Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 16

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

ATRC

Fancruft.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: What is it? The article doesn't say. Pretty much nonsense at this point. Verification? Well, since we don't know what it is, we can't really confirm it. Significant as a topic? Seems like it's all about the whacky sense of humor of something called Link 80. Is anyone/anything outside of that context going to know to look for this? Well, "many" have joined it. Who? What? What is it? Delete to solve these agonies. Geogre 02:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently, from some extremely nonsensical google results, it's some in-joke of Link 80. Completely non-notable fancruft indeed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable cruft. JamesBurns 07:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. —
  ✎
  10:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge if anyone knows what it's about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: http://atrcrew.com/ —Wahoofive (talk) 17:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, saw this the other day & figured I'd see if anyone nominated it. StopTheFiling 22:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with
  List of nuclear reactors. Probably not what was intended.) Pburka
  00:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 20:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Big Tymers

Yall gotta learn. Dont fuck with White Dawg. Him and his krew WILL get back atcho ass. LIKE THIS SON. This article is about a bunch of non-notable people who do NOT deserve an article! the information is also NOT FACTUAL. BrowardDon 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, passes
  WP:MUSIC. Nominator has made other such nominations within the few hours his account has been active.~~Shiri — Talk~~
  02:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. --Tabor 03:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hell, six published albums on significant labels -- they're easily notable enough. And considering the "Dont fuck with White Dawg" stuff we see above, I have to question the neutrality of BrowardDon on this matter. This kind of blatantly biased crap isn't really what the VfD process is here for. -- Captain Disdain 04:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Their All-Music Guide profile [3] shows that most of their albums have charted and they have several hit singles. Hood Rich released in 2002 reached the top of the Billboard charts. By doing so, they easily meet the WikiMusic Project guidelines. Unfortunately, their article does not establish this notability. Capitalistroadster 04:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep passes MUSIC guidelines. Easily notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have expanded article to establish notability. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 10:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Anybody want to start a petition to keep users with "Broward" in their names from voting or editing anything, ever? jglc | t | c 16:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

List of months by year: 1800-1899, List of months by year: 1700-1799, List of months by year: 1600-1699, List of months by year

See

01:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify: my vote is delete. – ugen64 14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Just found these pages - they seem really useful 12:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) [anonymous user]
• Delete these seas of red links. Denni☯ 03:07, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. If people want to do this, let them. It doesn't matter if it takes years to do just a fraction of the months. CalJW 05:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per previous discussion at
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999. --Tabor
  06:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless; as notable as dates and years.
  siafu
  07:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per precedent set by
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999. JamesBurns
  07:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per precedent.
  Proto
  09:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per precedent. —
  ✎
  10:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per precedent set by
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999 - Skysmith
  10:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see a need for this at the moment, and this should not be something created from the top down, with potential forking problems. If the year articles were overlong (and only the most recent are long) then it would be justified in splitting them up into months. Average Earthman 11:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we can create it once it becomes necessary, if it ever does. --W(t) 13:25, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete this today, delete it tomorrow, delete it Saturday, delete it Sunday, and so forth until December 31, 2199. Precedent, and unencyclopedic uselessness. Where's Kappa's "Keep, real months" vote? Barno 20:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete every list that is fifty bajillion redlinks. ::eyes zoning out…can't focus…too much red…:: Hermione1980 23:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that before these are deleted, any blue links should be fixed on the pages that link there since they are likely not pointing to the right article in most cases. 65.40.145.19 05:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmmm. Is it a coincidence or does every year listed have the same twelve months? Weird. Anyway, Delete. -R. fiend 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 20:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Eightball & MJG

NON NOTABLE. BrowardDon 02:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I know preciously little about rap, but i have heard of eightball & mjg and their influence on the underground scene. quite notable. - Jersyko talk 02:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Recently added discography which shows 2 albums under
  WP:MUSIC #3. Has also worked with P. Diddy and Lloyd among others. Definetly notable in rap music. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions
  03:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily verifyable, and this user has been constant submitting things like this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See many other nominations by this user. --Tabor 03:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. C'mon, this is just silly. -- Captain Disdain 04:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per WikiMusic Project guidelines.Capitalistroadster 05:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Anybody want to start a petition to keep users with "Broward" in their names from voting or editing anything, ever? jglc | t | c 16:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: They're pretty notable. They're part of the Bad Boy label, which is run by P.Diddy, who is very notable. Their "You Don't Want Drama" was in the top 50, and they also fulfill "has released two or more albums on a major label," among other ones.newkai 09:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

7.0 earthquake in Eureka

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. I did see something about this in the paper this morning, although its impact seems to have been brief. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, the title is bad, and the writing is shaky. Best to start from scratch if at all. Denni☯ 02:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Save. Yes, the impact as an earthquake was brief. However it was a significant test of the tsunami detection capability in the Pacafic Ocean. Yes, the writing is skaky and the title is bad. However it should be kept while it is being rewritten and a good title is chosen.

Note: That statement by 24.19.45.139

• Delete: The title is impossible to seek or find. Wikipedia is not In the News. In the News is written as a separate entity and links to general topics. A mention can be added to tsunami that one occurred last night. Geogre 02:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see a firm foundation for an article here. --Xcali 03:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete earthquake with no casualties or property damage. -- Jonel | Speak 04:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• if judging as per 24.19.45.139, Merge with Tsunami warning system's "Shortcomings" sections as a "False Positive" example. Otherwise, as per Jonel, Delete. The Literate Engineer 07:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Tsunami warning system. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikinews covered this: Tsunami bulletin issued from Pacific coast of California-Mexico border to Vancouver, Canada. Uncle G 09:06, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Future energy usage scenarios

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Essay/speculation. — Gwalla | Talk 01:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to say delete to this wretched little essay, but I think there is salvageable material here, particularly under a different title, so Weak keep. Denni☯ 02:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. JYolkowski // talk 02:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Xcali
  03:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball, place for original research to be published, nor a soapbox. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation. NOR/NOO --Tabor 03:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Worth having but is already done better elsewhere. Merge anything useful with Future Energy Development then Delete.old joe 09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR/Crystal ball. —
  ✎
  10:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since Energy development already does a far more professional job. Merge anything that appears unsaid in Energy development, but this may be nothing, particularly since there are no references cited. -Splash 12:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge since I wrote it, I'm biased. Unlike
  PHEVs! Please see also Talk:Hybrid_vehicle#Hybrid_What.3F for an important overlooked truth of current transportation.--D0li0
  17:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 20:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as Splash says. Pavel Vozenilek 23:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge anything useful and redirect to

12:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Ike Walton

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. The

02:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Material is not really appropriate for merging to
  13th Floor Elevators, and candidate is NN. Denni☯
  02:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: I love the 13th Floor Elevators, and it's great that we cover them, but it's just plain wasteful to wikilink every band member's name when those musicians haven't achieved notability outside of the band. Geogre 02:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  13th Floor Elevators, merging anything useful --Xcali
  03:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 07:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Xcali. Meelar (talk) 16:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 20:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Trina

DONT FUCK WIF WHITE DAWG. BROWARD REPRESENT! THIS ARTICLE IS NON NOTABLE AND DOES NOT PASS WP: MUSIC BrowardDon 02:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Um, keep, does pass WP:MUSIC. Also, probable sockpuppet nomination. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article establishes notability... and your edits look awfully similar to User:BrowardBulldawg... Hmmm... I wonder... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See many other nominations by this user on this page. --Tabor 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WikiMusic Guidelines. The nominator should read the guidelines about not disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Capitalistroadster 05:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep does pass WikiMusic guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As much as I hate rap, this article belongs on Wikipedia. Aecis 13:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Damn it, we really, really, really, really need to get all these Broward* users banned for life. This is unbelievable. jglc | t | c 16:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person.--Kross 22:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mario Gonsales Ishikawa

Looks to be a vanity page. Delete. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 02:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The fate of the page Vieira-Ishikawa Software should also be dealt with here if there are not objections. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both pages as vantiy and advertising. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. nn. --Xcali 03:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Both is vanity. -Snorre/Antwelm 07:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 07:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as per
  ✎
  10:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant vanity. RussellG 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and advertising. --Etacar11 14:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cuz i got hos in diff'rent area codez--64.229.218.142 19:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Komplete

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Non-notable chat group. — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Website vanity. Alexa rank 4,783,298 --Tabor 04:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Tabor --Artorius 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Completeness. Current article is website advertising. JamesBurns 07:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm a little rusty on my Ecclesiastes, but would that be one about "vanity" and a "striving after the wind"? Delete vanity. --Scimitar 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity." -- Ecclesiastes 1:2 -- Plutor 15:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't sound like they've even accomplished the minor tasks they've set out to accomplish. --Habap 15:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. You (Talk) 19:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rafal Olaf von Schubert

Best permutation of names gets 2 discrete Google hits. Title gets zero. Definitely non-notable, probably hoax. Denni☯ 02:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Note: VfD template keeps getting removed from the page. --cesarb 13:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Patent vanity. Likely hoax. How many 21 year old commentators does the BBC have? I'm guessing 0. --Xcali 03:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Xcali, you know perfectly well this isn't patent vanity. I doubt it's even vanity, for that matter. And even if it were, vanity is not a criterion for speedy delete. Until policy changes, that's why we have VfD. Denni☯ 05:09, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • Let's see, 21 years old, claims of outstanding achievements, no evidence of those claims. Probably created just to put his name in an article. I'd call that patent vanity bordering on nonsense. --Xcali 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Anyone can enter their comments on the BBC discussion pages on the wonderful BBC website. This does not, however, make them BBC commentators. Jez 17:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable. Unnotable. Looks like vanity to me. -Snorre/Antwelm 07:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 07:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Clusty doesn't provide any relevant links to his literature. And a google search on "Schubert" "BBC" "commentator" only yields results on a certain famous classical composer. Unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete through vfd--not speedy. Thanks, Denni. Meelar (talk) 13:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/unverified. --Etacar11 14:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Martg76 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This person is noted in this German literature - Franz Schubert Herkunft und Verwandtschaft by Heinz Schöny on Schubert's family tree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braderder (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 Jun 2005

  New account; only contribution is this vote --cesarb 16:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable person. Maybe this kid is a descendant of THE Franz Schubert. So what? Jez 17:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If that were true, were would the von come from? Martg76 21:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. As far as w eknow Schubert didn't have any children,
      SqueakBox
      21:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wow, there is a lot of negativity here. Anyways, like Braderder said you probably can find this individual in Franz Schubert Herkunft und Verwandtschaft by Heinz Schöny on Schubert's family tree, but I'm not sure. I have however read of this guy in Toronto Star, can't recall when. If anyone is from the metropolitan Toronto area maybe they can recall the date. Anyways, Mr. Schubert has also supporter of Stem Cell research as the article stated, but I wont't post until I find the article.--CanadianPride 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  User removed two comments while adding this vote. Account's first edit. --cesarb 01:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unbelievable Schubert spoof. Speedy delete,
  SqueakBox
  01:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn. Not only are there only "two discrete google hits", they are both from Wikipedia itself. Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepIf you use google, no wonder you can't find information on this individual.--HistoricalAce 20:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Account created 10 minutes before this vote; user's fourth edit. --cesarb 20:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Lichtenstein

This seems to be a personal ad and it is not encylopedia-worthy. freestylefrappe 04:38, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This nomination was begun but stp 3 not completed. I am finishing the listing now.RJFJR 02:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a valid encyclopedia-worthy page. Encyclopedias often contain biographical and other information about artists and writers of note. Any biographical entry in this encyclopedia could be deemed a personal ad, if the same criteria were used. This page is not very developed yet, but it shouldn't be deleted just because of a lack of information as of yet. It is a fair argument to say that the information about this person is just as valid as any other person in Wikipedia. If there had been an internet during Vincent Van Gogh's time, and someone tried to enter him in wikipedia, I'm sure there would have been someone else who considered his entry a personal ad and voted to have him removed, since he was not all that famous or popular while still alive. --lichtentunes 3:41 June 7, 2005
  • Comment: Are you any of the persons in question?, ie Thomas, Lisa or Laur? If so, I do not understand why you refer to yourself in the above comment as `this person`. It seems all this effort, both by you, and everyone voting here (who also spends a lot of groundwork before voting, like verification etc) could have been solved if you could state such. Cause, if you are, the 2+1 articles could easily be moved to your Uer area where it belongs. -Snorre/Antwelm 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The Wikipedia, as per its policy, is not a crystal ball. This isn't the place to predict future notability, only to write about it when it is achieved. Like any normal encyclopedia, you don't write about everyone in the world in hopes that they achieve recognition in their field. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Lichtentunes. I don't see how this person is notable in her own right. She's working on an unpublished book. Her main claim to fame seems to be that her brother is famous. --Xcali 03:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and/or delete. It's not very notable for the above reason, the book is not published and the wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, blah blah. Deletion also on the reasons of advertising/self-promotion, and the Wikipedia not being a place for advertising. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy or delete. "I'm sure there would have been someone else who considered his entry a personal ad and voted to have him removed, since he was not all that famous or popular while still alive." And that would have been the correct decision at that time. Wikipedia does not include people on the off-chance of future notability. It also seems we have a whole family of vanity articles here, including Laur Lichtenstein. I would consider the brother's entry (Thomas Howard Lichtenstein) borderline. --Tabor 04:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy. JamesBurns 07:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy/Delete vanity. She's not notable yet. And if that changes someone else should write it, obviously. --Etacar11 15:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/userfy: The subject is not notable at this time, and the article is not an article, but rather a series of bullet points. An article should discuss, contextualize, and analyze; it is a discussion rather than a statement of facts. If no discussion is possible, then, IMO, no article is possible. Geogre 19:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 20:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jordan Capri

Non-notable hoe.BrowardDon 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep certainly passes google test [4] and seems like she's fairly notable in certain circles... Think would count as a notable porn star... though not sure what the guidelines on those are. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep nominations by this user. Just an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. See many other nominations by this user on this page. --Tabor 03:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Assume bad faith in regards to nominator, but having said that, does this particular porn-lady need her own article? (Abstain, no personal clue about the porn industry.) Marblespire 04:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Actually, this is a notable ho. Although I do admit that it's articles like this that could get Wikipedia blocked from some schools... -- Grev -- Talk 04:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Alexa ranking for jordancapri.com is 21,444, roughly in the same neighborhood as Wikinews (20,563) ... for whatever such measures are worth. --Tabor 04:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that the small unpaid volunteer campaign to encourage people to look at Wikinews has had better results than the well-oiled, well-funded, professional, Internet pornography machine's campaign to promote yet another pornographic model from which money can be made, is good news for Wikinews. ☺ Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep, notable porn model. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable how? Please name a magazine cover that this model has graced, legal controversy that she has caused, mainstream film that she has starred in, major business that she has run, book that she has written, or field that she has been the first in. Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. JamesBurns 07:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for a site on a person as opposed to just a forum, I find such an Alexa ranking convincing. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course and as for BrowardDon well, delete him. hydnjo talk 18:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I need to find out if this sockpuppy has been banned. At any rate, the "article" is non-existant, and the notability presented in the article is that she's cute. I'm sure she is. I'm sure that it's better to see her naked than most of us, but what, exactly, has she done to be notable? Is she a noted entrepeneur like Danni Ashe? Is she a cross-over actress, like Jenna Jameson? Is she a trailblazer, like Seka? If she's merely popular for being pretty, then the Google hits will be biased like crazy, and the careers of pornographic models are fantastically short. Geogre 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Geogre, Miss Capri is well-known only because one of her college buddies submits teaser pages (a few photos and a link to her part of the "Lightspeed University" website) to many of the daily lists of porn galleries almost every day. While I would vote myself into her dorm room, I don't think she has any particular notability or notoriety like the three actresses that you mentioned. I would vote "weak delete" (since the bar for the Google test needs to be higher for porn than for hand-carved woodcuts), except that that would bring me into agreement with BrowardDon. Weak keep based only on the Alexa and Google numbers. Barno 20:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The Internet pornography industry deliberately skews page rankings. Indeed, there's a whole sub-industry devoted to doing exactly that (that is happy to try to employ Wikipedia, and its sibling projects, for this purpose — Reverting pornographic link spam is a regular maintenance chore on all of them.). A ranking has to be exceptional for it to be a meaningful sole claim to notability for such a model; and this one isn't. There's nothing else whatever that makes this person notable. She's 18 and one of thousands of models that are set up on pornographic sites and (as Barno says) promoted like crazy by the people who own the photography rights, and that (as Geogre says) never amount to anything and soon disappear. Wikipedia is not a directory of pornographic models with the career lifespans of mayflies, nor is it yet another advertizing billboard for them before they have become notable. For that reason, and for the very good reasons given by Geogre and Barno (who shouldn't be caring about BrowardDon in this case), Delete. Uncle G 14:06, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Keep, notable within her field.
  Kappa
  21:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Again I ask: Notable how? There are lots of people within her field, and in her field she is in fact no different at all from all of the rest. In her field there are thousands of models about whom all that is known is a Playboy-style set of vital statistics, just like this person. In her field there are thousands of promoters busily submitting their models to pornography advertising sites, spamming Wikipedia with external hyperlinks, and spamming people with junk electronic mail, just as with this person. Please name a magazine cover that this model has graced, legal controversy that she has caused, mainstream film that she has starred in, major business that she has run, book that she has written, or field that she has been the first in. Uncle G 19:23, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
• Delete How special is she compared to all the other porn actors out there?
  Billhpike
  19:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. —Xezbeth 15:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sephardic Judaism

