Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS myths and urban legends[edit]

Personal essay, highly POV, tagged disputed for a long time and no efforts to mediate or resolve have been successful. No references. The subject itself seems borderline encyclopedic, but the article is entirely not so. WP:ISNOT a soapbox nor is it a repository for original research. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The article is important and encyclopedic. VfD is not the place to complain about POV disputes. As far as I can see, this article desparately needs sources to resolve the disputes. Consider getting an administrator involved if things get nasty. Sdedeo 18:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article might need fixing (especially regarding NPOV) - but not beyond the point for deletion. --Hurricane111 21:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very very very strong keep! The subject of the article is extremely important: the discrepancy between what is known about HIV/AIDS by the scientific community and what is believed by the general public is enormous. And, while Senator Frist doesn't seem to know the difference, an encyclopedia has an obligation to make that distinction. Most of the points in the article ought to be unquestionably verifiable, as long as editors are willing to do a little legwork. The POV and technical issues (like where to say HIV and where to say AIDS) can be cleaned up, but this article needs to stay. I would, however, recommend a move (with an appropriate redirect) to Common misconceptions about HIV and AIDS or somesuch to avoid the informal (bordering on incorrect) usage of the terms "myth" and "urban legend". - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A move to such a page would be good. --Grcampbell 18:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would expect some urban myths and legends about HIV/AIDS to be strongly POV, we should be recording what those myths are, regardless of the strength of the POV those myths support. We could clearly state that on the page though. Alf 22:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Updated with some more myths/urban legends, seems a lot fuller now, and represents the mainline scientific consensus. --Grcampbell 23:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Has no original research --Grcampbell 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If you are going to lead into a statement with FACT:, you better be able to multi-source your data. I think it is an excellent informational article on an important topic, however, I have to agree with Ryan Delaney that it is not encyclopedic. I would like to see a re-write that includes COMPLTELE sources for ALL statements. If the source was Pasteur et al., 1864 it would be fine, however, most of the sources are difficult to confirm without full names, publications, etc. And does it have to look like an 11th grade health class pamphlet? -PlainSight 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added. --Grcampbell 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Change - KEEP - After format change and additional references. Nice work. -PlainSight 13:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify. --Apyule 04:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I want to see this fixed to encyclopedia standard, but the information in the article is solid, thorough, and worthwhile. A. J. Luxton 07:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep . Topic (title) is noteworthy. Manik Raina 07:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify - there are tons of authoritative sources for this material, someone just has to dig it out and update the article. I have friends at the Gay Men's Health Crisis in NYC, I will contact them and see if they can help- --Outlander 14:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of useful information, though it may need to be cleaned up NRS11 23:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep --Phroziac ^(talk) 02:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Topics and Virtues[edit]

(a) So far mainly contains biblical quotes, (b) Seems pretty redundant with Christianity, and possibly other topics, and (c) hopelessly ambitious given the general title Cheese Sandwich 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Selected quotes from any book - however popular - is not encyclopedic in itself | Celcius 01:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cheese Sandwich puts it perfectly. Hopelessly ambitious and redundant to pre-existing articles. I make no claim to being an expert in Christianity, but it would seem to this heathen that the Bible would contain Christian topics and virtues, at which point it would cease to be a WP article and become the Bible itself. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (agreeing with the 'heathen') normally I'd cut some slack on a construction site and say 'wait and see' but this is going nowhere fast. --Doc (?) 01:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Josh Cherry 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAmren 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; What anyone needs with an alphabetically organised abridged version of the bible is beyond me but I’m sure its beyond the scope of wikipedia — FlooK 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Way too vast and relavent info is already covered by Christianity. — Linnwood 05:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Spaltavian 05:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and FlooK. The title doesn't even describe the article properly; the topics included so far are biblical but not specifically Christian. --Metropolitan90 08:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this is a list of biblical quotes which don't neccesarily related to the article's title. Wikipedia isn't Wikiquote. Let's have this deleted before the creator puts any more work in it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Move to another wiki The author has certainly put hard work into this entry. It's not a bad wiki page, just not a good fit for Wikipedia. I encourage the author find a more appropriate wiki for this or to create his/her own wiki. Hessef 08:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless and original research. -- Ec5618 09:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Move to another wiki, The page is well written and might have better title as a list of..., people have obviously taken time and care over it and it would be a shame to just throw it away. If there's a suitable place in any other wiki I support moving it there. Alf 09:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tekana 11:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have categories for this. Fornadan (t) 13:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki, per Alf. Jdhowens90 13:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--KillerChihuahua 13:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per mathematics and God. Dunc|☺ 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WikiQuote, perhaps? - ulayiti (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page is not well written and contains no other material except bible quotes. Either move to wikiquote or delete. --Hurricane111 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason for this page. If it's supposed to be an index to Christian topics as the title suggest, it's not doing a good job of it even as a beginning. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless original research --tranquileye 14:02:04, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Gantz. - Mailer Diablo 05:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gantzs[edit]

This page should be deleted because the title is misspelled and there is an article more complete already with the right name (Gantz) JocPro 00:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Misspelled | Celcius 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amren 01:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gantz or delete. Jaxl | talk 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although we generally don't redirect mis-spellings pre-emptively, we generally do redirect mis-spellings where people have actually created articles. This is on the basis that if one editor has already made the spelling mistake and been so convinced of it as to create an article, others no doubt will do so in the future, and it is better to direct readers to the correct place than to go around this cycle again. If you see duplicate articles in the future, please refer to Wikipedia:duplicate articles instead of coming to VFD. Merge. Uncle G 03:07:00, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
Redirect: I agree with Jaxl’s above comments and it doesn’t look like there’s any detail to merge in — FlooK 04:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Uncle G. No merge needed. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to avoid future confusion and help those of us who are good at tpyos. Alf 09:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as common misspelling. - ulayiti (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opium Den[edit]

