-slur-ness. Heck, the dab page for Hebe mentions it as one spelling of "heeb"!) --Quuxplusone 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to

• Delete This article is a duplicate of a more appropriate article at Marlin Firearms.Gateman1997 03:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Marlin Firearms.--DNicholls 08:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marlin Firearms, this doesn't need VfD. —Stormie 08:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. also this article pertains to marlin "rifle"s and describes shot-guns in its text, which have no "rifleing" of the bore, so inappropriate at any rate. Hamster Sandwich 08:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marlin Firearms. I would vote merge if all the content wasn't already there.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2005 July 26 (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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Krupa

• Delete - unnotable from content. Delete/merge w/ sister's page. Athf1234 21:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merging isn't a good idea, in my opinion. Deb 22:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under the new criteria as non-notable, and making no assertion of notability. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and no-merge.--DNicholls 08:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Now back to the Marta Krupa synchopated style. Erm, I mean, delete if notability can't be established. — JIP | Talk 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Etacar11 00:15, 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 Keep.

Tagged for speedy deletion but not a candidate. Appears to be a large luxury hotel. Plenty of google hits. I don't think that hotels are inherently notable, but due to its size and usage as accomodation for politicians, it might be argued that this hotel is. No vote from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly needs work but sufficiently notable, just.
  Agentsoo 10:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Verifiable and kinda notable.
  Yi Gu recently died there. -- Visviva 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, seems like Yi Gu was born there too, or at least on the site.
  Kappa 13:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, despite the fact that I can't afford to stay there. --Calton | Talk 13:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough for me.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:33, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable hotel. Capitalistroadster 18:46, 26 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. – ABCD✉ 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conquering of the World

Tagged for speedy deletion, but not a candidate. Some sort of book. Unsure of notability. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I didn't check to see if the book was real. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure fantasy unless a publisher and ISBN number are included. Hamster Sandwich 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the author is 12 years of age, vanity? Lectonar 13:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no entries for the author in amazon.com, even though some webhits exist.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
• Delete nn book, vanity. Robert A West 19:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at the very least, not yet notable. Mmmbeer 21:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no google hits on the title + authors last name. NN kiddie vanity. --Etacar11 00:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 09:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity and hoax. -- Pc13 19:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

undeletion request

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to