This article should be deleted as it is a shorter version of

21:57, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

This VFD nomination was begun but step 3 not completed. I am finishing it.RJFJR 02:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to
  Sephardi. DS1953
  02:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  ^talk
  03:11, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Ashkenazi. IZAK
  03:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Park

Do all rapists need their own articles? This doesn't even look like a remotely high porfile case. I say Delete for non-notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree.Delete.Mr Tan 03:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be a hoax, or an attack page (the chicken thing is a bit much), but ultimately it's just not notable. --
  ^talk
  03:12, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. I oppose the user that made this article, but on its own the article is pretty useless anyways. The news site it links to is just as sparse on info. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like an attack page. JamesBurns 07:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews or delete. There's not enough info to write up a helpful article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikinews could certainly report it, providing a news summary based upon the source and whatever else could be located. However, straight transwikification to Wikinews is not currently legal, as it would involve taking GFDL material and putting it into the public domain. Uncle G 13:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete — no, not all rapists need their own articles. —
  ✎
  10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's apparently true (article includes link to news story) but still not notable enough. Also, he's charged with assault, not rape. Common crime (sadly) with only the chicken offer to make it "notable" which just isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• This is pretty much a news article placed in the wrong project. There's nothing of encyclopaedic value here. The charge is a class A misdemeanour. Keene District Court doesn't deal with major crimes. Wikinews covers the story (in more detail, and with better sources) at Wikinews:"Chicken for sex" meat salesman is charged with assault. Delete. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete: Misplaced, not an article, and it indicates that he's charged with kissing. That is assault, but it's hardly something even worthy of being in the news, much less in the encyclopedia. (Yes, yes, "thigh or breast" "white meat or dark" etc. Your joke here.) Geogre 19:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. StopTheFiling 22:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Hong Kong Synthetic Discussion Board

Webvertising. Denni☯ 03:02, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete: no notable content; advertising --Amoore 03:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Concurrence with two previous votes. Srcrowl 07:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 07:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete webvertising. —
  ✎
  10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:16, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs with no rhyme in lyrics

Wouldn't this be about half of the songs ever written? I don't see this as encyclopedic, maintainable, or useful. --Xcali 03:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, song lyrics almost always seem to rhyme, it would be interesting to have more examples where they don't.
  Kappa
  03:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I can pick a song at random and have a nice chance of it not rhyming, especially if it's not of a typically rhyming genre. I don't know if there's an encyclopedic reason for having the article, either. Could mention this elsewhere, but an article of its own? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there are genres which don't typically rhyme, they should mentioned at the beginning and excluded from the list itself. I'm not convinced about your random song theory, have you tried it?
    Kappa
    05:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, good grief, delete. What's next, a "List of songs with rhyme in the lyrics"? This is not encyclopedic information; furthermore, the list would be so ridiculously huge that it'd be absolutely pointless. -- Captain Disdain 04:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, one of a large list of "List of songs ..." RickK 05:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable and useless list. There's also no useful definition of "rhyme" provided: I don't think any of
  _{tɔk tə mi}
  06:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it already has an impressive three (3) titles, one of which is "Detachable Penis" by King Missile. How come Mr. Missile couldn't think of "hatchback genius"? Eixo 07:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trvial unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no more trivial than many song lists. Songs always rhyme somewhere in the lyrics, that's the point, so I find a list of those that don't very interesting. sjorford →•← 08:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. Radiant_>|< 09:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly trivial and unmaintainable. —
  ✎
  10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very interesting, and we have tons of song lists, many far more odd or trivial than this. I've expanded it (doubled it, actually). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we have lots of these lists and they should all go. They're wildly incomplete and unmaintainable. --W(t) 13:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the purpose of all these lists? To organize Wikipedia articles. This list of songs has only one song with a Wikipedia article. Therefore it is effectively a list of one for purposes of organization. Therefore it fails the primary function of the list, and should be deleted. --Scimitar 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that why we have categories? I'm wondering what purpose these lists actually serve. --Xcali 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Let me first note that List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics exists without debate and, actually, is rather interesting. It also has a long list of varied contributors, and seems to have been upkept rather well. While the encyclopaedic nature of the list can be questioned, I would say that WINP. Keep. jglc | t | c 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable and trivial list. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Unencyclopedic even beyond most lists. Bar-bet trivia that can never be complete and only serves the author's demons, not any reader's curiosity. Geogre 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I am curious as to whether anyone can find any more of these things.
    Kappa
    23:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft. --Carnildo 20:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintainable list, non-encyclopedic. I am also of the opinion that songs, like poetry, needn't rhyme; non-rhyming probably isn't notable. Xoloz 04:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• So is this supposed to only include songs in which no two words at all rhyme? That would be a good trick. Anyway, delete, for varoius reasons given above. -R. fiend 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Unmaintainable, useless, trivial, whathaveyou. An article about rhyme in song lyrics could be very interesting, and it could cite various examples (songs that make no attempt to rhyme, songs that make a joke out of an expected rhyme like that "Shaving cream" one, songs that use words that only rhyme when using certain accents, etc). -Eisnel 06:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Coach Digit

Advert for a message board, I believe. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur. Deltabeignet 03:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 04:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete forum advertising. JamesBurns 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. —
  ✎
  10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed -- RussellG 10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 20:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantors

This vote is unusual, it is about the user page of

02:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete contents and Rename user's name, for the above reasons. IZAK 02:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't belong in VfD. Moving deleted article content to user space is not unusual. As you note, VfD does not customarily address user space. VfD does not seem to be the right place for reporting a problematic user name. If the username selection seems truly egregious,
  WP:AN/I might be a better place to try. (Or maybe someone will have a better suggestion.) As a side note, the same content appears at User:Merlinzor. I have no idea if that is considered an offensive user name. --Tabor
  04:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of his other sockpuppets, User:Rabbis, has been blocked for making legal threats. RickK 05:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete industrial-strength vanity attack. (Personally, I suspect it's all the work of Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs himself.) Also delete the nearly identical User:Merlinzor page. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Also User talk:Professor Kaufman -- persistent, he is. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Clarification: By "delete", I mean all 3 re-created vanity articles and the associated photos. None of the three identities (Merlinzor, Professor Kaufman, and Cantors) claims to be Kepecs, which would be the only (marginal) reason for keeping the material there. I have no opinion on the user name "Cantors". --Calton | Talk 04:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ask user to take a different name. I'm undecided about the content of his page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't see any reason this guy shouldn't be allowed to have the user name "Cantors." What the login page says is to "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event or known Wikipedia user." (my emphasis) That policy refers to the names of promininent individuals, not to the name of an entire profession. For example, someone shouldn't take the user name "Billy Grahm," but there would be nothing wrong with someone taking the user name "Preachers," or "Choir Singer," or "Alter Boys." The dude sings at his local sinagague and he was the first to take the user name, so give him a break! Blackcats 10:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:Cantors, User:Merlinzor, and User talk:Professor Kaufman. Having one user/user talk page with this self-promotional material would be a borderline keep for me, but having three makes it clear that this person is using Wikipedia for something it was not intended for. Regarding the user names, I have no idea what's wrong with Cantors – it's not offensive, and it's just a word. Does my username imply that I am a robot? Should I have to change it because of that? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• For other related VFD discussions, in addition to those already mentioned, see
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gary Krupp. Uncle G
  13:23, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a web host. --W(t) 13:27, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete User:Cantors, User:Merlinzor, and User talk:Professor Kaufman. While User: pages are normally not candidates for deletion, this continual promotion of vanity material has gone on for far too long. From what I can tell it has been inserted (in various forms) into at least 10 different articles now by at least 5 different sockpuppets and another half dozen anonymous IPs. Wikipedia is not a webhost, nor a forum for self-advertisement. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Comment: I see no problem with a user having a name such as Cantors - as Blackcats says above, it is a religious rank or title, not the name of a religious figure. If I took User:John_Paul_II, that would be subject to censure. However, claiming User:The_Pope is not offensive (perhaps implicitly, but it could have been done in good faith). However, as user has been known to act in bad faith, contributing negatively to Wikipedia, I voted to delete. jglc | t | c 16:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I guess I wasn't completely aware of all the other issues, besides him using the name "Cantors." It seems the main issue is that he's using his user page essentially as a web-hosting space without contributing much to any other articles. I'd say then that the content of his user page (and talk, etc) could be removed and the page protected until the user has made say 250 edits, or whatever,to show that he's more serious about Wikipedia. And then if he becomes disruptive, or is really not editing in good faith, then his user name can be blocked. I just really don't think that blocking or user page deletion is warranted merely because someone has a name that's a religious title. Blackcats 20:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Deceptive activity can't be good for this project and it's community. I trust IZAK on this one. hydnjo talk 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the user name. Cantors isn't a religious figure, and could very well be the user's actual surname, as evidenced by the fact that there are four articles for people with that surname. Pburka 03:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Complex vote: The user should be allowed to continue to use the username
  user page guidelines. --Metropolitan90
  03:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteShameless self-promotion. Walkerma 04:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, request new userid and recommend block this user for at least a month. Users Merlinzor, Rabbis, Cantors, and Professor_Kaufman are, along with a plethora of fake accounts and complete IP anons, all the same person, as is evidenced by his/their uniform writing style, edit content, POV, etc., as can easily be concluded by reviewing their combined edit histories. This user has engaged in pushing the completely unverifiable title "Reverend Cantor" in a dozen different (albethey related) articles, persistent insertion of images of copyrighted text into several articles, and destructively persistent insertion of irrelevant aggrandizing text into various other articles. If this were a RfC, I'd go to the trouble of seeking out actual documentation for my claims, but there are a number of other editors here (with access I lack) who can attest to my unsourced claims on this matter. As for the n00b User:Pburka's statement that Cantors could conceivably be a surname, I submit that the user in question is most likely not surnamed "Cantors" (in fact, while Cantor is a relatively widespread surname, "Cantors" is nonexistant as such), and further, is neither a cantor, nor a cantor in training. This multinamed user has claimed to be a rabbi-in-training, which is, as anyone with 3 minutes of Jewish learning can tell you, a completely uninformed and patently ridiculous claim, for reasons I can go into if anyone other than the vandalism-prone user in question requests rationale for that statement. Beyond that, it appears entirely likely that Pburka (talk · contribs) is actually just another sockpuppet of the user in question. All of that said, a study of the history of the discussions regarding the various VfDs of the articles this user has copied to his various sockpuppet userpages (in addition to those not yet reproduced there), reveals that the choice of the usernames "Cantors", "Rabbis" and "Professor Kaufman" were chosen in a deliberate attempt to establish (nonexistant) authority on the pet topic of this user. This is a bad faith editor whose contributions have done nothing whatsoever to improve the Project, and in a number of cases (notably at Hazzan and a number of articles related to the Papacy of John Paul II) amount to nothing but outright POV-pushing vandalism. Tomer ^TALK 07:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe you're confusing Pburka (talk · contribs) with someone else (who has a name like "Rabbi2b" or something like it), as I see no sign that Pburka has ever claimed to be a rabbinical student, and he/she has a fairly long editing history. --Calton | Talk 08:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that, for whatever reason, you're completely confusing what I said. I did not say anything to the effect that Pburka made any claims about being a rabbinical student, rather that Pburka asserted that "Cantors" might be a surname, which as I said, it is not, and I then proceeded to further say that I think Pburka may be yet another sock puppet, given the shortlived (about 2 and a half weeks thus far), and not incredibly diversified (about half of this user's edits are to VfD pages), albeit prolific edit history, especially as compared to some of Merlinzor's other sock puppets. In any case, Pburka's statement that it may be a surname in light of the supposèd fact that it's the surname of 4 people about whom WP has articles, indicates a failure to grasp the meaning of surname. I'm not sure that votes of illiterati should be counted in a VfD. Tomer ^TALK 10:44, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to
        WP:BITE. Cantors isn't a common surname but it is the plural form of a common surname. There are four articles on Wikipedia about people with the surname Cantor. Two mathemeticians, one historian and an entertainer. There's no indication that this user contributed to any of those articles. While you may dislike this user, his name is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. If it were, we'd also need to delete Pope (talk · contribs) and Monk (talk · contribs). Ban him for his actions, if you wish, but not his name. Pburka
        20:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with your assessment of his username (to wit: It is fine, nonoffensive, &c.), but disagree with your citation of
          WP:BITE. That policy only applies to those users who are too new on WP to know better than to engage in actions which - for a more long-time user - may otherwise be considered egregrious breaches of wiki etiquette. User:Cantors shows every sign of not being a newcomer. jglc | t | c
          20:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • My objection is not to the name itself, but to the fact that it, along with User:Rabbis and User:Professor Kaufman, are sockpuppets of User:Merlinzor's, and all of which were chosen specifically to establish unwarranted authority on the subject of the various VfD's in which this malicious user has been involved. Tomer ^TALK 20:38, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the pages, but the user name is fine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreasonable use of the cur database. JFW | T@lk 22:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it is on one user page, I do not have any problems with it. But on three or four, that is a problem to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you all fail to realize is that there are three organizations that are really upset with what you have been doing. We have had board meetings regarding your insistance on deleting any mention of the Papal meeting, or its participants. The fact that we were in touch with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon leading up to the meeting, apparently means nothing to you. Your actions of eliminating all references to the one event deemed one of the most highly important events in Judeo-Christian history by both the Israeli government as well as the Vatican is quite odd. It has angered three organizations, The Jewish Ministers Cantors Assn, the American Seminary for Cont. Judaism, and Pave the Way Foundation. We collectively feel a terrible injustice has been done by your organization. There was an historical event that took place on January 18, 2005, where a sitting Pope (John Paul II) was visited for the first time in history by 141 very grateful Jewish clergy, who wished to thank him for everything he had done for the Jewish people and for the State of Israel. The event was reported across the country in many publications, as well as the Vatican newspaper, The New York Times, and was covered on Italian television. We inserted a paragraph into your encyclopedia, and your editors have consistently chosen to eliminate all mention of this event from any article that had contained it. They also removed bios of Cantor Victor Beck, President of the Jewish Ministers Cantors Assn, Cantor Eliezer Kepecs, Vice President elect of the JMCA, Gary Krupp, President of Pave the Way Foundation and others who were deemed important to this event and other events. Upon trying to reason with these ill informed editors, that this event was extremely important in Judeo-Christian developments, endorsed by the former Pope himself, the Israeli government, and Cantors and Rabbis worldwide, they choose to ignore it and have erased all mention of it from your encyclopedia, thereby altering important history. In addition they have erased all mention of the participants, and the one who brought us there- Gary Krupp, knighted by the Pope, and President and founder of Pave the Way Foundation. The remarks in the discussion pages, that your editors make about Rabbis and Cantors, are not only incorrect, but are on the verge of lible, such as "There is no such thing as Jewish clergy", and "Rabbis and Cantors are just lay-people, who are not ordained clergymen." Voting on deleting our user page User:Cantors, and all its associated pictures, stating this user name is offensive, is a violation of our civil rights and liberties. You have also written that the event and its participants were not notable. We are extremely upset at all these deletions, consistently signifying religious discrimination against Jews, Rabbis, and Cantors. In addition an encyclopedia which makes the claim that everyone can edit it, is misrepresentative of what is really going on in its pages. Many people, from various organizations have been offended by this act. We have had board meetings and discussed the possible solutions to the problem at hand. We would like you to right the injustices that have been done to many by your institution. You should reverse the injustices that your editors have done. We appeal to you now on a colleageate level. Thank you, -Respectfully submitted, Reverend Cantor Gary Buchwald, Secretary JMCA; Reverend Cantor Tyrone Bauer, board JMCA; Reverend Cantor Leslie Rimer, Treasurer JMCA; Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, President JMCA; Reverend Cantor Michael Trachtenberg, Treasurer elect JMCA; Reverend Cantor Ben Matis, board JMCA, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Reverend Cantor David Montefiore, President elect JMCA; Reverend Cantor Eliezer Kepecs, Vice President elect JMCA, Faculty and board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Reverend Cantor Yehuda Rossler, board JMCA; Reverend Cantor Ofer Barnoy, board JMCA; Reverend Steven Blitz; Reverend George Henschel; Rabbi Aron Griver, Board JMCA, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Rabbi Harvey Weil, Faculty American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Robert E. Cohen, Dean American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Gary Krupp, President Pave the Way Foundation; Mark Morris, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Mona Morris, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Michael Baum, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Michael Eisenstein, board American Seminary for Cont. Jud.; Melissa Wind; Gary Laveman; Lillian Kessler. (Statement by 24.185.97.194, whose only edits are to this and related pages.)