There is no such thing an album by this name released by a band called Tool, meaning that it is not an official release. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Unofficial release? I would need more info as I have no clue what that entails. It seems that all other releases by that band have articles though | Celcius 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The album is just a rare release (like a bootleg, etc.) and I do not think rare releases should be posted at this site. -- Mike Garcia | talk 01:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Vote pending~~ Delete. If I understand Mike Garcia correctly, then this album was put out by someone other than Tool or Tool's record label, and is essentially a glorified mixtape. Unless there is a claim to notability above and beyond that, I will vote to delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to delete in light of el Che's research. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote pending; I second Fernando with a Delete vote on stated premises | Celcius 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tool's official website doesn't list it (damn Flash) and this site[1] refers to it as a "bootleg" (near bottom).
It deserves a mention on the Tool (band) page, being so notable for a bootleg, but as a standalone I vote delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above research. Dottore So 05:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Fernando Rizo, this is basicly a "glorified mixtape" — Linnwood 05:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn fan compilation. the wub "?/!" 08:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's shown that the bootleg in itself is a valuable rarity in some fashion. Alf 09:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that should do it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add one more ;).Amren ^(talk) 00:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hohobans[edit]

Delete. Completely unverifiable; possible hoax. Wound up over at votes for undeletion, but in the interest of fairness, I've posted it here. - Lucky 6.9 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Well, "Kaput and Zosky" does serve up a fair amount (roughly 6k) of hits. Question is of course if it is a hoax or not. If not, I would vote keep based on the apparent popularity of the cartoon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Celsius (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-22 02:33:04
I got much the same thing, but nothing that combined with "Hohobans." "Kaput and Zosky" are all over the place and there's a fair-sized article here as well. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only hit for "Kaput and Zosky" hohobans is VfU. Niteowlneils 03:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not unverifiable, just as-yet unverified. It seems unlikely to me that a French cartoon would have such odd names (h is aspirated in French so I expect thathoho signifies a rather rare sound). I have noted the basic facts on the talk page of Kaput and Zösky so no factual information would be lost if this article were deleted. --05:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Dottore So 05:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Google or Yahoo search hits for Hohobans, and Hohoban hits don't have anything to do with this. Zoe 05:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The page contains claims about "Hohobans." The claims are unfortunately unreferenced. There is no actual verification of the existence of the Hohoban, much less any verificatory source that suggests notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP accepts stubs, but these have guidelines; WP is under no obligation to accept unreferenced, unverified claims, especially those which are in all likelihood hoaxes. Should a claim of authenticity be made via Tony Sidaway's [2] or Lucky's [3] posts on the related Talk pages, my vote to delete shall remain almost certainly unchanged; simply because something purpotedly exists should not by any means be taken to suggest it automatically deserves mention in an encyclopedia. That requires notability, as explained in WP:N and WP:V. Absent that standard, there is no basis for an encyclopedic article on the subject.—Encephalon | ^ζ 06:43:32, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
- Wow, Encephalon, that should be added to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy pages. Zoe 04:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - You're too kind, Zoe. In a way, I don't think anything needs to be added. It's already there.—Encephalon | ^ζ 15:58:33, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Members[edit]

Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. --152.91.9.131 02:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn, evil | Celcius 02:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pointless. Jaxl | talk 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this, along with the two below and the main paige TESForums, appear to be a failed attempt at a WikiProject. Merged into one article (and NPOVed and edited to be Wiki-propriate) they might make a legitimate article about TES. If it passes the notability test. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of members of a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to create membership rosters for their discussion forum. Delete. Uncle G 04:06:21, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Also, page has been blanked. — Linnwood 05:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unclear what whole "TES"/"TESF" thing is; probably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Threads[edit]

Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN --152.91.9.131 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn, evil | Celcius 02:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pointless. Jaxl | talk 02:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of external links to threads on a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to host bookmark pages for threads in their discussion forum that they find interesting. (Note that TESForums currently styles itself The Official TES Forums Wiki and links to a whole raft of these articles. Wikipedia is not a hosting service.) Delete. Uncle G 03:56:25, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G and add that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. -- DS1953 04:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, page also blanked. — Linnwood 05:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Is there a 'Wikinetforum' or similar. If there isn't I hope there will be, so this and numerous recent articles, which have no place here, have a place to be, there is obviously a perceived need by the posters of these articles. Alf 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a whole Wiki Science wikibook on how to set up and run one's own wiki, if that is what one wants to do. Uncle G 10:57:43, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
  - Thanks, I'll suggest that to the more competent looking posters of similar material, personally I have no interest whatsoever in them. Alf 21:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be part of the whole "TES"/"TESF" schmear (though which isn't even referenced); presumably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Optichan 19:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Acronyms[edit]

Delete Non-ecyclopedic --PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC) PhilipO 02:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn, evil | Celcius 02:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; pointless. Some of these "acronyms" have their own articles (ie. "1337 speak"). Jaxl | talk 02:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of in-jokes used on one particular discussion forum, and of general Internet slang. We already have coverage of the latter. Delete. Uncle G 03:54:06, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
Delete; nn — Linnwood 05:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Thatdog 08:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forum vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity -- Ec5618 09:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Blanked by creator. Only thing remains is VfD tag. -- WCFrancis 15:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unclear what whole "TES" thing is (and article doesn't say or reference); probably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. See also TESF Top50. Ben ^T/_C 09:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tuthill[edit]