• a violation of our civil rights and liberties, eh? Wikipedia is not your personal web host. I didn't participate in any of the deletion discussions for any of the other articles, and I'm not sure how I feel about bios about the various rabbis, cantors, etc. and the notability of the event itself, but using user space in this manner is against Wikipedia policy. Worse still, taking this tone with the community – that we have "angered" several people/organizations (and by implication, we should be concerned about said anger), that incorrect statements of fact by some editors somehow constitute lible [sic], and that your civil rights are somehow violated by having your work deleted from an open-content, collaborative encyclopedia – is actually quite offensive to me. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

We never meant to be offensive to you, but what you have done to us, is quite offensive. - User:24.185.97.194, 23:00, June 20, 2005 (UTC)

But your wasting our time Annon with the Cantor cruft mess. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. One would think that with all of those names in play that a "Comment" by an anonymous user would seem a bit unseemly. A Userpage and a User talk page may provide for more opportunity for the community to discuss this issue. There is, of course, no requirement to establish a Userpage but my observations suggest that comunication flows more freely with a registered User than with an anonymous contributor. hydnjo talk 01:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In an effort to put an end to the claims being made by the anonymous editsquad, I have sent the following email to [email protected]:

Subject: Greetings
Hello Cantor Beck,
I would like to inquire whether or not you are aware of the ongoing activities on Wikipedia by an editor (possibly more than one) claiming to be representing you at times, and at other times claiming to represent organizations with which you are involved. I'm just looking for a "yes" or "no". If you require more information, please let me know.
Thanks in advance,
Tomer Shiloach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TShilo12

I'll be sure to post any response I get. Tomer ^TALK 02:38, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • I got a response, which follows:

Hello Tomer Shiloach,

I was made aware of the site and of the article placed there about me. This was done without consultation with me, but since I am a public figure I didn't give it much thought. No more so than the hundreds of newspaper articles that appear each year. I did check it out out of curiosity, and was appalled at the comments being made by some of the so called editors. I decided to try and correct some misconceptions which were being voiced and was attacked so vituperatively, and was accused of some remarkable things, that I decided that it was beneath my dignity to slosh around in the filth that was being spread. I really didn't need these so called editors to validate my life's work. That job is being done by those who actually know the value of what I have done and what I do. More importantly, when I am finally called upon to answer the question, "...have I been the Me that I could have been... I am hoping that I will honestly be able to say yes. It is to that goal that I guide my life's work.

As for others who claim to be me or to speak for me, I neither know nor care to know anything about it. If they are saying anything in a positive vein, I can only assume that they are as disgusted by the manner in which I was treated as I was, and are trying, in good conscience to fight my battle for me. Until proven otherwise I will assume that this is the case, just as I am assuming that your information request was genuine. I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

If you wish any other information, please feel free to write to me. By the way you might tell the self rightous fool ish editor who posted what he thought was my home phone number, that he has caused some poor little old lady in Tuscon, Arizona to become ill and disconnect her phone due to all the harrassing phone calls she was getting at all hours of the day and night. The Tuscon police were at a loss to explain it, but I'm told that they are investigating.

Eventually we all have to answer for our actions,

Kol Tuv,

Cantor Victor Beck

Tomer ^TALK 05:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • One wonders how you know, if it's not your phone number, that people have been calling "at all hours of the day and night" and what the status of the supposed police investigation is -- assuming that anyone has been calling, of course. I also have to wonder why someone who lives in Tucson doesn't even know how to spell the name of the city. --Calton | Talk 14:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, the phone number has been been removed from here, but we need to check the edit history to see who added it and any sources cited. (BTW, I am in Casa Grande, AZ now, passed by Tuscon earlier today, nice place.) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The phone number was listed on a VfD and on a VfU, by me, there's no need to go checking to see who put it out there. I cited my source as whitepages.com. I also posted Cantor Beck's email address, which I got from his website. Both are either public (telephone #) or public domain (website) information. As for misspelling Tucson as "Tuscon", that appears to be an Arizona habit, as both Cantor Beck and Zscout370 have now both done it. :-D Incidentally, I couldn't help but notice the veiled legal threat in Cantor Beck's email, which is similar to the similar threat made by User:Rabbis a week or so ago. That said, it should be noted that Cantor Beck made no mention of any involvement by the organizations with which he is involved, which are cited by Merlinzor as being involved in writing these vanity pages. Tomer ^TALK 15:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • Oops. Well, I am not in AZ now, but sorry about the goof. Also, can the legal threat posted by Rabbis be reproduced here for all to see (for comparison sake?) Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • That is the rationale given by RickK here [6] for this block, which was apparently as a result of this edit: [7]. Tomer ^TALK 00:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Let me get this straight. You think that is perfectly appropriate for this Wikipedia to have duplicate articles such as
  sockpuppetry and is discouraged. Please choose a Username so that your arguments will be more respected. hydnjo talk
  02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is obvious that articles are not "respected" regardless of whether a username is applied or not. --Merlinzor 13:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Another suggestion: If this is getting too much, then could we shoot on sight any cantor-cruft that appears on here? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We've wasted enough time on this nonsense already. Gamaliel 05:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User:Cantors was blocked from making any changes to the article that you see here. In order to continue making edits, and continue refining the bio, we had to move the article to another location- this time, my userpage, which you are now attacking as well. Don't you ever stop attacking?? --Merlinzor 13:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• "Refine the bio"? Reaquaint yourself with
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs and its subsequent Request for Undeletion (the last version of the page before delisting can be found here): if Kepecs (probably, that is, you) wants an article Kepecs is going to have to actually do something noteworthy enough to earn one. Unless something dramatic happens in his life, Kepecs is not getting an article here, and since Wikipedia is not a webhosting service, putting pseudo-articles on the talk pages is not permitted, either. Don't like? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk
  14:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Do you mean to say that Krupp, Kepecs, and Beck never did anything noteworthy? You deleted all of them. Especially Krupp, a papal knight, who meets regularly with the Pope and flies back and forth from Israel to Rome to the US, trying to bring the world peacefully together. Krupp, who arranged the papal meeting of 141 Jewish clergy. Krupp, a Jew, who is like an ambassador to the Vatican and who founded an organization that deals with this. In addition the papal event itself was completely deleted from your pages. --Merlinzor 15:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, so they met the Pope. Thousands upon thousands did so, but they do not have articles on here. Just because it means something to you does not mean it means something to us. I made Eagle Scout, but that does not entitle me to get an article on here. Plus, not every papal meeting is noteworthy at all. If you want a webpage to talk about all of this, that is your call. But on here, we have decided time and time again that the pages should be deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• In 100 years, history will show whether or not their meeting was noteworthy. The point is that it isn't sufficiently noteworthy for Wikipedia. Regardless of how much Krupp flies around the world, that's not an indicator of encyclopædicity. He is not like an ambassador to the Vatican, as ambassadors represent governments. Not only does Krupp represent noöne but the non-profit he founded, but Krupp is not a leader in any Jewish community, in fact he is widely regarded as at best misguided, at worst as a prophet of apostasy. The deletion of the papal event itself was a result of the fact that you insisted upon text that effectively said that the meeting of 141 Jewish leaders with the Pope was the most significant occurrence in Jewish history since the construction of Solomon's Temple. I have no problem with mentioning the event in the appropriate article, and ONLY in the appropriate article , but the wording upon which you have persistently insisted is not appropriate for WP (which is why some editors have taken to calling it "cantor-cruft"). Tomer ^TALK 16:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "We've wasted enough time on this nonsense already" © Gamaliel. - Sikon 07:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs

I'm confused. Would there be objection to this content in the Article Namespace rather than in the User Namespace? What is objectionable, the what or the where (or both)? hydnjo talk 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You did see
  this, right? Overwhelming consensus to delete, discounting socks – I count 14 delete votes out of 20 total legitimate ones, and I have a feeling the consensus would be even greater if a new vote were to be done. AиDя01D;TALKEMAIL
  21:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I obviously missed it (I'm embarrassed to to say in front of the entire community). Feel free to take down this section as you see fit. :-( hydnjo talk 22:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was been redirected. —Xezbeth 20:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

BP Village

There is no proposed stadium called BP Village replacing Busch Stadium. The new stadium being built in St. Louis for the Cardinals will also be called Busch Stadium. There is also no evidence that there was ever a proposed stadium called BP Village to replace Busch Stadium. This page should be deleted and a page should be created for the new Busch Stadium.

• Comment True the stadium will still be called Busch stadium, but according to stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com, there is going to be a place called BP or Ballpark Village, "the new "Ballpark Village," a $300-million mixed-use development. The project promises to blend restaurants, entertainment venues, residential units and office spaces all with a unique flavor that is strictly St. Louis." Maybe merge or add this BP Village to the new Busch Stadium page? Srcrowl 07:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JamesBurns 07:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what JamesBurns said. (Again). --W(t) 13:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a proposal, not a fact, with no discussion. We don't know what the mixed uses will be, for they do not exist yet. When it is built (not when it is building) will be the time for an article. Geogre 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. When I made this page, I thought I would put it here for the mixed use development, but you know, just blank the page instead of putting up a deletion notice first. I had to revert a blanking. (Actually, BP Village was in All-Star Baseball for the XBox, and this leads one to believe it is real.) Delete. --
  ß
  17:23, 18 Jun 2005 (CDT)
• Update. I have redirected BP Village to
  ß
  17:41, 18 Jun 2005 (CDT)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

CrasH (name)

Looks like a vanity page for an aspiring filmmaker; he's won some small awards, but frankly, it's not exactly the Cannes, is it? The only Google hits I could get were for his own "CrasH & the Fury" website. None of this establishes notability; claims like "his theological treatise works have been raved by the academic community, especially considering that as of this entry, he has yet to finish earning his bachelor's degree, yet already writes like a doctoral student" should really be substantiated... and I don't think they can be. Also user's first edits, discounting the addition he made to the Crash disambiguation page. Captain Disdain 03:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 07:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Article is vanity, and vague at that. Srcrowl 08:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all that praise, it's obvious vanity. --Etacar11 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Stingray droid sub

Crystal-ball gazing, with a possible future invention by a youngster. Thought I admire his initiative, Wikipedia is not the place for this. Grutness...wha? 04:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete,
  ✎
  10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 'tis but a fiction. --Scimitar 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Aw, how cute.
  DELORTED!!! StopTheFiling
  23:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jhae and Bumba (rapper)

nn, Google for "rapper jhae bumba" yields 8 hits. though at least these people DO exist. Marblespire 04:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: oh, there IS an article for Jhae's pal. I was fooled by the incomplete redir. Please to vote on both. ~Mbsp 09:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete web cruft at best. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, notability not established. JamesBurns 08:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable, vanity, WP:MUSIC not met. jglc | t | c 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable. Puberty is a disease, and this kind of vanity/fantasy is a symptom. Geogre 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below

This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete

Patrick Artel

Google does not recognise. Truly a terrible, unencyclopedic article

04:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Altavista comes up with this, from which we learn that he has made several films that IMDB has never heard of. The article is badly written, but that at least can be fixed.

• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/possible attack page: "He was a shy skinny kid with braces and big crooked nose.He became a delinquent child and a low grade student and he was bullied alot in schools and often ridiculed by his classmate.He was often kicked out from many highschool for his pranks and deliquent manner.He would suffered many pain and operation to correct his facial features thru out his life." - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MgM. —
  ✎
  10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. the wub (talk) 12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teenage vanity, I just rv-ed it from blanking. --Etacar11 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: He's 30, so he's not a teen, alas. Just a vanity article. Geogre 19:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Truly a si$k gangsta mofo.--64.229.218.142 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for absolute non-notablity. --Lord Voldemort 21:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --WikiFan04^{21:55, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

Coding by exception

Looks to be a newly coined phrase. 8 Google hits: 3 are archives of a Usenet article, 3 are mirrors of a Sun Microsystems article. I would think that a common coding practice would have significantly more hits. --Xcali 04:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Looks like a reasonable article about an anti-pattern that really exists. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Try also: "programming by exception" (>100 Google hits). There may be a better term for this, I can't recall at the moment. --Tabor 07:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When you add in "code by exception" and "program by exception", you get a few hundred more ... --Tabor 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Move to "Programming by exception". - Sikon 08:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Has some notability. JamesBurns 08:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into software engineering. That article is pretty comprehensive but doesn't seem to mention this explicitly. I'm not familiar with the title of this article (and I know my software engineering) so it could well be a neologism, or something used in some lecture notes in a Uni somewhere, either of which would qualify it for mergetion. Regrettably, this is the way that much software is written, so this material should definitely be in the 'pedia somewhere.-Splash 12:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into software engineering and redirect. --W(t) 13:29, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep. We've got articles on many other software anti-patterns. In any case, software engineering is not the place to merge it. --Carnildo 20:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mt. Gigantic

fairly NN band vanity Denni☯ 05:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete Artorius 05:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 08:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. the wub (talk) 12:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete they had one record out two years ago, they are on allmusic for that. But I'm not sure they really reach the bar of notability. --Etacar11 15:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness Co-operative Alliance

All 6 google hits are Wikipedia mirrors. Non-verifiable. func(talk) 05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertsing for a non notable alliance. JamesBurns 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a few Jehovah-related VfDs at present. Maybe no one was responding to their doorknocking...
  Harro5
  09:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource as source material. It's not an article. Only relevant google hit I found from the first line of the article was a wikipedia mirror: "Explore religion". - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don't burden Wikisource with it. the wub (talk) 12:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Check the talk page. It isn't even an actual
  Jehovah's Witness organization. It seems to be a group of disgruntled former members. --Scimitar
  15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Update. The user who wrote this page has contributed almost exclusively to Jehovah's Witness related articles- and always to introduce criticisms of the group. That's fine, but it would seem this is his organization (the entry was written in the same month it was founded) and he's using Wikipedia to advertise it. As with all non-notable vanity organizations (regardless of purpose), it should be deleted. --Scimitar 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-verifiable. hydnjo talk 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Fire Star 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The fairytale

Band vanity. Two demos. SWAdair | Talk 05:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No need for explanations here.
  Harro5
  09:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, overuse of bolding is not going to make this band notable. the wub (talk) 13:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• NYAAAAAAAA delete and recreate as a redirect to
  ^talk
  13:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity and the author blanking it says it all. --Etacar11 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Laur Lichtenstein

1 Google hit, and it's a wikimirror. Not notable. --Xcali 05:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nnanity. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete See comments and vote on
  Lisa Lichtenstein -VfD -Snorre/Antwelm
  08:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnanity, cool word, JIP. :) --Etacar11 15:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I have to agree: "nnanity" is a very cool word, and, unfortunately, it's applicable here. Geogre 19:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 15:33, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Australian Air League

A very short stub (a substub?), but looks like it's about a notable organisation. The article was tagged as speedy deletion, but I think it deserves a proper VfD. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. "A stub (but with potential)" - Problems that don't require deletion. Weak keep, because it's my first time voting, but so it goes. The Literate Engineer 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A national organisation founded in 1934 and with Governor-Generals as patrons. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It has been placed on my desk and I shall expand it. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus --cesarb 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chung Tat-chi

The person is far from being significant to be included in wikipedia. Small potato 06:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, maybe if he won all those contests he would be notable, but as it is, no.--Etacar11 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Oh baby can you feel the KEEPING???--64.229.218.142 19:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 8 edits, all to VfDs. Hermione1980 00:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What, Chinese math stars are less notable than pokémon? SchmuckyTheCat 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. If we keep articles about every single proffesional sports player we should allow articles on the most talented of math stars. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mathematics is different from sports. A person doesn't become a "star" in mathematics by winning IMO or Putnam, but to conduct great research, as in the cases of Terence Tao or Grigori Perelman. And in terms of legend, there are perfect scorers in IMO every year, those who've solved even the most challenging problem perfectly, and they are certainly much more legendary than this person. --Small potato 10:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Sjakkalle. — Instantnood 10:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Poor little thing, that seems to be the maiden work of a newbie. :'-( -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

weak keep after all that guy is the first Hong Kong participant.

• Delete I won several math olympiads too, so what?  Grue  18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus as a leader of nonviolent resistance

This reads like original research to me. func(talk) 06:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. func(talk) 06:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 07:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 08:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
  ✎
  10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay. --
  ^talk
  14:13, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete — agree with above. — RJH 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak merge. If a source can be found for the suggestion that Jesus led the resistance to the Eagles - and weaker hypotheses have been made in print-, that would belong in Josephus on Jesus. Septentrionalis 17:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting idea (if verifiable) which is suggestive of Jesus' and 1st century Judaism's approach to covenant forms, but as it stands this article is so much uninteresting original research. Josephus on Jesus should have enough room left to include anything encyclopaedic that could be said on this subject. Delete. Fire Star 04:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 17:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brandon School, Goleta, California

Delete School vanity, there are many Brandon schools in the World, the page already has a redirect, even has recent updated activites for the school that should be included on it's own Website not in Wikipedia. Srcrowl 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Cleanup has been done. Please continue voting but with that in mind.--

did most of it :) to him!). It wouldn't be appropiate for me to vote.

• elementary school, not notable. Delete Dunc|☺ 08:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for now. This is not an encyclopedia article. But it is always nice to know that a school I've never heard of will dismiss students at 11:45 on June 17. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa has done some cleanup. Merge with Goleta Union School District. If elementary schools are notable it is only at a local level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth, failing that merge as above.
  Kappa
  09:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Failing that merge as above. —
  ✎
  10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --W(t) 13:30, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. --Scimitar 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What about the article makes you think it's a vanity page? Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — school information is already merged onto the Goleta Union School District page. — RJH 15:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but a merge is ok too Yuckfoo 17:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep since its being expanded Yuckfoo 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
  schools. DoubleBlue (Talk)
  18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge --Carnildo 20:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or retain the current merge. Merge has already been done but really this is enough for a whole article, I see no reason to appease deletionism when out of 75 school articles listed for deletion in May not one was deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment So because there were no listed deletes that reached concensus to delete it means that no school article should be deleted? I don't think this vote is about appeasing anyone. It is about working to keep the quality of all articles at a high level. Vegaswikian 06:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the school district article. A lot of the actual content is more about the district itself than the school, so it seems a good fit. JYolkowski // talk 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete - I'm glad the article Goleta Union School District exists, I felt kinda bad voting to delete a school I used to live a couple miles away from. :D StopTheFiling 23:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Generously mild keep. —RaD Man (talk) 02:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Centauri 04:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 04:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Does anyone know how people use wiki to look up schools? If they went to this article are they looking for information about the school or about schools in the district? Vegaswikian 05:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The fact that an elementary school is building a multipurpose room might be verifiable, but it is not encyclopedic. --
  FCYTravis
  08:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment A reason I put this up for deletion among others, is that there are many schools in the US/World named Brandon School, how can we allow one school to take the control of the name, and not allow others? What if another Brandon school comes along, and changes all of the information to match their school information? I do agree with merging with the school district article, but the school itself shouldn't be able to hold sole possesion of the name Brandon School or any other school for that matter, IMHO. Srcrowl 01:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If anything, Brandon School should be made into a disambiguation page. However, this concern should not have been a reason for listing the page on VfD. Bad names can be fixed without resorting to deletion. Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. We use a technique called
  Brandon School, Goleta, California). There is no need to call for articles to be deleted because you think they may have the wrong name, just press the move button or go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the instructions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk
  02:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. – ugen64 01:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. Vegaswikian 06:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools in Wikipedia. Notable, NPOV, verifiable. Unfocused 05:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, elementary school, has done nothing noteworthy or newsworthy. If no one in other parts of the country has heard of the school, it's not notable. And that's the case with this one. --Idont Havaname 23:56, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've heard of it. Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative, verifiable, NPOV, etc. Factitious 09:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the usual. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Black Wednesday 2004

POV rant. RickK 07:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Enochlau 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rant. —
  ✎
  10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps merge the less melodramatic content with
  U.S. presidential election, 2004 - User:Peter Grey
  10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge minus POV stuff to
  U.S. presidential election, 2004. StopTheFiling
  23:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm a liberal and a progressive and I've never heard this term used. So non-notable and POV. Make it go away. --
  FCYTravis
  08:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 04:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PLANNER

An article which consists of basically nothing but references is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 07:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite, also add link to Category:Functional languages. - Sikon 07:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been rewritten. Please make further changes as necessary.(preceding unsigned comment by  CarlHewitt 08:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Too many references is better than none at all. Do you have any reason to delete based on the subject of the article? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,
  Kappa
  09:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it isn't. Prolog is a logical programming language, and Planner is a derivative of Lisp, a functional programming language. - Sikon 09:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, but please clarify if it's called
  PLANNER or Planner. Radiant_>|<
  09:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• It shold be Planner because it is not an acronymn.CarlHewitt 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Planner is citation 13 as a predecessor in Kowalski's paper "A Proof Procedure using Connection Graphs"CarlHewitt 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just because Micro Planner was implemented in Lisp and used Polish prefix parenthesis syntax does not mean that Planner was a functional programming language. The Popler implementation of Planner was not written in Lisp.CarlHewitt 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Any additional questions, comments, or suggestions?CarlHewitt 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article; PLANNER (or is it Planner?) is of significant historical importance in AI programming history. -- The Anome 10:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article, as per Anome. JamesBurns 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but is it PLANNER or Planner? the wub (talk) 13:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's just redirect Planner to PLANNER. - Sikon 16:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PLANNER seems to be more common Pburka 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.
  NSR
  14:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly an influential project. --FOo 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep rewritten article Pburka 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly of encyclopediac value. As CarlHewitt says, it should be moved to Planner, but this can be done when the VfD is done. --- Charles Stewart
• Keep recognized this one just by looking at the title.  Grue  18:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Encyclopedic topic. Even if first version was all references, it clearly has been able to grow into a fuller article. Hewitt POV needs some tempering with other POVs, but is still valuable. --Macrakis 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very important topic in history of AI, many of these ideas have been reinvented since BruceAnderson 03:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The history is important and needs to be recorded as it is often mis-stated or misunderstood (witness some of these comments.) Certainly Planner and the surrounding arguments about procedures vs. logic caused an upheaval in AI. It might be nice to have a more technical article as well, but don't delete this. BTW, Planner wasnt (isnt?) a functional language, and its influence on the creation of Prolog was peripheral but nontrivial. The full history is complicated and deserves a monograph. Pat Hayes

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 29 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Mark Moore

Seems like a vanity article, as there is no noteable infromation in it —Kjammer 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Congratulations on the job! Delete, vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Not sure: new Headmaster of a very famous Public School, currently senior teacher at another one. Not sure on this one. (It should also be pointed out that we have other articles on Headmasters of Public Schools.) James F. (talk) 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • ... and what does that say? Always nice to know what others are saying. James F. (talk) 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. And yes, delete. --W(t) 13:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
    • As a corollary to that, I'm still waiting for the all hell that was supposed to break loose when we kept Genesis 1:1 (or Genesis 1:2 or any other verse that's been on VfD recently). -- Jonel | Speak 02:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • heh... delete! UkPaolo 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep headmasters if we're going to keep schools. RickK 04:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn  Grue  18:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Important man for an important school.

  unsigned vote by User:Williamhansonhmgn - his 7th edit)  Grue  07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WHy should the current head have a page and not the new one - he will be there in a few months.

  unsigned vote by User:62.231.155.4 - his 5th edit  Grue  07:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - needs some work for sure - but this is a major public school and the chap obviously has something about him. A curate's egg 14:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 14:30, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC) [Second vote see above - 16 June]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:28, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Les Pantin

Nonsense. Hoax. RickK 07:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "Died from baguette sorting injuries" seems to sum up the article pretty well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete obvious nonsense. You've made me lose my apetite for baguettes :(. Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit 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 keep - 5 votes to keep, 3 to merge, 3 to delete (counting the nominator as a 'delete' vote). At best, no consensus. A merge might be advised. --

June 28, 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Yuthura Ban

Minor character, only met briefly during the game. Most of the article is information about how the player can interact with that character. The Bio should probably be merged with

07:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, informative and detailed article.
  Kappa
  09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too big to merge.
  NSR
  09:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If all the information in the entry is true, the character is obviously not met only briefly. Is this verifiable? (i.e. is it
    C-canon?) jglc | t | c
    16:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into
  Chewbacca Defense in discussions of court trials. Wikipedia is not a gamers' guide, and removing the content that belongs only in a gamers' guide leaves a one-line substub that should be merged. Barno
  20:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the appropriate "minor characters" article. Most of this article is a game guide, and should be deleted. --Carnildo 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into something like
  Thunderbrand
  20:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cruft not worth keeping even as a sub of some other page. SchmuckyTheCat 04:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I think stuff this detailed belongs on the Star Wars wiki, and a stub-sized thing, well,
  it's already here. --Yar Kramer
  05:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Article is possibly too big to merge. JamesBurns 06:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 28 June 2005 08:20 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Esrum-hillerup

BJAODN about a non-existent composer from here. Eidas Yelnats is Stanley Sadie (editor of New Grove) backwards. My vote is for speedy. RobertG ♬ talk 08:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio. Alledgedly it was a spoof entry in Grove's Dictionary. JamesBurns 10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. "Grove Music Online" has an article on spoof articles there and in other musical dictionaries. Apparently Grove's has had two spoof articles, "
  Nihilartikel and the names made into redirects there. Uppland
  18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vietnam Ruminations

An ad for an e-book, complete with immense copyvio'd review in the original version. I wikified it and was going to give it the benefit of the doubt until I found

08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --W(t) 13:33, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:34, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nerdgasm

Neologism. 757 google hits. --

08:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 10:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologasm... er... ism. Neologism. Nestea 12:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because
  ^talk
  14:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes! Deleting things off Wikipedia explodes in an eruption of massive positivity and excitement within me! [/sarcasm] Nestea 17:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh dang. He just pulled a Slashdot all up in here! [/Slashdot] jglc | t | c 19:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • ... That's a Slashdot? I never knew that before! Never went to that site. Nestea 00:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neolojism (and an infellacitous one at that). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Neil Mallender

Vanity. Delete.

09:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Thanks Proto. --Bonalaw 11:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity AlexR 11:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Oh yeah, there's been a picture uploaded for this page, too, and I don't know what to do about that. Please could someone clever sort it out.
  Proto
  12:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a notable Neil Mallender, a former county cricketer who played two tests for England and is now umpire (coincidentally, he also lived in both the UK and New Zealand). See [8]. This ain't him, but it might be worth writing a stub about the cricketer. Grutness...wha? 12:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Also, User:Supersaiyanplough vandalised this VfD page, and falsely signed someone elses (User:Big al kicks ass) signature to it. Are we supposed to report vandalism of this sort somewhere? linas 16:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, i wasnt vandalising this page, but removing vandalism from that other page. User:Big al kicks ass posted his comment that should have been on this page on the page Neil Mallender itself, instead of here, so i moved it and added his sig. Sorry if i offended you. Should I put it back? Supersaiyanplough|^(talk) 06:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK, you should have copied it to the talk page instead of here, and prefaced it with something that said "I removed the following from the article" and signed your name to it. linas 15:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 04:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mathew Kenneally

Autobiographical tone, and what little claims to notability there are aren't bourne out by a google search. --

09:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity and or Hoax. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's one of a bunch by a rather prolific hoax author that we've just noticed. Ambi 09:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- hoax. - Longhair | Talk 10:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per
  ✎
  10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep -- Jamesss 13:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • These two users seem only interested in VfD and pages up for deletion. --Etacar11 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Matthewleung87's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep 203.54.191.128
• comment203.54.191.128 have you tried art chat rooms. This guy sounds really niche market?
• Keep Fargomargo This is the kind of art that is shut out of the mainstream dudes, i say support it!!
• KeepKman http://forums.delphiforums.com/NinthArt/messages?lgnJR=1
• Delete - sockpuppets attack!
  Proto
  14:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• "My sockpuppet-sense is tingling!" (
  Spider-man) Delete. jglc | t | c
  15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Gahhhhh! --Habap 15:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, supported by sock-puppets. Will no one ever realize how self-defeating they are?? --Etacar11 15:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Soh-soh-soh-sockpuppetry. Nestea 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep u douchbags im on t a sockpuppet i have mah own opinion.--64.229.218.142 20:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax with a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 20:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – too, too fabu for BJAODN. Love it! --Mothperson 00:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Pburka 03:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sockpuppet limit has been reached. RickK 04:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep having spoken to some friends of mine, they assure me this is worth keeping. I agree wholeheartedly- 'Hotpants 06:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP BLOCKING PEOPLE- this is hotpants, having moved all the way over to the computer next to me in a lab full of computers. Listen, if people were trying to circumvent your system with sock puppets, they would have a hell of a lot more votes for keep. People are just getting their friends, like me, to vote with them after giving them reasons of various persuasions. You are encouraging people to circumvent your system by blocking them whenever they vote keep. It's absurd. I don't understand how your complaint process works, but you are not doing yourself any favours here. These computers MAY havw a shared IP due to people posting via the same ANU gateway (Ambi should know). I fail to see how this is a violation, stop arbitarily deleting people.

Comment: There's a page for people like you. WP:DBAD. Go read. -- Longhair | Talk 07:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment- long hair, get a hair cut- person whose chair just got taken for 5 minutes- 'TagTeam 07:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• Keep too, and stop blocking my buddies. I mean, let's look at it this way, either hotpants and I are lying, or we are somehow ablt to procure dozens of computers REALLY quick. You stop blocking people aimlessly, I'll stick to just getting real people and not using each of the several hundred computers within 1 minutes walk. You play fair, so will we. And let's cut the silly insults, huh long hair?- 'TagTeam 07:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1st Warning You have blatantly violated this boards policies by indefinitely blocking anyone who votes keep for any of the threads a bunch of my friends started. Remove them immedietely. You have no grounds for doing so, and if you can't believe that we know 10 people who would vote for this then you are crazy. I expect those IP's, particularly the one belonging to my buddy hotpants here, unfrozen immedietely. If you won't play by the rules, don't expect us to either- 'TagTeam 08:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• Delete this hoax. Also, BJAODN this hilarious sockpuppetfest of a VFD. Scott5114 08:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it- It think that unless someone has any arguments for WHY it must be deleted which are incredibly persuasive, it must stay. What are we coming to when the word of a newbie is worth less than any other poster? I haven't seen anything persuasive to make me think otherwise yet- 'Freezer 09:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep as their appears to be some funny business going on with vote tallying I record it again to make sure- 'Freezer 09:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'

Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Habap

13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and keep blocking - vanity, possible self-advertising, large amount of sockpuppets, threats of vandalism. Admits to recruiting other to vote, althought may be just one guy promoting himself - Skysmith 10:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now hold on! How is any one of us going and asking other people to vote sock puppeting? We are simply getting other concerned internet posters, some who may have used this site without ever wanting to make a change, for years to post. IF anything, we are strengthening the site by involving more people. They simply have a different point of view to you right now. Someone convincing friends to vote for them is no more wrong than you convincing your buddies on this board to vote for deletion, the difference being we don't stick up sock puppet pictures and launch baseless accusations at people. Most of these posts up for deletion have no reasoning beyond "not on google, kill it"- 'TagTeam 10:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

Please see

Cryptic (talk)

10:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that someone has never posted before is not evidence that they are ONLY coming here for that one purpose. This thread may be the first one they've seen, and go on to inspire many more. Nor can the motives of these friends be known, especially if you don't ask them. Maybe we need to have a sub-committee and an investigation to sort this whole mess out- 'TagTeam 11:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Habap

13:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. K1Bond007 22:25, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Passing this kind of nonsense through a voting process is a technique for ensuring that it gets the fullest coverage and wastes maximal time. Thus it contributes to the hoax project's success. --Wetman 22:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 17:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GamerWiki

Largely an external link. The site has Alexa rank 1,493,174 and one inbound link. --

09:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete website advertisement. JamesBurns 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, website spam. the wub (talk) 11:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Computer and video games to suit List of wikis. Nestea
  12:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, remove from List of wikis, it's not a list of all wikis. --W(t) 13:34, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 15:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Matty Pop Chart

Was marked as {{

09:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Give the guy a break, at least for a few days. The article is not offensive and hasn't even been up for a day. If the article still appears to be a self-promoting shell in a week, then consider deletion.RussellG 09:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 13:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet
  FCYTravis
  09:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. JYolkowski // talk 17:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Focus Week

A high school event. Surely this is too granular for an individual article, and as most of its contents are a quotation from the linked web site, there's no need to redirect from here. --

09:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 11:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 13:35, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

""Delete"" says JoJo, Focus sucks! 'JoJo 13:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Delete per Cryptic's reasoning. --Habap 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. - Sikon 10:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vibration white finger

I am very upset with wikipedia admin, how are they allowed to say something is patent nonsense just because it has silly name? Do they have knowledge of every subject in exist? I doubt it, they should be forced to search google before being allowed to delete stuff with no vote! i think it is disgust. I recreate perfectly good stub twice and both times it is patent nonsese deleted by RickK and CesarB. well you are idiots, because it is real. Myabe if i put it on vfd you will have to spend the 10 seconds to put it in google and see the two hiundred thousand hits it gets. that is not bad for patent nonsese hey? keep the article, and delete the admins who delete without checking.