Delete Non-notable? Google search turns up nothing PhilipO 02:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax. Dottore So 02:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN/Hoax --Camw 03:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- DS1953 04:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; per nominator — Linnwood 05:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, If he indeed operates the blog under the name of "Jack of Hearts" it would mean he's real and not a hoax, but if Google turns up nothing on his real name, he's not a notable author. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketboard[edit]

Take it from an old homemade-explosive expert, this is a load of hoo-ha. Potassium nitrate plus sugar gives an impressive pile of smoke but not serious thrust. The "physics" comments about diameter of truck wheels vs. terminal velocity are sheerly comedic in their seriousness. This is flat out foolish. Denni ☯ 02:37, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Delete; neologism | Celcius 02:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Seems like a vanity page for "Joseph Kaile" if you look at the External Links — Linnwood 05:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no problem with the concept of rocket powered skateboards as such, but this is just silly. --Apyule 05:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absurd. Spaltavian 06:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. Same website mentioned twice in the same section. Also for reasons as pointed out by Denni. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Comment page appears to have been created by a new user who hasn't as yet received a welcome message, can we check this when thinking of VfD and greet the user, explain what the issue is and see if they are co-operative, please. I'm going to greet the user and point them here. Alf 10:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - to somewhere. Way too much entertainment value to offhandedly delete! -PlainSight 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy merge. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nermal[edit]

Delete and redirect The information on the Nermal page is already on much larger Garfield page. Character may not have enough information to add ot make it worth giving it a seperate page. Should be deleted and redirect to Garfield, just like 'Odie' does. Boycottthecaf 02:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need to delete first. CanadianCaesar 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; | Celcius 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect. You definitely had the right idea, Boycottthecaf, but an article can't be redirected once it's deleted. A deletion removes the article space entirely, not just the content. In this case, just perform the merge and make the Nermal page into #REDIRECT [[Garfield]]. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You can delete and redirect, you can make a redirect out of a red link. But I don't think it's needed here. CanadianCaesar 02:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Potato, potatoh, CC. ;) Went ahead and did it for you. Edit the page for Nermal and you'll see what I did. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw it. The only reason I didn't redirect it myself is because I didn't see it until it went on VfD, and I'm not admin so I don't have authority to speedy redirect. CanadianCaesar 02:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - What They Say Ok, I was confused there. I just thought that it should automatically redirct to Garfield, just as what happens when you type in the term "Odie". Thanks. --Boycottthecaf 03:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Spears[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable band. Only hit for "Liquid Spears" "Monique Willemsen" is Wikipedia, and "Liquid Spears" doesn't fare much better. No allmusic.com listing. Niteowlneils 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 02:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn band vanity. Jaxl | talk 03:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Band Vanity WP:MUSIC — Linnwood 05:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Not notable enough, only one single released in Melbourne. Khanada 08:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. User:Zoe also wishes me to point out that there was no consensus, which I'm happy to do. Even taking into account some socking, there just isn't consensus to delete this. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Lunch Design[edit]

Delete Promotional? PhilipO 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it's promotional. It just says what it is. Tariq 02:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Vote by article creator. --PhilipO 05:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Seems ok | Celcius 03:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. 5,180 google results; may be notable enough. Jaxl | talk 04:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think Free Lunch want fome free advertising, Alexa rank of 125,136 --nixie 04:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Free advertising or not, I think Jaxl hunch is correct: nn. Dottore So 05:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...? I didn't say "nn". I voted weak keep. Jaxl | talk 14:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fine article. --Apyule 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TANSTAAFL. R adiant _>|< 10:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete --Agamemnon2 10:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are somewhat shorter entries on the Swedish and Polish wikis that don't seem to have attracted vfd's.

Admittedly commercial, but they do offer free downloads and have some positive comments made about them on Google. Dlyons493 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 14:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not more notable than the average small business. Just because they're on the web doesn't make them notable, unfortunately. Page is promotional. Sdedeo 16:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or maybe you want to make a donation: "For profit, they accept donations through PayPal. Also, if you wish, you can buy Johan Peitz a book from his wish list through Amazon." Absolutely advertising. Marskell 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Besides, any company who spells Alligator with an e ... Zoe 19:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. JDoorjam 22:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep immediately recognizable as the authors of Icy Tower. Grue 18:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BFD ;Bear 21:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

How come their game Icy Tower gets an article, but not the company it self. ALso, I am NOT the creator of the game. Tariq 00:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete nn. --tranquileye 14:04:50, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 06:43, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ScotWatch[edit]

Delete. A Yahoo! mailing list. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; nn | Celcius 03:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nominator — Linnwood 05:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable --Apyule 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. There's millions of similar groups. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tekana 11:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Group is genuine and will soon have a webpage
- Above comment added by User:Sandmountainslim.
Comment: Having a website soon is irrelevant, as is whether they're genuine or not. They're up for deletion because it's a one-in-a-million website with nothing to put them apart from millions of other Yahoo!Groups and websites. If a website or group is listed it should be notable (important, covered by a third party) and not contain advertising about the group in question (like mentioning admins, which is totally irrelevant and non-encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley family[edit]

No claim to notability. Martg76 03:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 03:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the writer's other contributions, my money's on the editor being a descendent of the Kerr family, making this article vanity. Delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dottore So 05:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Hugh Smiley which the article is mailnly about and note Smiley (disambiguation). Alf 10:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Syeed[edit]