• keep I'm a nice admin, I've heard of it, though it may be known under another name elsewhere. 09:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • NB though to be fair the original article did meet the speedy criteria as being a practically useless substub. Dunc|☺ 09:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Original article was "vibration white finger turns fingers white and numb, miners get it. welsh miners sue the government if they get it". Could have been cleaned up rather than speedied.
  Kappa
  10:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but the right place to bring this up would have been
  Votes for Undeletion. the wub (talk)
  11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It would have stayed deleted at votes for undeletion, because the only evidence would have been the original article.
    Kappa
    11:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: References to medical journals or websites will help to raise the believability of the article. With 200,000 claimed hits that shouldn't be much of a problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note actual Google hit count is 674, and at least some of those are about a band of the same name. It's definitely real, but nowhere near the 200K hits claimed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • In what sense is the google count which attempts to exlude similar pages the only "actual google count"?
      Kappa
      13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The way I see it, if Google doesn't feel that it needs to include duplicate results in its searches, I see no reason to disagree with them. I've tried looking through the duplicate results before, there's never anything good in there. For example, if I look for all Google results for my own name, including the duplicates, it gives me dozens of pages of GeoURL results lists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Raynaud's Disease Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
  11:33, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded it. The number of google hits isn't the key thing, it's the importance of the hits that are there. Average Earthman 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like it could be related to Repetitive Strain Injury and could be merged. Just a thought, I remain ambivalent at this time. -- WCFrancis 17:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It isn't (apart from them being workplace injuries affecting the fingers). RSI is from the individual repeating the same movement, this is a consequence of vibrating machinery causing blood flow restriction. This should be clear from the article, I'd hope (since I rewrote it). Average Earthman 08:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a notable workplace injury. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How many other articles are being incorrectly speedy deleted by administrators? I am glad this user brought this to our attention, please contact me so I can help if administrators are deleting valid articles. --ShaunMacPherson 22:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I do not think I was wrong on speedy deleting it as nonsense. The way it was written the first time ("vibration white finger turns fingers white and numb, miners get it. welsh miners sue the government if they get it.") makes no sense without extra context. In fact, if I saw an article like that again, I believe I would delete it exactly the same way. And even if it couldn't be considered nonsense, it could still be speedy deleted as
  WP:CSD criteria A1: a very short article with little or no context. That all said, keep as it now makes sense and has context. --cesarb
  23:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Good work Earthman. JamesBurns 06:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A valid medical complaint --StoatBringer 23:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus (Chung Tat-chi vote also taken into account).  Grue  29 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Tse Chi-yung

This person is not important enough to be in wikipedia. Small potato 09:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like vanity. JamesBurns 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 13:36, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per
  WP:VFD/Chung Tat-chi. — Instantnood
  11:02, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Small potato 03:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE 04:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tim Caddey

Hoax -- Longhair | Talk 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain Insistance that it is a hoax but no real evidence provided. I will leave this to those who hopefully know what they're talking about. -- RussellG 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I happen to know the subject personally, and I guarantee that everything in this article is complete and utter nonsense. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it - he doesn't have a single hit in Google. Ambi 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, I yield to those in the know. -- RussellG 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a hoax because it isn't true, and because Caddey and Robertson are both just normal uni students. They may become these things in the future, but they certainly haven't yet. Ambi, the ANU student. 10:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• You know well the Caddster is beyond google searches "ambi" (JoJo)

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete taking Ambi's word for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Caddey is a well known Australian journalist. I'm afraid the day wikipedia deletes pages because an administrator claims to know the subject, or we 'take someone's word for it' is the day it loses its raison d'etre.

Unsigned vote above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepFatcatlebron
• Delete User:JoJo is a nonsense/spam artist, so no reason to believe anything he writes. --Habap 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hey what do you know- sockpuppets coming to defend an article- this makes me want to vote, oh how was it I voted when last I saw sockpuppets- Delete --Scimitar 15:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article and sockpuppets Columbia 15:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/possible hoax, not to mention the sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable and/or nonverifiable, the book mentioned in the article is not known to copac.ac.uk (combined catalogue of UK libraries). Jitse Niesen 23:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The key factor is that normal rules cannot apply when we're talking the C man. Besides, just ask him, he'll tell you don't mess with the big gun- 'Hotpants 07:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppetry essentially admitting it's a joke ("C man," et al.). --
  FCYTravis
  09:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- I'll give the C-man the benefit of the doubt until I see some evidence presented- 'TagTeam 10:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • It is contributor's job to present evidence that something exists, not the other way around - Skysmith 11:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit.
  • Above impostor vote actually by AIphax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. No books by a Tim Caddey by any title appear in WorldCat. Gamaliel 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 04:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James Higgins

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep 'JoJo 13:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
  • Only VFD contribs, same ones as other sock puppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Jamesss 13:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only VFD contribs again same ones as other sock puppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All VFD contributions, only. Same as those tended by other sockpuppets. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppets
  Proto
  14:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Kman
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an obvious hoax. Columbia 15:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity/hoax + sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, the one on Robertson, Blue Orchid and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • In other words, the Wikipedia is critically flawed. That fact is obvious, but this article still has to go ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, never doubt the J man 'Hotpants 07:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppetry again essentially admitting it's a hoax. --
  FCYTravis
  09:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer' Oh, there... well, delete 'Freezer 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - admitted rubbish backed by sockpuppets and pseudo-postmodernist rhetoric- Skysmith 10:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think SkySmith is sounding like "the other"- 'TagTeam 10:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above impostor vote actually by AIphax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peter Rajic

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. See also his supposed wife Claudia Newman. Dunc|☺ 12:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep 'JoJo 13:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep Be honest, Ambi. Jamesss 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, these votes must be counted (JoJo) 'JoJo 13:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Keep MarissaLeigh Peter Rajic is a subject of many amusment to many political keen beans. His wife is seen as particularly comical, this kind of vandelism is not acceptable, but that is no reason to remove real entires.

Comment: MarissaLeigh's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both the article and the votes here by sockpuppets Columbia 13:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Columbia is a sock puppet!- 'JoJo 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Keep Alexdowner We do have politicans in Australia you know!
  • Two edits made by this user, same as those made by Jojo and others. Obvious sockpuppetry. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ...and more energy wasted; what a pity Lectonar 14:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete JoJo needs to find another hobby. --Habap 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• These are not the sockpuppets you're looking for. Delete. jglc | t | c 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified + sockpuppets. --Etacar11 16:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax; see a list of SA MPs Septentrionalis 17:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Annoying trollishness. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:16, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep having spoken to some friends of mine, they assure me this is worth keeping. I agree wholeheartedly- 'Hotpants 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. --
  FCYTravis
  09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish backed by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hotpants tells me via e-mail that he can swear to the veracity of these claims, but not in a court as Peter Rajic is his Priest- 'TagTeam 10:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• Delete - Hoax. Of the list of VfDed vanity/hoax articles that JoJo and "friends" are supporting, at least three (Peter Rajic, Julia Fetherston/Fetherstone, James (H.) Robertson) appear together in this PDF at act.gov.au (google cached), which refers to them as "young people" who were involved with a 2002 InterACT conference in Australia. That could be a coincidence, sorry if it's old news. Question: was this Uncyclopedia article written by somebody from here in frustration over this VfD dispute, or was it written by the same author that wrote these hoax articles? That article involves VfD stars James "Cream Puff" Robertson, Peter Rajic, Timothy Horatio Caddey, and James Higgins. I got a kick out of the idea that someone could be permanently banned from the Coconino County Petting Zoo. -Eisnel 07:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tobias Halligan

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep -- Bad ambi! Jamesss 13:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CzechPartisan

Comment: CzechPartisan's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Longhair's comments to other users opinions comes after he has voted himself on a topic, bringing his impartiality into question Jamesss 13:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: My comments correctly point out, this user has never edited, until now, here. -- Longhair | Talk 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• commentFargomargo dudes, any organisation that is based on volunteers shouldn't then say mean stuff about those volunteers.
• Keep Fargomargo

Keep Matthewleung87 14:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Any organisation which is a group on anonymous amatuers shouldn't criticise of defame other anonymous people.- 'JoJo 14:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Delete - sockpuppets attack!
  Proto
  14:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do something about the hoax vandal(and his sockpuppets) Columbia 14:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Uh-oh! These sockpuppets are armed with "weapons-grade Bolognium" (Qubert Farnsworth). Delete jglc | t | c 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the obvious reasons. --Etacar11 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obvious reasons- 'Hotpants 07:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. --
  FCYTravis
  09:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Evidence? Where do they say that? Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Rubbish backed up by arty sockpuppets. And yes, block them. Burden of proof is not on us - Skysmith 10:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, burden of proof is not on you to show anything at all, just say 3 times "sockpuppets, sockpuppets, sockpuppets" and they shall be banned. I don't think asking for adecent argument/evidence is too much- 'TagTeam 10:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam' oh, and Keep
  • Another believed sockpuppet. Created account today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 05:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drowtales

non-notable, possible vanity page. 198.65.161.88 10:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Given anons aren't allowed to vote in RfA's or RfD's, are they allowed to put them up? Shem^(talk) 00:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are allowed to put up VfD's even if their vote doesn't count (and it's not that they are not allowed to vote, it is rather that their vote might not be considered. See the

guide for more information). --cesarb

01:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect - Could also be "Make Impartial". I think this is a fair vote, and while some people have most certainly been vandalizing and behaving in a childish manner, it doesn't detract from the arguments that others are making. The page in question is of lower rank, and while it does have fans and interests, I don't believe it can be argued to be notable (note I am not suggesting it is necessarily non-notable either, just that notability is not an argument for preservation here). In addition, there is certainly questionable impartiality on this page that makes it borderline vanity, in my opinion. The whole thing takes place as a description of the fantasy world involved, without any noticeable distance or acknowledgment as such. Things such as comic history, controversies that may have arisen in the past, art style used, etc., seem more appropriate for wiki. A 'Comic Summary' (with an appropriate spoiler warning) should be a section, *not* the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.147.195 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 16 Jun 2005

• Keep - I have difficulty taking this vote seriously. It's no less notable than anyting else in the Web_comics category. Needs more work to be sure, but not deletion. From what I can tell "198.65.161.88" is a vandal anyway, probably one of the same group that have been vandalising the article due to the "controversy" covered in the articles talk page. --Sherool 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Question: does "nay" mean "keep" or "delete"? Please limit your votes to the two options (with "merge" and "redirect" and "cleanup" also acceptable choices), as "nay" could be seen as "negative - delete this" or "no, do not delete". jglc | t | c 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, that means keep, I should have checked how these things work. Edited my first entry to say "keep". --Sherool 19:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for me. This page has been the target of childish vandals all day yesterday. In fact, I think there's a specific need for a guide like this for this comic, since the official web site is so confusingly laid out. I also question the use of the word "vanity" when it's doubtful to have been written by the artist. --TouchGnome 12:03, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

  User's fourth edit. --cesarb 16:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)'

That was my first entry, and I voted only once. Is there a prohibition against comments? I signed all of my comments. --TouchGnome 20:10, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

No, only that when there are suspicions of sockpuppetery (or someone asking on a forum for everyone to go and vote), comments from new voters and anonymous users don't count. I believe yours is legitimate; looking at

the guide for more information. --cesarb

21:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame my contributions to other articles aren't visible, as I was a helpful anonymous user before I created an account. But thanks for the relative vote of confidence, despite your "fourth edit" flag which still seems irrelevant. --TouchGnome 23:05, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not sure about the vanity accusation, but after an Alexa check revealed an Alexa rank of 135,056, it's definitely not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Keep in mind the highly biased results Alexa give. Only people who use Internet Explorer under Windows and have the Alexa toolbar installed are counted. Acording to the sites own counter only about 67% of the users even use Internet Explorer, so Alexa will only give you a unknown fraction of the trafic generated by ~67% of the visitors to the site. --Sherool 22:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but remember that the same applies to every site listed on Alexa. Alexa doesn't count the Firefox(etc.) hits of its #135,056-ranked site, but it also doesn't count the Firefox hits of its #135,055-ranked site, or its #1-ranked site, for that matter. The only way I could see this really making any difference is with sites which are specifically about other browsers. Spreadfirefox.com is probably ranked lower than it should be, for example. Even if we go ahead and assume that Drowtales is a full one-third behind where it should be, it would still only be just barely in the top 100,000... which still isn't really very high. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I can only comment on this, since I made a vote. I know I am not a member of wikipedia, heck I'll be called a "sock puppet". But on the argument of this Alexa, I move that it should not be considered part of validity because it's still only 67% at most, and not even everyone with IE use Alexa. Also, when comparing page results on "Drow" in general on google, Drowtales is still the second on the list to pop up on results. Now take into factor the international audience of the comic as well, and that Alexa is considered a minor search engine when comparing to Google, Yahoo, and even Altavista, though there seem to be a lot of biased for this search engine by some members here. Currently this is the first time I've ever heard of Alexa, and when asking others, only a few knew of it. As an associated webmaster, this comes as a surprise that if this were such a good traffic rating tool, that I never heard of it, in my humble opinion. So my argument on the Alexa results are their true validity to the argument. There are well more websites now then their are people in the world, and being in the top 100K doesn't really matter anymore, once again, in my humble opinion. As for who I am, I'm only a member of Drowtales, member name "Ravinous". That's just incase you are curious so I don't come off completely nameless. --66.82.9.17 16:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -I'm sorry but this page was created by fans of the comic, and not the creator. There was vandalism and attacks on the website for the comic, and when they learned of wikipedia, moved their attacks here when they were blocked from the actual site. I'm sorry enough that they moved this childish act to here. 66.82.9.85 13:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Real IP is 66.82.9.85; probably honest mistake hand-typing the signature. --cesarb 16:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry about that, I found the signature thing second post (Fixed). --66.82.9.63 13:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Andrew Lenahan above and also likely sockpuppets and AnonIP activity. jglc | t | c 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment I suggest reviewing the history for the page before voting one way or the other, or making "sock-puppet" accusations. Additionally, Jason, it's clear from Sherool's comment "Needs more work to be sure, but not deletion." that he meant Keep. --TouchGnome 17:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Comment: All right. Fair enough. Still, as I'm rather unintelligent, it makes it easier to understand a 'keep' or 'delete' ;)

Also, my sockpuppet comment was on the wrong VfD entry; I meant to put it on either the one above or below (both of which have had a lot of disturbance thanks to Sockpuppets). jglc | t | c 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment After carefully reading the Wikipedia guidelines on these subjects, I present the following argument:
  • Wikipedia guidelines on vanity pages indicate that "Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." "The most significant problem with vanity pages is that they often discuss subjects that are not well-enough known for there to be multiple editors." Page history shows there are indeed multiple editors making useful contributions.
  • Finally, I see nothing in the Wikipedia candidates for deletion that point to this page being out of place here. Additionally, I notice that the nomination was made by someone without even having an account here. --TouchGnome 20:07, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -Sean Curtin 23:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep More notable that a lot of Wikipedia articles. It's not like it's occupying valuable space anyway. - 193.11.248.83 00:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment As one of the people who have worked on the page in question, I will abstain from voting, even though my vote wouldn't be taken as seriously since I'm not a logged user. However, according to the description of a vanity page, this is not one. The author of the web-comic has not been participating in the creation of the article as far as we know. The editors that I know of have been people who are not paid nor associated with the comic other than as fans. While I admit that there is some issue with professionalism, it is something that has been discussed and is being worked on, and any contrabutions are welcome. As the author has been spending his time trying to get a work space to try and get the comic running more professionally, I personally find it unlikely that he is using sock-puppets to create it. Lastly, in argument for the article, I have noted that in other votes a google count has been used for validity of an article. Therefore I submit that Drowtales has a Google count of 6,790. 64.136.26.228 04:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit:by way of identification (since there have been accusations of "sock puppets") I'm offering this link. Thats the best I can do, as even user-names can be faked. http://frost-indri.deviantart.com/ 64.136.26.228 04:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's yet another webcomic. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising for a non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 06:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I like Vanity, keep it I say! Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'

Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment No doubt; most of this article's (sincere) contributors seem to have always been anons, and they likely only registered accounts today in order to vote here (as Wikipedia policy requires). At least they've bothered to register, as opposed to the anonymous poster who put up this VfD. Shem^(talk) 10:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Given the significantly less notable entries in Category:Web comics, and how long this particular comic appears to have been online, I see no reason it should be singled out for deletion. FYI, it appears as though the Drowtales artist was recently targeted by a group of disgruntled 4chan users, over not giving them free access to all of his/her work [9]. Given the edit history ([10]) of the user who submitted this VfD, I find it difficult to believe that this isn't just the "Wikipedia branch" of the 4chaners' attack on this artist. Contributers on this article, of which there are apparently several, have stated that they are not the artist. It's hardly a vanity page, and I resent anon users using Wikipedia as a staging ground for their conflicts elsewhere on the internet. Note comments from vandals and trolls including "Drowtales been asking for it. They need teh pwned." Shem^(talk) 10:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable webcomic. --cesarb 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Julia Fetherstone

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Erm, how is it a hoax? ··gracefool |☺ 10:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Because she didn't stand for the Assembly, there's no evidence of any of the claims made in the article, and every other contribution by this serial hoax artist has just been a completely nonsense story about one of several real (but non-notable anyway) students from the Australian National University. Ambi 10:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. In that case, Delete ··gracefool |☺ 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Sorry I was going to explain, but it was quite a load to list at once. Ambi explained perfectly. Students having fun at keyboards, again. -- Longhair | Talk 10:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ambi she is not a student at the Australian National University, what makes you say otherwise?
  • Just about everyone else you've written about is. And everything you've written is nonsense. Points for humor, but the joke is a bit old. Ambi 10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, none of the subjects of my articles have been about ANU Students - my IP originates from there sure, but would you care to back up your assertion about the subjects instead of the author??
      • Why don't you just stop writing fake articles and be done with it? If you want to write a real article, make sure it can be verified as true and try logging in to do it. -- RussellG
        • Nothing is verifiable, some of it is verifiably wrong, and I know half of the real people you (the anon) have written stories about personally. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not me that's writing them. You have me confused with the other guy. RussellG 10:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • (sorry, I meant to direct it at the other guy, but I worded it badly) Ambi 10:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I think it's quite vindicating that the article no longer seems to be up for deletion. What of the principle of good faith that this project is notionally founded on? None of the above assertions have been backed up with truth.
  • Please don't remove VFD notices. This is considered vandalism, and will lead to you being blocked. Ambi 10:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I have done no such thing, Ambi. I appreciate you are acting in good faith but could you please be more considered before accusing me in future, I'd also point you to the included references in the article as well as to my repeated request for you to back up your assertions. Jamesss 10:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Ambi likes Canadians, huh?
• Delete as unverifiable. Deb Foskey is an MLA for Molonglo not Ginninderra. The Elections ACT website shows that she did not run for the seat of Ginninderra [11]. Nor did she stand for Brindabella [12] or Molonglo .There wasn't a feminist party stand at all. Therefore, at best she is a student at the ANU of no particular notability at the moment. Capitalistroadster 12:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep Naughty Ambi! Jamesss 13:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing says hoax like sockpuppets. --W(t) 13:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• I agree, so the fact that Ambi has brought in a ringer like you proves our case. Bazing!
• Look, we can play the "who has more friends?" game too!- 'JoJo 13:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Delete this and all articles created by the hoax vandal, and disregard the sockpuppet "keep" votes, also Columbia 14:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Can someone do something about this JoJo vandal, please?
  Proto
  14:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Despite the fact that she is, in fact, very cute. Assuming the claims about her political career were true, she would not be notable. --Habap 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Captain, I'm giving her all the sockpuppets I've got! Delete. jglc | t | c 15:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cute girl, though. jglc | t | c 15:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bad sockpuppets, bad! --Etacar11 16:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very cute- Keep - 'Hotpants 07:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --
  FCYTravis
  09:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• PArt of her is real, we don't know she isn't worthy of an entry. Maybe we could go on a fact finding mission beyond "google"- Until I see strong evidence to draw this into disrepute it's just one anonymous persons word against anothers. Keep- 'Freezer 09:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish about non-famous person backed up sockpuppets, threats of recruiting more "voters", potential vandalism - Skysmith 10:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no threat of vandalism, nor is getting people interested in the site to come and join this fine community and express their views a violation of the rules.- Keep- 'TagTeam 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• • Only votes and contributions have been to this and other linked VfD's. This username has also vandalised User:Sjakkalle's Talk page. jglc | t | c 13:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unsubstantiated claims. Has not appeared in Woroni recently as quoted. Was not on recent ACT electoral ballot etc. Wikistyler
• Delete - Non-notable, vanity. -Eisnel 06:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claudia Newman

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is a URL from a news site linked in the article that proves that the story is completely false. The name does not even match that of the article.

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete -- Could the spammer please stop? RussellG 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There is no basis for that claim.

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 10:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The article you linked to yourself disproves your article.

Unsigned comment above from RussellG -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It most certainly does not

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Sign your posts people. After your comment, use four of these ~~~~ -- Longhair | Talk 11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I see no evidence it disproves it (JoJo)

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Nice tits. delete Dunc|☺ 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep CzechPartisan

Comment: CzechPartisan's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Quite so, no need to get snarky. Given your reasoning thus far it seems this is only a popularity contest anyway. Go whine to the T-man about it. 'JoJo 13:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Strong delete, as soon as possible. Also, votes by sockpuppets shouldn't be counted. Columbia 13:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, they called you a sock puppet! Not like your votes which we must assume as legit... 'JoJo 13:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo' Keep Matthewleung87 14:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Jamesss 14:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sockpuppets
  Proto
  14:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteLectonar 14:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. --Habap 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I sense... a great disturbance... in sockpuppets. Delete. jglc | t | c 15:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nice cleavage — unconfirmed; no google match; likely hoax. — RJH 15:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Above photo of offending material" - heh. -- Jonel | Speak 02:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, nothing in the news article supports what is said here. --Etacar11 16:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the article makes anyone notable, it's the girl, not her "mother". Septentrionalis 18:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sock supported hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongest Keep having spoken to some friends of mine, they assure me this is worth keeping. I agree wholeheartedly- 'Hotpants 07:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'

• • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• okay, keep, but only because of the tits. Last one, geez 'TagTeam 07:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --
  FCYTravis
  09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- very good form, and lack of a persuasive argument that it is fiction- 'Freezer 10:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - rubbish backed up by sockpuppets, possible copyvio picture. More pseudo-postmodernist experimentation? - Skysmith 10:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not a copyright violation, she said she gave the photo to a friend- 'TagTeam 10:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'

• "Keep" MARMOT 16:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This is the same user who proposed the policy "Administrators can't vote" jglc | t | c 16:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blue Orchid Scandal

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 'User:JoJo'
• Keep This is well verified and cross-referenced by municipal reports in the state archives. A lack of google information is probably more indicative of a lack of Australian politics on the internet rather than inaccuracy.Jamesss 13:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Comment: You've voted twice JoJo? -- Longhair | Talk 13:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, but clearly I have done so under my username, not as a sock puppet. 'JoJo 14:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo', merely a typo.

Your username is a sockpuppet. Delete jglc | t | c 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --W(t) 13:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep 203.129.46.232 13:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is why 14-year-olds should be banned from the Internet.
  Proto
  14:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Appears to be more sophisticated than a 14-year-old. Possibly someone with a political agenda. Probably should also check all other articles by original contributor. — RJH 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• CommentMugasaurus 15:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Freaky how it looks so real!
• Delete, hoax by uni student(s). Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified and the sockpuppets don't help. --Etacar11 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Robertson and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you say it will be deleted, well, what choice do we have but to do so? jglc | t | c 19:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I watched The Muppet Movie earlier today. I've seen enough puppets. --Xcali 22:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Elaborate sock supported hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in memory of wik stupidity at having endorsed it to begin with, I recommend it is kept but a label "joke" is added- 'Hotpants 07:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• If we admits it's fake, delete it- 'TagTeam 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations (even though this one is a delete vote (?)). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --
  FCYTravis
  09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - admitted false pseudo-postmodernist rubbish backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I'm reversing my vote to Keep, I've confirmed most of these hoax articles using my sophisticated Google searching techniques. Excelsior! AIphax 19:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Above impostor vote actually by AIphax. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clam Commune

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is hardly a hoax.

Unsigned comment above from 203.129.37.120 -- Longhair | Talk 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's a rather good hoax, but let down a little by the fact that giving references means that people can see the references in question don't actually exist... delete, but eight out of ten for the attempt.
  Shimgray
  10:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - but also give eight out of ten for the attempt. I particularly liked the MacKinnon reference in one of the other ones. Ambi 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If you award hoaxers marks of out ten, they are sure to keep trying until they get full marks, is that what you want?
    Kappa
    11:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I am getting awfully tired of this user's vandalism RussellG 11:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Yep, google is the be-all and end-all of finding information... (JoJo)
  • Notably, no-one actually cited Google as a source above... it's trivial to verify, though, using standard bibliographic methods that the references quoted in the article don't exist. After that, it all begins to become clear...
    Shimgray
    12:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep But delete faulty references, I can personally vouch for the Clan's existence.Jamesss 13:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) If you say so Jamesss
• Delete Sockpuppetry
  Proto
  14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. Can't this user take his obvious talent and work on real topics? There are many articles that require revision and he's not only wasting his own time, but many others.... --Habap 15:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these sockpuppets have too much time on their hands. Ooops, and so do I... --Etacar11 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Blue Orchid and Robertson, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitous manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiable by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't use Google. I use Dogpile, which searches Google and several other search engines. If something is written eloquently, it is not immediately recognizable as complete lunacy, so the administrator categorized it and gave it the benefit of the doubt pending further investigation. Are you trying to prove that it is possible to insert hoaxes into Wikipedia? Well, it is. Fortunately, there are enough eyeballs on these kinds of things and mechanisms for removal to ensure that deliberate lunacy such as yours is corrected. If you really want to have an impact find some poorly written articles and revise them. --Habap 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I ainta a sockpuppet you fools, ah jussa wanna have a say in dise "articles".
• Replace with an article about the real Clam Commune{http://perso.wanadoo.fr/yves.belotteau/Beloteau/communedeclam.htm}
• Keep As with Blue orchid, recommend joke label attached though- 'Hotpants 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --
  FCYTravis
  09:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- it is very funny, 'TagTeam 10:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
• Delete - pseudo-postmodernist rubbish experiment backed up sockpuppets, possible violation of
  WP:POINT. Contributor is advised to concentrate on fiction writing - Skysmith
  10:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James H. Robertson

Student prank/hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It's quite legitimate

Unsigned comment above from 203.129.37.120 -- Longhair | Talk 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alas, hoax articles are not legitimate here. Perhaps you might try stories.com? Ambi 10:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. JamesBurns 11:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Say what you like about his deviant sexual practices, I still James H. Robertson is the finest administrator the NSW legislature has ever seen. Jamesss 11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep 203.129.46.232 13:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Alexdowner I'll support the NSW greens till i die.
• KeepKman
• Keep ShahXerxes Another vote for my man in the Greens.
• Delete Sockpuppetry
  Proto
  14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sockpuppet hoax. Google isn't the end-all of notability, of course, but I find it hard to believe that I get more than a hundred hits and all these people get none. I'm nobody. --Etacar11 16:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete please Yuckfoo 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete not on Lexis either. Septentrionalis 18:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, the one on Higgins, Blue Orchid and the Commune, and although they are clearly false (the Australian administrator who corrected the links and catagorized it early this morning has no excuse :-p) the several other spinoff articles which my less articulate friends wrote demonstrates how self-perpetuating the phenonemon can be. It seems an article like "painted whore" gets immediately cross checked and tagged for deletion, yet "the blue orchid scandal" is placed in the catagory 'australian political controversies" because it presumably was written eloquently enough to covince the administrators of its veracity. My arguement is this article should be kept as a monument to the historiographically duplicitious manner in which history is perceived and accepted. In saying that I'm quite aware this article will be deleted in the pseudo-fascist fashion by which all information that is poorly written, "not notable", or not immediately verifiably by the Oracle of Delphi (otherwise known as Google) inevitably is. Phantasmogoria 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fuk you Mobb Deep!!! Biggie fuk you too!!--64.229.218.142 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Puppet limit exceeded. --Xcali 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Very strong Keep Reasons given above- 'Hotpants 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- sounds real enough- 'TagTeam 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - sockpuppets galore and more. --
  FCYTravis
  08:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• There should be more evidence than "sock puppets". I could accuse you all of being sock puppets too. What is the burden of proof anyway? Keep- 'Freezer 09:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sjakkalle is the real sockpuppet he keeps deleting notable articles. fuckin' douche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.123.75 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 Jun 2005
    • This is anonymous user's second "contribution". jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Pseudo-postmodernist false entry backed up by sockpuppets - Skysmith 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, nonsense, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW douche, u cant vote more than once— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.123.75 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 Jun 2005
    • This is anonymous user's second "contribution". jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • If your underused and likely vestigial eyes would care to squint at this page, you will note, Ms. 65.92.123.75, that Sjakkalle has only voted once. jglc | t | c 17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Craft Masonry

The text as stands is highly POV and arguably defamatory. Someone with far more knowledge than I might want to rewrite this as a brief NPOV about the difference between the different schools of Masonry. [PostScript -- for the abvoidance of doubt, I fall into one of the social classes debarred from the Craft, and accordingly have no vested interest beyond veracity] -- Simon Cursitor 10:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- Definately an article that has to go. I see no point in rewriting this garbage -- RussellG 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think there's anything there worth merging. --W(t) 13:40, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced and probably defamatory. --Carnildo 20:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 06:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing worth saving. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Best Episodes of Ed, Edd n Eddy

Obviously POV, seems to contain most/all of the episodes anyway the wub (talk) 11:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- POV list. - Longhair | Talk 11:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV. If someone wants to write about the episodes, we might want a List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is already
    this VFD debate. the wub (talk)
    12:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete you are aware though that we have short stubs on all of these episodes already? Not that i'd call it cruft of course... Dunc|☺ 11:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV list, unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV list. JamesBurns 11:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very difficult for a best/worst list to not be POV. Also, this list has 20-25 "best" episodes per season... surely that's (almost) all of them anyway? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork. I find every episode best. Ah, what a classic show. Nestea 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Inherently POV. If this fails, clearly we'll need the List of the Worst Episodes of Ed, Edd n Eddy Wikibofh 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex Sonkin

Does not seem notable. I would expect a notable CEO to get a great deal more media coverage than what I can find on google. GreenZap, the company Sonkin now appears to work for has previously been deleted (

11:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CEOs and other executives need to be pretty darn notable to have an article of their own, especially when the company itself doesn't even have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. --W(t) 13:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete, but I'm being bold and replacing it with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary article to discourage recreation. — Gwalla | Talk 05:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can of worms

Dicdef, already in wiktionary. Radiant_>|< 11:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete How has this lasted since mid-March? Sonic Mew 11:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand to include famous and infamous use --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Such as what? Radiant_>|< 12:11, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • The closest thing I can think of to a famous use would be the Earthworm Jim 1 & 2 collection by that name. I think the article is useless because the phrase is almost always "whole new can of worms", not just "can of worms". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • So merge it with List of video game powerups? I recall a 1-up in EWJ was a can of worms. Or maybe it was an extra continue. Radiant_>|< 13:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Radiant! the wub (talk) 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictdef. --W(t) 13:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef --Xcali 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete common phrase, but not going to be more than a dictdef. -- Jonel | Speak 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Truly this made me laugh...delete it. RealSaltLakeRule44

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marija Taflaga

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• On a community project such as this, what makes Ambi's word any better than another person who might have faithfully watched the site for years, yet only just now decided to make entries? Any evidence it's not true? Gosh, google. Well, you sure showed me.

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. The onus of proving that something is true is on the person who puts it on the site. I know it isn't true - the fact that you have no evidence of these wild (not to mention defamatory in a couple of cases) claims just makes it all the more obvious. Ambi 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is known and indisputable fact. Ambi's attitude is disappointing. If I can be so frank. This onus of hers is particularly unreasonable when she decides the qualifying standard of proof, which on other pages has been as thin as 'I know this guy in real life'.

Unsigned comment above from Jamesss -- Longhair | Talk 13:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep 'JoJo 13:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep There is little evidence that it is not true, and it is hardly defamitory

Unsigned comment above from CzechPartisan, users first edit. -- Longhair | Talk 13:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --W(t) 13:41, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep Matthewleung87 13:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Matthewleung87's only edits are to VfD. -- Longhair | Talk 13:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Sure you're only pointing out the truth, but doing so in a way that discourages newbie participation. Wikipedia isn't about respecting some opinions over others based on experience, there are no elites in the open source philosophy. Explain how the above user's inexperience is pertinent to the outcome of the vote, or please retract your comment.Jamesss 13:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: -- I'd comment, but I know you're wasting my time. - Longhair | Talk 14:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Clearly this 'newbie' knows what he's doing, and what he's doing is vandalism
  Proto
  14:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Longhair is defaming people! Punish him. Naughty boy. 'JoJo 14:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

Comment: Go away. -- Longhair | Talk 14:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all this idiot's vandalisms
  Proto
  14:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Romania's foreign ministry lists embassy staff's names on each embassy website. As such, a search on two engines should have turned up the page for whichever embassy she works at, if she's real. As it stands, exactly two pages were returned by Google & AltaVista combined in searches for "Marija Taflaga", both showing it as a person's username - and not on Romanian sites. As such, the "person" is clearly non-notable, if not entirely fictional. The Literate Engineer 14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — does appear to be a hoax. — RJH 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:Jojojr I can honestly say that I am not aware of any sock puppets, teasing aside. I know you guys are geeks, but is it really such a stretch for you to believe someone could get 4 friends to vote for this? That's kinda depressing- 'Jojojr 15:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
  • I know you are a sockpuppet, but is it really such a stretch for you to stop making nonsense articles? Alphax ^τεχ 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Habap 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and do something about JoJo and his many sockpuppets Columbia 15:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Sockpuppet, meatpuppet, it's all the same to me. --Etacar11 16:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense; I've already speedied a more blatant nonsense article from this contributor. —Xezbeth 17:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep i lika ppl.--64.229.218.142 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Puppet limit exceeded. --Xcali 22:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Holy puppets, batman! See their contribs, it's all vfds, and all the same vfds. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk |!
• Delete hoax Pburka
• Keep I know a friend or a friend who is Romanian, and swears it is true. It's a government cover up that has led to the website being altered to hide her existence- 'Hotpants 07:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Hotpants'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --
  FCYTravis
  09:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Hrmmm, well, I guess deleted this one Keep- 'Freezer 09:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Nonsense backed up sockpuppets. Intentional recruiting of "voters" is not any better. Someone's artistic experiment? - Skysmith 11:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:47, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sarah Lynch

Hoax. -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• On what basis? (JoJo)