Seems to be parts of two different articles. the one about Musa Syeed seems to be about a non-notable person -- exactly one google hit on "Musa Syeed" + Producer, 9 hits on "Musa Syeed"+film. Delete unless notability better established -- in any case cleanup. DES ^(talk) 03:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a sloppy cut-n-paste copyvio, though I can't find the source. --Calton | Talk 04:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, mostly because it reeks of copyvio, but the 2006 fulbright suggests he's a recent graduate (which reeks of vanity) and what he's done (so far) has been in the states, so i doubt a google search in arabic or under an alternative romanization would do turn up much more. Nateji77 04:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note Two other arts by the smae anon IP were tagged as copyvios. DES ^(talk) 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dottore So 05:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incoherent at best. The other guy mentioned, "Yoni Brook", isn't a bad photographer though - see e.g. [4] Dlyons493 12:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am one of the people mentioned in the entry, though I did not post it, nor do I know who did. I would appreciate its removal. above unsigned comment by User:Musas. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Mods[edit]

It's a Who's Who of the moderators a discussion forum. Wikipedia is not a resource for conducting business. It is not a place for discussion forum users to maintain membership rosters for their discussion forum. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:05:57, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Dottore So 05:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator — Linnwood 05:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Thatdog 08:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unclear what whole "TES"/"TESF" thing is; presumably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TESF Top50[edit]

It's a list of members of a discussion forum that post the most, with their posting counts. As the discussion forum members will continue to post, this information will be out of date as soon as it is written, and thus is both worthless and unverifiable. Moreover, this is part of a series of articles under the heading The Official TES Forums Wiki. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Uncle G 04:04:04, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Dottore So 05:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator — Linnwood 05:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Thatdog 08:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nominator. -- Ec5618 09:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unclear what whole "TES"/"TESF" thing is; presumably vanity. Page has since been blanked by creator. Steve Summit (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? if creator has blanked. Vegaswikian 05:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Ben ^T/_C 09:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted A7 (Geogre deleted "Xan Phillips" (Only says he used to be a videotape editor and now has a podcast: spam + vanity (click here!))) - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xan Phillips[edit]

Not notable. 474 Google and zero Alexa. Delete - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Makes no claim to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 10:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that User:Xanphillips (not entirely new but still very new) was second editor of the page and perhaps was the first, no-one has suggested he might have put up a 'user page' in the mainspace in error/ignorance and suggested he ask for it to be deleted himself. Alf 11:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pollard and Friends[edit]

For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pollard and Friends/2005-05-03.

Redelete: this page already went through VFD and was nuked. Hoax page about a UK Simpsons spin-off. Speediable? JDoorjam 04:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the same content, yes. CanadianCaesar 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Was deleted once before — Linnwood 05:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not the same content, but it remains pure speculation with no sources to verify its validity. (see this Google search) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for hoaxery. --Agamemnon2 10:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (songwriter)[edit]

nonnotable songwriter. IF his group is even notable, merge; else, delete (and somebody take out his group, too). JDoorjam 04:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He's not just the songwriter, as the article itself says. Both him and the band seem notable, but this is a pretty small stub. Merge. CanadianCaesar 07:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add stub, this needs lots of help but "martin smith delirious" in google turned up 89,600. Notable band, and Martin Smith has been interviewed by quite a few fairly notable media sources. He writes, plays guitar, piano, composes, does vocals - this is all from scanning the google hit page, not even following any links or going to page 2. --KillerChihuahua 14:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't Christian rock an oxymoron? Anyway, band at least a probably worth keeping, so redirect at most. --zippedmartin 21:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was discussion aborted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination). --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ExamDiff[edit]

Re-opening abbreviated VfD. Original vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff.
Abstain. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for this program on download.com, which is a major distributor of freeware programs such as this one, it shows that it has about 120k downloads. It has also been reviewed by the CNET editors on the same site. Absent a really good set of objective criteria for determining notability of software, I think that's probably enough to justify a keep. ESkog 22:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh danahay[edit]

junk/vanity/non-sense Rkevins82 - TALK 05:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. (see text). Since when are VFD candidates blanked? I've come across several of those today. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus Travel[edit]

This looks like an ad. Compare copy with their web site ;Bear 05:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising. --Apyule 06:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. --maclean25 06:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated Ebookers (VfD Debate here), which had a very similar article to this Octopus Travel, except it was created by User:Ebookers and had a picture of the website's main page. It survived with 'no consensus'. --maclean25 06:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we pillory that one again? ;Bear 18:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone cleaned it up shortly after this nomination was made and my comment/link brought attention to it. --maclean25 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but an advert. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badvertisement. Alf 11:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --tranquileye 14:05:58, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously an ad as written (though could be rewritten with NPOV ...presuming octopus travel is notable enough for an entry, which I doubt) Wandering oojah 14:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK82[edit]

Not notable. Delete. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable genre. Kappa 05:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm happy to change my vote if given evidence of notability. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kappa. --Apyule 06:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for nn. Incoherent. --Agamemnon2 10:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hardcore punk (changed from reserved pending further). Excuse my possible ignorance here, how is this different from Hardcore punk? If it's the same (as I think it is) I'll be voting 'redirect'. Alf 11:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hrrrrmmmm. Kind of a notable thing ("UK 82", a better title, gets something like 15,000 hits. I can't tell how many are this; clearly many are not) but an awful article. It is also a song by The Exploited. Needs serious cleanup, to the point where it should be deleted if it doesn't get it. I don't have time now, but I'll take a pass at it if no one else does before VfD closure. -R. fiend 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been cleaned a bit so keep or merge, see below. -R. fiend 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge or redirect to punk music, or the like, but for now, yeeeeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and vote Delete. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:Kappa. - ulayiti (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this term in use, but it might be too peripheral for having its own article. Punkmorten 20:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete imaginary music genres. As usual, none of the band articles to which this links uses this term to describe the band's style. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not imaginary; nor is it a neologism, as the term existed in the 80's. It's not a genre so much as a specific group of bands, sort of like the 60's British invasion, but much more obscure. "UK 82" punk gets 631 google hits, and "UK82" punk gets 529 more. Not tons, but a fair number. The article's been cleaned up a bit, but if it's not expanded it should probably be merged and redirected somewhere. Maybe hardcore punk. And by the way, the Charged GBH article does specify them as UK 82, and has for more than a year. Anyway, if kept move to UK 82. -R. fiend 21:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wahoofive. Nandesuka 12:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gooley[edit]

Delete Dubious value? PhilipO 06:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DOn't Delete I am interested in this topic fuck off Philip 06:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Unsigned vote by article creator at 203.23.90.12 [reply]
Delete, no encyclopedic value. And personal attacks aren't necessary. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JIP. DES ^(talk) 06:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ill delete you Mr JIP mr im so good well i tell u wat mr JIP ill get my good friend mr black to crush you and your stupid smarthead Unsigned comment by User:203.23.90.12 DES ^(talk) 06:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as per JIP. --Apyule 07:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, last names belong in Wiktionary, but without sources to its Malaysian origin, this is dubious at best. I couldn't find any references to James Gooley either. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for nn and author trolling. --Agamemnon2 10:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was intitally going suggest disambiguate but a look at this makes it hard to believe anything this editor had added. Alf 12:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Other edits from this IP address include personal attacks and vandalism. The IP address is one of the series assigned to St. Josephs College - Hunters Hill in Australia. -- WCFrancis 15:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dottore So 18:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban author's IP for a substantial history of vandalism in addition to his trolling on this vfd. JDoorjam 22:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- URL fixed. — JIP | Talk 04:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Optichan 19:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --23:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In a world[edit]

Delete Non-encyclopedic PhilipO 06:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete absolutely Non-encyclopedic. Doesn't quite qualify for a speedy, but i wish it did. DES ^(talk) 06:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One sentence, and bsolutely nothing further to say about the subject. Isomorphic 06:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DESiegel and that wikipedia is not a list of phrases. --Apyule 07:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than a dicdef. ManoaChild 08:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less than a sub-substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for inanity. --Agamemnon2 10:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete second inanity, second wishing it qualified for speedy. --KillerChihuahua 14:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. But this could absolutely be a legitimate article. I may even rewrite the article just to spite the deletionists. :) (Although the title should probably be something like "In a world where...".) RADICALBENDER★ 14:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I can't of anything to include in such an article. What would you include if you ever rewrote it? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
In a world where Wikipedia was a collection of catch phrases, this article would not deserve to be deleted. Sdedeo 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Don LaFontaine or Trailer (movie). Caerwine Caerwine 17:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 05:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liesl Jobson[edit]

Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Circa 500 hits on Google. PhilipO 06:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Appears to be an award winning poet, which at least establishes more notability than being a teacher. I don't know how great an honor those awards are though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep also, this editor has done quite a bit of editing on poets contribs list will welcome and attempt to persuade to register. Alf 12:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that this article was nominated for deletion one minute after it was created. In general, it is best to wait a little bit longer than that before slapping on the VFD tag. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone who can write [5] must be notable. Also I wouldn't dare vote against a S. African policewoman :-) Dlyons493 12:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for goodness sake, it needs wikifying and work but she won the Poet for Timbila 2004 as well as other awards, she's published, looks notable to me. --KillerChihuahua 14:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy (i.e. Delete). Lacks notability. Although I welcome her wikipedia contributions, that does not entitle her to an article in the main space. Poetry competitions are two a penny. The JPS 15:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that those 500 hits seem to be about her and not promotional or duplicates (edit: and not just mailing list posts or blogs), I think 500 hits is fairly notable. While the article could use wikifying and editing, I think it also makes her notability fairly clear. I think User:The JPS's implication that it is written by Liesl Jobson is incorrect, or at least unproven; this IP has done significant work on several South African poets. --Prosfilaes 03:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and please wait more than one minute before erasing things here Yuckfoo 19:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Early keep. Totally rewritten. No more dicdef. mikka (t) 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koleda[edit]

*Delete. dicdef MCB 07:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (And refer creator to Wiktionary.) - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even sure if this really qualifies for transiki to Wiktionary. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep now expanded, please take another look. --Irpen 18:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
keep. It is actually a new article. mikka (t) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It is important part of East Slavic heritage. --Ghirlandajo 18:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For deletionists I would advise to learn how to use google. mikka (t) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion votes, including my nomination, were based on a 1-line article, not the one up now. MCB 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been nicely expanded; I withdraw my nomination. MCB 18:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Ghirlandajo. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 19:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean whisler[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hunt down, give a good talking to, then Delete The JPS 15:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumpresto[edit]

Vanity and advertisement. Seems non-notable, and refers to website for any actual information. Uppland 07:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment new user, hadn't been welcomed, have done so now and pointed them here, have suggested some of the info more approp. to user page in non-advert form. Alf 12:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati X[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a clue what this is. It appears to be a fictional accounting of a large scale gang war of some kind. It's not encyclopedic, appears to make no distinction between fantasy and reality and cites no sources. In a Google search for "Illuminati X", I could find no results that were relevent to this. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This is not a fictional account of a large scale gang war. That would make for an interesting book though. This is an actual account of a massive multiplayer online game. While I should be the first to say that this is not your normal history, it is in fact a history of a sort. And with a player base of around 50,000 people this would give them the opportunity to visit Wikipedia and to enjoy something of interest to themselves. Thankyou for considering not deleting this peice of online history.