Unsigned comment above from 220.237.197.101 -- Longhair | Talk 11:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- 'JoJo 13:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
• Keep - Verifiable fact should not fall victim to Ambi's war on accuracy and personal venedettaJamesss 13:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fargomargo
• Keep Matthewleung87 14:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - can the sockpuppets JoJo/Jamesss/Fargomargo/Matthewleung87 be kiled please?
  Proto
  14:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — no references cited and unable to confirm the veracity of this page via google. It does appear to be a hoax. — RJH 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 15:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well-written, but patently ridiculous nonsense. --Habap 15:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Sockpuppets are like Stormtroopers: There are a lot of them, and they're never effective. jglc | t | c 15:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual sockpuppets. --Scimitar 15:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Die, sockpuppets, die! Columbia 15:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet again. SP's begone. --Etacar11 17:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another hoax article. Needless to say, there was no Australian Federal Police Deputy Commissioner by that name except in the sockpuppet kingdom. Capitalistroadster 20:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I respek that phat b#tch!--64.229.218.142 20:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I see no votes of "Delete; cute, though" or "Delete; nice tits, though" (like a couple of her buddies in this collection of hoaxing vandalism), so I won't research this enough to cast a vote. Barno 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not factual. --Xcali 22:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax Pburka 02:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-as she does indeed have nice tits 'TagTeam 07:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
  • Users only edits are to vote keep on Longhair's VFD nominations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, too many sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Sockpuppet-backed hoax. This is a recording. --
  FCYTravis
  09:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• KeepI'd like some evidence it's not real, seems very well researched.- 'Freezer 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • Account created today. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unverifiable nonsense (or experiment) backed up by sockpuppets (or equivalent). (It also seems that Stormtroopers rarely hit their targets) - Skysmith 11:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey man, i ainta a darn sockpuppy, i jus' hate ur gay bureacracy and i really despise this "western freedom" thing. Too many lies ...--65.92.123.75 17:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Fine. Then you're a meatpuppet with only two edits to your name. I'm sorry, I mean, your number. jglc | t | c 17:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A definite hoax. Wikistyler

Definitely not a hoax, obviously sockpuppets are being used to get all these delete votes. Sure, they may have different IP's, but for all we know they could be different people. I think the burden is on them to prove they are not socks- 'JoJo 05:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'

• Delete. Hoax. Postdlf 05:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• lol, such obvious sockpuppetry. Delete ··gracefool |☺ 12:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete not factual, hoax, search of Australian Federal Police site shows no Sarah Lynch ever served as a deputy police commissioner during 1996-2002: http://www.afp.gov.au/afp/system/dynamic/query.asp?query=sarah+lynch&t=0&r=1&n=1 clarkk 14:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

just to flog a dead horse: John Davies was appointed Deputy Commissioner in Sept. 2001 replacing Mick Keelty according to http://www.afp.gov.au/afp/page/Media/2001/0927deputycommissioner.htm. clarkk 14:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax per above. And such blatant sock puppetry needs putting where it belongs. -Splash 14:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I would like evidence this is a hoaxGateman1997 18:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shawn Cobb

Vanity Page Leithp 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Ugh, awful. Delete. David | Talk 12:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Vanity - Longhair | Talk 12:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious vanity. --ElfWord 12:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• speedy --MarSch 12:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This unfortunately isn't a candidate for speedy by my understanding of the criteria, otherwise I would have listed it as such. Leithp 13:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • it should be a candidate for speedy --MarSch 14:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No argument here, from the looks of things User:216.20.25.1 has been creating vanity/nonsense articles and vandalising others all day. Tiresome. Leithp 15:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • Delete: It could be considered a nonsense speedy. Can somebody go to vandalism_in_progress and report this anon IP? jglc | t | c 16:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think he's gotten bored and gone off to sniff glue or something. Leithp 17:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kid vanity. But refreshing. --Etacar11 17:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I hate to rid us of an article about a great man of high "standarts", delete. --Scimitar 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, therefore kept. — Gwalla | Talk 05:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William E. Caswell

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being physicist who worked at a laboratory, no evidence of passing the professor test. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nnn
  Proto
  14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he did some notable physics, though its details are a bit technical--I will try to improve the entry. User:Betsythedevine
• Keep, appears to pass the professor test. Thanks Betsythedevine.
  Kappa
  05:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Historically notable individual. JamesBurns 05:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 05:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Joseph Driscoll

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being a retired engineer with a semi-famous nephew and a passion for hiking. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:42, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn
  Proto
  14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus (kept) — Gwalla | Talk 06:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LeRoy Homer

Died in the 9/11 attacks; he was one of the flight's pilots. That's a borderline case so I'm listing it here. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this one. I am unsure of several of the other articles, but I think that the pilots of these flights are notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. His name should be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but I don't see the point in having a bio. --W(t) 13:44, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete and/or send to Memorial. Never received any specific individual attention; just another 9/11 victim. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 13:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn
  Proto
  14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle.
  Kappa
  14:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pilots are more notable than the average 9/11 victim. (per Sjakkalle. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:29, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or send to Memorial. --Carnildo 20:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle. Xoloz 04:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a memorial, and I'm afraid that I don't think the pilots were more notable than the average 9/11 victim. Quale 09:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William M. Feehan

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for working at the NY fire department. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:44, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, couldn't these have been mass-nominated, Radiant?
  Proto
  14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been tempted to, but they really are very different persons, and some of them have a (weak?) claim to notability. I wouldn't be surprised if half ended up kept and half deleted. Radiant_>|< 15:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep. this article is worthy of being in Wikipedia unsigned vote by 67.80.40.235 (talk · contribs)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — Gwalla | Talk 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wilson Flagg

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he could be considered notable for being a retired US navy admiral; that's a borderline case so I'm listing it here. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless we've kept articles on other navy admirals purely on their being navy admirals (I have no idea how many of them there are). --W(t) 13:45, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn
  Proto
  14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep admirals, general, etc., just as we would keep CEO's of midsize companies. The responsibilities are similar enough. --Scimitar 15:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep admirals.
  Kappa
  18:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:31, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The TailHook scandal was notable enough. Capitalistroadster 20:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep flag officers. -- Jonel | Speak 03:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Scimitar. Xoloz 04:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jane C. Folger

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for working at Bell Atlantic and having four children. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 13:45, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn
  Proto
  14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Golbez 07:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy Glick (September 11 attack victim)

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being an account manager for some minor company. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable for his actions during the hijack, and for the link at the bottom of the page. He should be distinguished from the other Jeremy Glick though. David | Talk 12:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the appropriate september 11th timeline and delete (not a useful search phrase to redirect). --W(t) 12:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Please see
    Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion
    . Merge and delete isn't a possible vote, because we need to keep the history of merged pages.
• Delete, nn
  Proto
  14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable.
  Kappa
  14:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for his actions during the attack. --Scimitar 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sufficiently notable. Nickptar 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for his actions during the attack. And rename to Jeremy Glick (9/11 victim), maybe turn Jeremy Glick into disambiguation. My bad, it's already a dab. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not rename. The term
    9/11 is systemic bias, as that particular meaning is only recognizable within the US. Radiant_>|<
    21:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As important as other hereos of the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. Barneygumble 21:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not just a victim -- he actively participated in the events. Pburka 02:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 05:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All of the people on the planes who made phone calls during the hijackings are notable. Dsmdgold 21:32, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wanda A. Green

Died in the 9/11 attacks, but otherwise he's only known for being a flight attendant. Radiant_>|< 12:09, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is not the memorial wiki. --W(t) 12:16, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete, nn
  Proto
  14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for abover reasons. Nickptar 18:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for above, obvious reasons. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto. -Wiccan Quagga 09:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stefan Neßler

Looks like vanity to me, but I'd like a second opinion before I userfy. --W(t) 12:14, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• vanity (and more or less subtle advertising) was my first thought, too. I would like to have another opinion on the talk page; for now weak delete Lectonar 12:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just 42 Google hits, and of even that very modest number, more than half seem to be other people who just happen to have that name, bringing the actual score down to 20 or so. You'd think a notable maker of nudie pictures (the very lifeblood of the internet) would manage more than that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete height, weight? Utter vanity. --Etacar11 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/vanity. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:09, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. German Wikiedia doesn't list him. Pavel Vozenilek 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creative production

This transwikified dicdef has been around since

12:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a renomination after about 6 weeks.
  Kappa
  12:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if anyone wants to write an article on this the fact that we deleted this dict-def won't hinder them. --W(t) 13:21, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete it's been a subsubstub dicdef for 3 years now, not likely to change anytime soon. Whatever there is to say about this topic is in other articles like creativity, art, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like a pleonasm to me. Delete, replace with redirect to production. Radiant_>|< 15:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the same reasons I gave
  the last time around: that there's no sign that it's anything but a non-subject, and that the only coherent argument given so far for keeping it is that it could be improved -- while none of the people arguing this has yet bothered to improve it. -- Hoary
  15:39, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. It hasn't been expanded, and right now it is useless. --Scimitar 15:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nearly 3 year old dic def substub showing no signs of growth. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 20:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, stubby dictdef (though the phrase gets surprisingly many google hits; ah well, everything is permitted in PR, I guess). Jitse Niesen 23:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary stuff, really. Barely that, I've never heard of this strange term. It sounds like PR nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FotHB and Fox Zandar

Fiction. Not even online gaming cruft. -- RHaworth 12:58, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy as nonsense or possibly as an attempt to communicate (read the last paragraph). Anybody who reads this all the way to the end is a stronger man than me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• What the? Delete NOW, before it drives someone to insanity! Quickly, the Wikipedia could be liable! -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Originally meant as a formal history of an online guild but has caused conflict and should be deleted. (I take ownership as the original Author) -- Orocamion

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --WikiFan04^{21:51, 22 Jun 2005 (CDT)}

Antiwar.com

Many web sites are notable in their own way, lots of google hits from other sites etc.

My arguuments are:

• Wikipedia.com is not google.com
• The page is unlikely to go beyond a stub. As the website is (obviously) an antiwar POV. The article if improved will unlikely be NPOV.
• Antiwar.com does not contribute to human kowlege. The site is about an ideology against wars hence Anti-war.

So this should be an external link whenever referenced. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This VfD is a prime example of Mr. Coolcat's lack of understanding of the NPOV policy. — Davenbelle 12:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• VfD is hardly a place to discuss personalities. Your objection is directed at me not the delete case of article in question. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is useful, and it is an inevitable site with great importance in today's world - unsigend 219.111.147.78
• Keep Seems to be a notable site, Alexa score is good (4,871), as is Google (639,000 hits) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Vandalism. This vandal marked the article "speedy delete" and mass-deleted wikilinks to it.
  Mirror Vax
  13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Stereotek 13:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Evidence of nominator acting in bad faith. jglc | t | c 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Fine article, astonishingly bad behavior by nominator. -Willmcw 16:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Alexa score, Google hits, also
  Patrick Buchanan is a contributor. This site gets a fairly large amount of attention from news media and other important sites since it is one of the most well-known libertarian/conservative sites criticizing the war in Iraq (not just wars in general) and the Bush administration's foreign policy. Soundguy99
  16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please Yuckfoo 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with arguements of original nominator Barneygumble 13:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Alexa and google data. Please note the site itself doesn't need to be NPOV. Only the article on it has to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite notable. —Seselwa 20:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with Soundguy99 and Mgm. Barno 20:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm Xoloz 04:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but without endorsing the attacks on the nominator. JamesMLane 06:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - especially considering bad-faith actions of nominator. One does not delete every Wikilink to an article (thus creating gobs of work for other Wikipedians) until vote has been certified. Nominator needs to study the VFD process before nominating other articles. --
  FCYTravis
  09:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very notable website. Article needs expansion and this can easily be done without introducing POV. Kaibabsquirrel 23:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:18 (UTC)

Smartpedia

Insignificant Wikipedia mirror. Jeronim 13:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree completely; wondering why no one else is voting on this. It's utterly non-notable. jglc | t | c 18:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• undecided. Not sure how to decide whether it is "notable" or not. I think the fact that they replace "wikipedia" by "smartpedia" in their version of our articles is outrageous, but that in itself is not a reason for deletion. In any case, see also
  Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Stu#SmartPedia. -- Austrian
  21:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks, following Jeronim's suggestion below. -- Austrian 23:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• delete. It is directly related to wikipedia and it may be reasonably argued that this ugly rip-off must be explained somewhere. But if one recalls that something similar may be done by each and every porno site just to attract traffic, there is no notability in the site, not to say that the article is
  original research, and its correctness may change every moment. mikka (t)
  21:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• comment -- I'm undecided because, while the site isn't notable, there'd be some value in keeping the article to dispel confusion. Not everyone knows about Wikipedia mirrors. Someone who encountered Smartpedia might be confused about the relationship and come here hoping to find an explanation. Having an article identifying Smartpedia as a copy of Wikipedia, and explaining the GFDL, would clarify matters for such a person. JamesMLane 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say I wouldn' want for wikipedia to be identified with smartpedia and the likes. If its articles will carry acknowledgements of wikipedia, we are fine, if not sue them. mikka (t) 18:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, smartpedia does write "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" at the beginning of each article, and has a link "source" that points back to wikipedia. -- Austrian 23:20, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Better to redirect
    Smartpedia for mirror sites with only trivial differences. -- Jeronim
    02:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant, non-notable, and irrelevant.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.

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 no consensus - 15 votes to delete; 14 votes to keep (of which two are "weak", and not counting the anon at the end for which the vote in this vfd was his 5th edit). Article still requires extensive cleanup, possible renaming. --

June 28, 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Japanese fascism

Does this article say anything coherent at all? It appears to equate historic Japanese nationalism/authoritarianism with fascism in an extremely idiosyncratic way, and... er, that's about it, apart from going on and on at great length in a rather peculiar writing style. This should be deleted unless cleaned up to be more meaningful (for example, there probably is something to be said about the influence of Western fascist movements on Japan, but this article isn't it). -- The Anome 13:21, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• The topic is covered in some depth in the Japanese nationalism article. This article doesn't quite mesh with the nationalism article, and the title and article appears rather POV. Perhaps it would make more sense to call it "Japan and fascism", then clean up as appropriate. So I vote to rename to Japan and facism, then recommend a thorough cleanup. :) — RJH 15:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment

• i stay totally accord,and preciselly if this original idea,but when see certain original elements,mixed with outside political apports and visualized certain ideologycal division between Japanese nationlism ideology from shogunate-meiji period to Showa period-august 1945,decided to changed at present name,but i stay accord to returm of your exelent idea.for certain i this if one humble apport to japanese ideologycal and political analisis in these historical period for your sources,one thing why very little having to analize in profoundity and sugest why this served how point of cominzed to one future analisis for any expert or knowed in materia.

other sugestion can to how theirs sayed,merged these article with present name or this sugest name inside Japanese Nationalism Article, i seeing the political complement between political analisis or can to transformed in one second part why analized in depth the materia.

i added respect at european fascist apports,why Japanese thinker

and others why traveled for europe,or readed some european political books receiving these ideologycal apport and theirs transformed this in new japanese political rigth-wing thinking and remembered why during last 30s,and 40s decades,japan receiving the visit of Members of European fascist parties,represent for example,Eugen Ott German nazi ambassador,some Nazi party or SS units members and exist one reduced German and Italian Colony in Tokio,Karafuto and other parts in Japanese empire.

Theirs if supposed,leaving examples of Mein Kampf and other European fascist ideology bibliographical sources,why Japanese thinkers and philosphers readed at continuing,for added these apports at local radical nationalists ideololy.these ideologycal interchange inclusive if continuing at lasts stages of conflict,when way German subs arriving to Japan,along german scientists and experts somes Nazi German politics and Military forces or SS members(case how German sub why realizing the travel to germany at Japan with one SS political member along Japanese Navy passengers,in special travel to transport Uranium 234 for nuclear artifact) or exist some flying plans of Luftwaffe or Italian Regia Aeronautica)(special fligth from Europe,over Russia and Siberia Mainland to Manchukuo for Japanese Navy or special figth of Heinkel He 277 V-1 from Salzburg to East Asia or fligth plan of Junkers Ju 290A with special logn range modifications from France to Manchukuo,how others examples) making ultra-long range fligths from Europe to Manchukuo or Japan during last months of European front.or before at conflict when Soviet Russia are certain member of Axis,whe Germany and Japan use with Russian autorization,the Transiberian railway for commercial envoys of prime materials.

In Japan Germany and Italy mantain inside diplomatic services,ones cultural departments,for mantain cultural contact with your own citizens and cultural interchange with Japanese natives.japan mantain official and ideologycal contact with Axis alliance for media of your Ambassador in Europe,General Hiroshi Oshima,why mantained in your post at final of european war.reiterrally if evident why during these political or ideolgycal interchanges,if impossibly why Japanese,well knowed over liked to learned about foreing knowledge,no take any political apports products of these interchange.

Respect at some East Asian connections with Japanese nationalism and nazism,exist evidence about Wang-Chingwei s meetings with german Leader or local Hindu leaders in British administration why stay in secret contacts with german and Japanese agents before and wartimes during Pacific War or the White Russian political use of Fascism ideology and the Swastika in Manchukuo.these ideologycal interchange apport other asian rigth-wing elements to japanese nationalists sources during conflitc times.

If possibly seeing some direct historical precedents why also integrated from your local traditions the Axis alliance members.

when observed why Japanese take your traditions of Samurai warriors,Bushi-do Code or administra tive sistem of Shogunate,in relative parallel Fascist Italy remember your ancient ideals of Roman Empire or Cavaliers traditions or in one most depth case,Nazi Germany also used the ideals of First Reich and your King Othon I,the Teutonic Cavalier Order, the "Fredericus Rex" legends the Second Reich Empire military traditions for mixed this with your NS ideology.or inclusive when if observed the comparing when Germany and Italy if sign the alliance are how the "Sacred Germanic-romanic Empire". but tha mosts knowed example of these traditions in German case are the "Prussian Military Spirit" provided from German Province of East Prussia.