Delete, please note that Wikipedia is not a hosting service. If you indeed have a base 50,000 regular players, a condensed article on the game itself might be useful at Illuminati X, but this is not the place to put a summary or account of an RPG game's history. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN definitely. I mean come on:

"Peace during the Elitez Gangbang" "Illuminati Victory in the First Ivy League War" "Emergence of the Bots and the NATO War" Those titles had me gut-laughing! My advise to Robert Pierce is to set this shit up on your own homepage or something, and at most include that there was a massive MMOPG battle feat. 50k people here on Wiki, the total breakdown and prose is unneeded though. -Wiffle0rz 09:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Yo Pierce, I just wanted to say I wasnt laughing at the necessary nature of the game or whatever, just the interesting randomness of the events "Emergence of The Bots..." etc. Also I wasnt trying to criticize you or anything, I play MMOPG's and I think the battles are f'in dope I just meant to say that you should edit the article so that it talks about how you had a huge war in your game, talk about what game, how many participated, who participated, the significance etc. If you do that you will get a Keep vote from me and probably others too, atm this is too personal, and personal research-ish to stay on here my man, it wont fly with the others. I just meant to give advice and not hate or sound hostile, readin my comment I can see how that might be interpreted but it wasnt my intention dude, sorry. Keep it wiki! -Wiffle0rz 09:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unquestionably, unmercilessly, unprocrastrinatedly. --Agamemnon2 10:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to put your game reports. If the author can establish the game's notability, a very condensed version could be kept. Fornadan (t) 13:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 13:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft Usrnme h8er 13:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is some of the most overgrown cruft I've ever seen. --Several Times 15:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WarCruft. JDoorjam 22:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was worth a try.

Delete - very strong respect for your dedication and attention to detail...But, dude, get a girlfriend! -PlainSight 03:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I strongly agree with PlainSight. Do something more productive with that brain capacity, and get busy finding a cure for cancer! Croat Canuck 03:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They found the cure to cancer.... well only breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer, and ovarian cancer.... its a common virus... it was on CNN about a month ago. RX something..... its going through FDA testing at the moment to be put on the general market. The virus by itself does not kill regular cells, only the cancer cells, but in conjunction with another virus it can cause regular cells to die.

Delete - Well, I feel like less of a person for having read this article. The spewing forth of such ignorance has no place on Wikipedia. Boothcat4320 18:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Don't delete.. its an underground hip-hop movement, as it was CLEARLY stated in the page. Wow. Zeus93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.45.176 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rivaji[edit]

133 Google hits for name. Sample from text shows obvious self-promotion: "Rivaji is not new to politics and Congress. he is a born Congressman." delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching on the pseudonym or the real name only finds web board rants. Vanity or a hoax. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As somebody from the same part of the world, definitely a vanity page. --Botsie 13:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- for above reasons. --Bhadani 14:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tintin 08:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Academy of Dance, Pacific Rim Performing Arts Studios[edit]

Looks like self-promotion for a local business offering dance classes since 1966 in a town (Tsawwassen, British Columbia) with a population of 25,000. See also links from 56th Street. Uppland 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and wikipedia is not an advertising agency. The JPS 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPS. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Daddy[edit]

This is either 1. Totally Fake or 2. Real and thereby so flagrantly homosexual we can not alow this shit to stay and must delete it at once. Wiffle0rz 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's hoaxy allright, but homosexuality has nothing to do with it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't recall seeing Wikipedia is not gay on WP:NOT. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Agamemnon2 10:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find plenty of references in hip hop songs, but none relating to an individual fitting the description. Wiffle0rz, please be succinct in your nominations, "Hoax" would have been sufficient, looking back through the history of the page I cannot find anything that is flagrantly homosexual (even if I did, I'm ok with that, provided its NPOV), IMO referring to it as you did, is uncalled for. Alf 13:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with Alf's final comment. The JPS 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and there should be a speedy criterion for these. - ulayiti (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WifflOrz, keep profanity and homophobia to yourself. JDoorjam 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian National Congress - IT Cell[edit]

This article doesn't shed light into the affiliated organization's significance. Google results for "Indian National Congress" and "IT Cell" total 64. Article created by an officier that started a vanity article for himself. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- is a department within an organisation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Either vanity, a hoax, or nn. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I also agree with all the above reasons. Please also see Rivaji. --Bhadani 14:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable department in a notable organisation. --Botsie 16:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

i agree - page should be deleted its not from a neutral POV and does not give much information Vino s 19:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +5/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thwog[edit]

Non-notable joke religion (Thwog returns 9 hits on Google if you exclude it's own site, all false positives by my count.). I was tempted to list it on speedy, but I'm not sure it would fit any criterea, anyway to quote the creed of Thwong: "Creation Is An Accident of Thwog.", I think that pretty much sums up this article. Delete Sherool 09:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hardly a notable internet meme. Appears to be a platform to promote the religion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete not even worthy of BJAODN. --KillerChihuahua 14:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creation was clearly an accident of Thwog. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many reasons, plus copyvio. --Apyule 03:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aparant[edit]

Vanity/linkspam for a non-notable group that gets one Google hit and no Alexa rank. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promo =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: +3/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:59, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda Abreu[edit]

She used to sing in a band and is now solo. I could find no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC, however (I did find some googles in Spanish but I can't read that). Notable or not able? R adiant _>|< 09:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I thought my Spanish was going to come in handy here, but she appears to be a Brazilian artist; those Google hits are Portuguese. Punting this one to a Portuguese speaker. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't seam to be an hoax. links [6] and [7] give a short bio of an rather unimportant but existing singer of group for children. -Mariano 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many "unimportant but existing singer[s] of group for children". Admirable, but not notable enough for a wikipedia article. The article is far too vague anyway. The JPS 15:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, existence is not notability. Zoe 19:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Strong and speedy keep -- googling returns 32,000 hits which mostly seem pertinent, and she has ~~three~~ seven CDs at Amazon.com -- honestly guys, did you search at all here? JDoorjam 21:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Allmusic.com has an article on cliaming she is a popular funk singer in Brazil see[8]. The number of Google hits appears to bear this out. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will change my vote if this additional research is added to the article. Zoe 04:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep in light of recent evidence. I would like the closing admin to add this info if no one else does. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I nominate Speedy Keep; lets remove this from VfD. Dottore So 17:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The article as it now stands does not allege notability, and people who claim she is notable can't be bothered to change the article to make her notable. My vote still stands. Zoe 22:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Fat Get Thin[edit]

Delete. A joke most likely.Marskell 10:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, surely?Grayum 10:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 10:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've seen an article on a diet based on the film Supersize Me causing people to actually lose weight, but this is complete nonsense with a marketing title. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy pointless article Tekana 11:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments only: all books printed are perhaps not notable to qualify for encyclopedic entries. I am not aware of the notability of this book or its writer. --Bhadani 14:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It appears, from a search, to be moderately well-known within its field. Weak Keep. Uncle G 10:22:29, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Has anyone heard the theory that about half of published books in NA deal either with religion or dieting? This may be moderately well-known but I think we need a relatively high bar for diet books because a) its hard to distinguish them from ads b) the sheer volume of such material means notability is difficult to prove. Still delete tho the page looks better. Marskell 10:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

week keap. I'm hungry. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnitch:gnitch[edit]

Two-piece experimental band from Australia. Fails WP:MUSIC. R adiant _>|< 09:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity and publicity. The JPS 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far, this band has released one album called Ahola Aloha Loaha with 100 copies made. On the other hand, they have played live gigs around Australia and have attracted some interest in the underground media see [9] snd Music Australia has them listed. [10]. They don't meet WP:Music as yet as far as I can tell but they might in the future. Capitalistroadster 18:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:delete. NNBV. JDoorjam 22:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

GardenGuideWiki[edit]

A wiki about gardening. 32 googles. R adiant _>|< 09:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete and a substub at that. I doubt it's notable enough with 32 google hits, but don't we have a list of such wikis? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per mgm. --Phroziac ^(talk) 00:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable enough, yet; but if we do have such a list, put it on that. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Petch[edit]

The article is kind of messy, but it appears to be a summary of the research paper of two people about material slippage. WP:NOR comes to mind. Also, the article claims to be copyrighted, which is kind of odd. R adiant _>|< 10:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Most of the article reads like an abstract for a published paper. This is much too specialized to be considered encyclopedic. ManoaChild 10:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they investigated the properties of a substance with a copyright label (shouldn't those be trademarked instead?) Anyway, abstracts to scientific papers don't belong here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete Original Research - see Google Scholar [11] Dlyons493 13:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I still don't know whether the title title refers to the researchers (guess 1), the name of the 'effect' (guess 2) or the name of the research project (guess 3). Alf 14:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it as copyvio. Guess the people who dumped it on WP won't be coming back to rephrase their abstract (dating back to the year 2000), but just in case: Delete, original research. --DrTorstenHenning 11:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Dudley[edit]

Wife to a 17th century settler. Article lists her children and says nothing much else; WP:NOT a genealogy database. R adiant _>|< 10:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

And while Thomas Dudley appears to be a notable magistrate, Samuel Dudley seems to be as non-notable as Dorothy. Delete as non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per MacGyverMagic, I really can't think of a reason to keep it. Alf 14:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Sliggy 17:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as blatant vanity per CSD #A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Miikka Kuisma[edit]

Obvious vanity. About as notable as my left foot. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedied it under the blatant vanity provision (without asserted notability) in the speedy deletion criteria. BTW I'm sure your right foot is far more notable, JIP. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Been merged, therefore I must redirect per GFDL. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mary[edit]

Appears to be an awful minor character in Pokemon with little to say about. I vote delete unless there's a list of minor characters I don't know about in which case, I'd agree to a merge. (Was incorrectly tagged as a speedy because a lack of context) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete cruft. Martg76 13:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, awfully small character. feydey 16:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the appropriate Pokemon article - WP:NOT paper. - ulayiti (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere or keep, no reason not to share this facet of the pokemon universe. Kappa 22:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has been merged into Goldenrod City, from where she hails. 82.210.117.215 11:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable. Optichan 17:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Keevey[edit]