Japanese local Nationalists thinking

joining at previous elements mentioned,if see the local radical elements from ancient times,with Samurai military caste,Bushido code or Shogunate administration.these elements,more later mixed with recent contemporary japanese nationalist philosophy and thnking during Meiji Period(this if i denomined at these political period of japanese nationalism how "Japanese fascism").when cominzed the travels of Japanese thinkers and philosophers to America or Europe and others parts of the world(inclusive africa,for example),theirs seeing the local thinkings and take the interestings ideologycal elements and mixed with own thnking,along the first interchange with European rigth-wing thinking and Philosophy.more later when raising the Axis ideology in Europe,these interchange continuing,and these ideologysts receiving new elements,and this process if mantained during the rests of WW2 period until final.(these last period from last Meiji days to raising Showa period until august 1945,i named how political term of "Showa ideology or Showa nationalism")

Japanese local Nationalists thinking in actual days

In present days if possibly why exists some idelogycal interchange but in reduced form for part of local rigth-wing radicals and nationalists with American European,Asian or other extreme rigth followers around the world.Inclusive actually times,exists somes local rigth-wing nationalist japanese groups how NSJAP(National Socialist Japanese Party) why defend these lazes and stay connect with local nationalist secret societies and theirs realizing interchange with others NS followers in Europe,America or Asia in present days.theirs remembered the figure of General Hiroshi Oshima how one great leader,along General Hideki Tojo or Emperor Hiro-Hito. these and other groups remember the

Alliance too when analized the paper represent for Japanese Empire joining Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in some think thank groups,local conferences and some international meetings in other countries in European area for example,and theirs defend the local values and thinking over foreing elements in Japan.

Some General Sources

more thanks at very little friends and some enemies,for your ,amable and heavy destructive comments.

Well,i am present:

the name of your uhknowed server are Wellington Perez Ishikawajima,i am from of Peru.if evident why i are non native english,and no poses knowledge of motherland language,Japanese,my motherlanguage if bow my latinamerican born,if Spanish.i only poses reading knowledge in english and yours well knowed limits in emglish grammar and writing style.

my nickname are Wladk for Wladimir Kamisky,i readed over German-Russian war and liked the history of Pro-axis russian military leader Bronislav Kaminsky. i am stay more prided of history of my great country and in my limits mantain contact with other japanese citizens why knowed about history in Japan and outside.

my farests ancestors are japanese and poses family in central america,Mexico ane Europe.i for working reasons staying preciselly in central america,in ones parents.

i sta more disgusts with theirs for your actions why in first thinked in good faith and comprension but in last days appareing agressive attacks,no one adequate recomendation or similar.

for this i knowed much of japanese history and poses more information at respect.preciselly i am debt at my nearests of Jap web sources,treated to publish some interesting info,but uhknowed why stay violating certain rigth laws.

i am are one interests in jap history in much detail overall the specific topic previously mentioned. i am knowed one panamenian why mentioned at me over your farests japanese ancestors,secret agents,jap plans against panama canal,and present some bibliography.

i stay more disillucioned with yours,if totally certain why poses more troubles in my grammar or no poses writing habilities,but i writing in good faith ,lamentably,yours stay in these strict media with correct inflexible rules,and i no poses well diction for participed in this.if more lamentably why having occured this.

in present days stay in these country,but for working reasons i traveled to Europe in route to Madagascar or South Africa.i am decided no return at your media i stay more desappointed and disgust with theirs!

Sirs,for my part no poses troubles,i am no agreed much idea of writing in your media other time,if more terrible for me!

thanks at yours for amable attention

NOTE: (about editing in native language). There seems to be somewhat related material at ja:天皇機関説. If your native language is Japanese, perhaps you could use that as a starting point for expansion or a place to branch and start a new article. --Tabor 18:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

VOTES

• Weak keep but cleanup. As it stands now, it strikes me that it might be categorized as a personal essay or original research: hard to say, given its difficult grammar and syntax. The label Japanese fascism strikes me as justifiable, if only because Japan was one of the
  Axis Powers. A valid article could be written relating Japanese willingness to join the Axis, relating this to traditional Japanese chauvinism, mistrust of foreigners, and military expansionism, and the rise of a military authoritarian government in Japan. The content now here is not totally useless for the construction of that better article. Smerdis of Tlön
  14:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE as it does look like original research. The fact that Japan was part of the Axis Powers alliance has nothing to do with fascism. Japan was not fascist because it was a member, just as Finland was not facist even though it was a member. Spain was facist and it was *not* a member. 132.205.95.65 16:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, text dump. jglc | t | c 16:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep and strong cleanup; the article may need to be replaced. Suggest the editor contribute to wikipedia in his/her native language and then request translation. As it stands, text is nearly unusable. Defending distinctions between abstractions like fascism, nationalism, and totalitarainism requires a solid grasp of the language. However, Japanese fascism is a topic that has been widely discussed, most notably perhaps by Japanese historian Masao Murayama in Thought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics (Oxford, 1963). It does not take much searching to find quite a bit of literature on the subject. I'll start by adding references to the article. --Tabor 17:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but strong cleanup; The article's discussion of the Ziabatsu and such has importance, but it is so poorly written and has a strong POV that it needs some serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneygumble (talk • contribs) 18:14, 16 Jun 2005
• Keep and cleanup, in agreement with Tabor. Barno 20:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've been working on some. I really wish people would just ask on the talk pages or add a cleanup tag instead of bringing here. Check out VfD for the last week an a half for all of the discussions on these. Wikibofh 22:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. Baru 23:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter crap. Wikipedia isn't a personal website. --Ypacaraí 23:43, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Valid topic, per Tabor. Jitse Niesen 00:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Moving to abstain, given that the author requested deletion. Besides, I am realizing that I would probably not be so eager to keep it if it were about a subject which I understand better. -- Jitse Niesen 11:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact whether Japanese social system of 1930-1945 was "fascism" or not is still a matter of controversy.Ken304 01:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Ypacaraí. --Nanshu 01:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep but strong cleanup Rrwuires section on differences between Japan and the European Axis; explicit checklist for fascist tendencies; notes on Jpamnese belief in Victory through Willposer. Septentrionalis 02:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteOriginal research.--Mochi 03:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Mochi--
  nixie
  04:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup per Tabor Xoloz 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hermeneus 05:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Widely discussed historical topic. JamesBurns 06:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. It must be arranged with related articls about duplications and relations. Johncapistrano 07:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless transformed completely into something more meaningful. -- The Anome 09:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Did anyone check the history of the page? Most of the page was written by just a single person "200.46.215.196"="196.215.46.200.dialup.psinetpa.net, panama" / "200.46.215.141" / "200.46.215.170" /... so on. How can I trust such a page created/written by a "no-login guy"? Poo-T 10:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE Nonsense.Commonsenses 10:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to urge everybody to take a look at User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan and User:Wikibofh/Japanese Articles for some analysis on similar articles by the same author. -- Jitse Niesen 12:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And I would urge those users, and you, to make the effort to wikify whatever content you can extract from the articles and put it where it belongs and stop wasting everyone else's time with this stupid bullshit. Why this consensus has emerged that this drivel is deserving of special treatment is beyond me. Take whatever content is salvagable, put it in the numerous existing articles about Japanese history and stop talking about it, voting about it, and discussing it. Just do it and quit whining and defending rambling, misspelled article titles for POV essays. Ben-w 17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC).

• Comment: This is a valid criticism, which I addressed when you raised it on my talk page. Realizing that could be transitory I have added it to my Japanese Articles page. I will let my edit history and contributions to the wikipedia stand on their own. Wikibofh 23:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I can't continue to assume good faith about these articles. The defenders have been told often enough to merge whatever usable content they can find into the EXISTING ARTICLES ABOUT JAPANESE HISTORY but they point-blank refuse to do it. Ben-w 17:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an unfair characterization. and you know it. Let me spell it out. I agree that some of these should be integrated into other articles.. However I think just putting these sections into other articles will result in them being deleted and the information will be gone. I think the articles need to be cleaned up as they stand (or under different titles) and then they should be merged. Just to be clear, if I refuse to do something on Wikipedia I will say something subtle like: "I refuse to do that". There will be no room for mis-interpretation. If you disagree with how I've handled myself, take it to an RfA or RfC. Don't use VfD. Wikibofh 23:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Yes, using VfD actually prevents sensible merges. Talk pages are good for such discussions. And keep for the moment. Charles Matthews 19:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete - the article seems not usable at all. I agree that Japanese facism is a facinating topic, but whether this one is patent nonsense or not is a different matter. -- Taku 06:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. But I observe that those who voted for "delete" are mainly Japanese users. It is natural for Japanese to oppose to people who talk bad, or discuss about, about their own race, and this applies to all other races to those people who talk bad about, or discuss about their own race. Mr Tan 12:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Clean up and rename to Japan and Fascism as per top post (by RJH). Celestianpower 14:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep, cleanup, rename etc.
  Kappa
  21:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Enough is enough. The author of this article has been posting his original research papers on various rather minor topics of modern Japan. The majority of them ought to have been written into existing articles in the first place and do not merit independent namespaces. Yet he keeps making these little articles to show his research papers on Wikipedia possibly because he cannot incorporate his broken English texts into the tightly written existing articles. Every time his articles are put on VfD they will be greeted by "Keep, cleanup, merge" support votes. The fact of the matter is that although some native English-speaking members might clean up the English a little, few would bother to merge them into relevant articles.Hermeneus (talk) 03:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you say that? I have made many hundreds - probably well over 1000 - edits, directly working on these contributions. Including very many merges, for example into Japanese nationalism. You are just hypothesising. Charles Matthews
• Delete - Wikipedia expresses political slant and is sure that it is not what entraps a political opponent. --Maizuru 08:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment-I am are the some author of these texts.my name if Wellington Perez Ishikawajima,i proceded from Peru and stay in short times in central america area.i am poses japanese ancestors and knowed over contemporary political and military history and stay more prided of this history suceses. i am no poses oposers interests only present some historic suceses and some relates knowed for me thanks at my contact with japanese in country and some japanese sources or ancient books.i lamented why others japanese sensebad with this. i how your knowed poses short knowledge grammar and wirting english knowledge,no knowed well japanese and some poses depth know over spanish. reiterrally i am stay prided of own contemporary history and i leaved to foreing in next days...i am commisioned at one central american friend in use of myidentification in site for continuig of sending info,for why i am stay outside ofarea in nexts times.but always existing some persons why poses some troubles with history facts,i am no gained nothing in related lies or falsities,this if some historical facts,more less relationed with country of poses more prided in your history or i no poses any great imagination to composes some certain cyphers,dates or historical numbers or similar! reiterally if you liked Deleted or Preserved ,if decision of yours,i am only limited in present these sucesses.User(Wladk)
• Weak keep - I think the article itself needs to be changed, but the concept itself is alright. Thus if it can be re-written I am in favour of keeping. Will => talk 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - There should be a way of organizing this historical article. Merging it with other articles seems unsensible, as similiar articles exist for other countries as well as for other ideologies concerning Japan. 84.137.21.236 08:54, 24 Jun 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bloody Garden

Article claims that "Bloody Garden is a hardcore band from... Switzerland". Googling "Bloody Garden" + Switzerland returns 7 hits, none of which are pertinent. Googling "Bloody Garden" + hardcore returns 26 hits, none of which are pertinent. Non-notable, unverifiable bandcruft. jglc | t | c 13:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete it Brighterorange 15:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 17:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 06:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 06:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrea fraguas

Was originally gibberish and marked for speedy deletion. Whichever fool made the article original has now replaced it with what is clearly a joke of an essay. Regrettably, an essay usually has to go through the full VfD procedure. Can it still be speedied? Splash 13:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Darn it. I was the one who speedied it; This still has the marks of an obvious deletion. jglc | t | c 15:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all due haste. Personal essay. — RJH 15:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus, so Keep. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL June 30, 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Quantum sort

) 14:02, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

• No, I think SimonP was right on this one. There is a bunch of delete votes for it being patent nonsense, then someone adds a reference (The Jargon File, thanks to Josh Lee), then there are only keep votes. Verifiable nonsense isn't nonsense. Keep. Radiant_>|< 14:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an in-joke among computer science people. There are tens of thousands of non-notable injokes amongst computer science people. That does not make them all notable. --W(t) 14:26, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • I think SimonP was taking out this policy from the top section of the
    EatMyShortz
    10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's still nonsense. It's a joke from the Jargon file and has no place here. If an anon had created this hoax article, it would have been considered outright (stealth) vandalism, I think. Lupo 14:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This might want tying into
  Quantum suicide. Morwen - Talk
  14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in this quantum universe. Retain in all the others. ;-) — RJH 15:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Given
  • Klauck, Hartmut (2003). "Quantum time-space tradeoffs for sorting". Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. pp. 69–76.
  • Pagter, Jakob (1998). "Optimal Time-Space Trade-Offs for Sorting". Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, November 08-11. p. 265. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Høyer, Peter (2001). "Quantum complexities of ordered searching, sorting, and element distinctness". 28th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. pp. 62–73.
    Bibcode:2001quant.ph..2078H. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
• I suggest that if the consensus is not to keep this text, a redirect be made to quantum computing. I'm still looking for this type of quantum sort. Vote pending. Uncle G 18:10, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • I fail to see any reason why the term must redirect to a page where it is not explained, unless you copy the current content there, and here again I fail to see why. mikka (t) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The current content should not be merged to quantum computing, which is why I explicitly used the qualification of if the consensus is not to keep the current content. There is literature on sorting in quantum computing, as demonstrated, which is referenced from the "Further reading" section of quantum computing. Uncle G 00:29, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • BTW, in some Parallel World this article is already in wikipedia, so it is no harm to delete it in Our World. Surely the one who can use this algorithm can also find its description Over There. mikka (t) 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure that quantum computing will allow novel sorting algorithms, but this is just a joke. --Carnildo 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The algorithm is either useless or wrong. Not to say that the author badly misunderstood the jargon file idea (which has it own sibtle fallacy). In any case the topic is nonnotable. Faulty original research in its current form. google links lead mostly to irrelevant pages, most unexpected and hence funny one IMO being this one. mikka (t) 22:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. I went to some scientific talks on quantum computing and I can say that this is nonsense. An algorithm cannot take advantage of the multiple-universe theory, since we do not know of an experimentally way to test the multiple-universe hypothesis. Jitse Niesen 00:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep The contents of the article might be nonsense (or vastly over-simplified) but quantum sorting is a very important field of research. Pburka 02:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make sense. If the contents are nonsense, then what's the point of keeping the article? --Carnildo 03:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess I support having an article on Quantum Sort, but not necessarily this article. Changing my vote to weak delete. Pburka 03:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Standard Wikipedia policy is not to delete a page because it's content is unworthy. If you don't like what's inside an article, fix it up. Only vote delete if you don't think there should be an article on this at all. —
        EatMyShortz
        10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - First can I say I can't believe the fuss
  EatMyShortz
  07:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's already been voted on and kept. Useful to some.ToriaURU 10:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope, the result of the vote was delete. --W(t) 20:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Nope, the result of the vote, actually, was keep. This was decided by an administrator. I think you have to read your
    EatMyShortz 14:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) (PS. I wonder if there is actually some Double jeopardy
    precedent for articles?)
• Comment. What is your opinion on the following compromise: The current article is replaced by a stub like

"Quantum sorting algorithms are

quantum computer

. Quantum sorting algorithms are usually not faster than classical algorithms, except perhaps by a constant factor (Høyer, Neerbek and Shi). However, a speed-up can be achieved in space-bounded situations (Klauck)." + references as given by Uncle G.

I think this should be merged into

quantum computer, but if people want a separate article on quantum sorting, that is acceptable to me. Jitse Niesen

12:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. I'm all for an article on quantum sorting, my problem was just that the article in question wasn't it. --W(t) 20:21, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

• Keep and improve.  Grue  19:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article about a joke. Gazpacho 02:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to
  Quantum computer as a section, mentioning both the possible sort and the joke sort (and jargon ref). —Josh Lee
  03:50, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While it may be a joke in the computer science field, there are actually people working on similar and equally odd ideas. Might be better combined with Quantum computer than its own entry. --Jareth 04:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Pjacobi 12:35, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite into a real article. I disagree with the merge people because there is too much stuff in the quantum computing field to put it all into
  Quantum computer; e.g. just to mention then stuff I'm familiar with, there's a lot of work being done on crypto applications of quantum computing (both cryptanalysis and cryptography), and there's also quantum computer networking (based on the quantum cryptography stuff - you need to be able to ship the quantum entities around if quantum cryptography is to work). To the extent sort algorithms for quantum computers are a real research topic (and the list of papers above seems to suggest it is) then it deserves an article. PS: The stuff about the "many worlds" joke would be OK to keep as a brief mention lower down in the article. Noel (talk)
  17:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --CSTAR 03:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. - Sikon 10:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an

undeletion request

, if it does not; or below this section.