Was originally unformatted and signed by anon contributor. It was also tagged as speedy vanity, but I believe the Young Scientist Exhibition mention may be an attempt at assertion of notability. Still delete because I don't think entering or even winning that competition is notable enough in itself. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity.--nixie 13:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we going to list everyone who wins a minor science prize? Vanity. I put up the original speed delete. CambridgeBayWeather 13:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it to VFD, because claiming that win is obviously an assertion to notability and I didn't know how big the competition was. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Maybe we'll see him again after a bit more work beyond his years. Alf 14:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 eligible surely. Dottore So 17:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was article significantly altered since listing, discussion no longer necessary. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gale[edit]

I doubt the popularity (read: notability) of this popular American country singer. He seems to have left neither a trace on Google (unlike the British author of the same name), nor will amazon.com sell any CDs of his. nn-bio. Unverifiable. No context. I'm almost inclined to speedying it, but for the time being, I'll be satisfied with ~~Delete~~. --DrTorstenHenning 11:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new article. --DrTorstenHenning 07:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by new article. The text has now been replaced by a stub article about the notable British author of the same name, who is the primary source of Google hits for this name. I hope this closes this VfD. -- Karada 11:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new article, works for me, thanks Karada. Alf 14:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Karada's stub about British author. BTW, the VfD template has been removed - is this vote over. I have no problem if it is as the author is clearly a notable one who has been writing books for twenty years. Capitalistroadster 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the British author stub. If enough people vote to remove this from vfd now I have no problem closing this discussion as is. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh![edit]

Merge with Made-up words in The Simpsons. Do we have articles like Kwyjibo or BBBQ? No we don't. --MicroFeet 11:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here in the Netherlands (at least where I am), the phrase is commonly used by young people in every day life. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --zippedmartin 13:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a remarkably notable made-up word from The Simpsons. Kwyjibo and BBBQ are both one-scene one-episode jokes, and that's why they're in the uber-merged article. It'd be like merging Mt. Rushmore into List of mountains in South Dakota -- Plutor 13:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not suitable for an entire article of its own. Maybe merge parts with Made-up words in The Simpsons, and transwiki parts to Wiktionary. Jdhowens90 13:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one, but not Kwyjibo or BBBQ. Dunc|☺ 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Plutor; "D'oh" is in the OED. — Lomn | Talk 14:38:41, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
Keep — Very well known expression. — RJH 15:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a major impact on our culture, now in common usage and really doesn't compare to any of the other Simpson made up words. It's a good article in itself, an informative read, I like it. Alf 15:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, and transwiki to wikitionary (if not already there). Keep as a redirect, tho' The JPS 15:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well written, notable phrase (as listed above) --IByte 15:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alf. Christy747 15:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- part of the language now, and a nicely encyclopedic article. Steve Summit (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. --R.Koot 16:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, highly notable word now despite its origins.Gateman1997 17:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When something like this makes the Oxford English dictionary, it's a keeper on Wikipedia. - Lucky 6.9 19:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, extremely notable. By the way, VfD is not the place to suggest a merge. - ulayiti (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well known word with Simpsons origins. Capitalistroadster 19:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valuable article. Punkmorten 20:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable expression. And VfDs aren't the place to nominate things for merging. Nothing gets deleted when you merge. CanadianCaesar 22:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable expression/catchphrase. 23skidoo 00:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alf. --Apyule 03:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please about a million hits on google tooo Yuckfoo 19:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this has got to be one of the most notable things to derive from "The Simpsons". Vashti 19:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 05:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuktem[edit]

Originally tagged as speedy, but being the first in a large region to provide wireless internet to students, would make a university notable in my opinion. Abstain unless independently verified. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep this notable university, adding a {{disputed-or-something}} and {{asian-univ-or-something-stub}} to encourage facts checking & adding. -- Zanaq 18:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It exists, and as such I see no reason to delete. - ulayiti (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Institution of tertiary education. Keep and move to the official English name of the institution. I tried to do something about the article before, but the website was almost impossible to get to. Uppland 21:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have small schools and colleges in the US on this site, why can't we have Malaysian universities, unless we are being ethnocentric... --Grcampbell 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Synapseboy[edit]

Unverifiable, at best. Sietse 11:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, blatant speculation. Besides, nicknames should be listed in the article titled by their real name, or be redirects. Having a stub for each nickname is useless. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete would have suggested a merge to the man's own page, but he either doesn't have one or I haven't searched long enough for it. Alf 15:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MGM. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icewind[edit]

Non-notable band. Al 12:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad[edit]

A college kid. He is a friend of mine but I don't think he warrants an entry into Wikipedia. __earth 12:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - gets over 14,000 Google hits. - ulayiti (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to delete after reading comment by Sdedeo below. I should have looked more carefully. - ulayiti (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ulayti, you may want to regoogle and reconsider your vote. Note that google actually only displays 54 results [12]; the rest for the 14,000 articles are duplicates. Sdedeo 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 54 google hits is over 1/3 of wikipedia's 184 [13]. Kappa 22:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Woah... I just googled myself and I get 174 results. Should I be on wikipedia too? Weird google! Sdedeo 02:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we need a bit more information before we can answer that. Kappa 02:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever, man, I am almost as famous as wikipedia! Don't take that away from me! Sdedeo 02:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get 184... I'm more famous than you! :) - ulayiti (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete does my vote count? __earth 08:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Earth, your vote should count; you've been participating in Wikipedia for quite a while and have over 1200 article edits. Of course, an unethical or sloppy admin could decide to ignore your vote. But on the whole, most admins act in good faith. Nandesuka 12:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 17:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DBZonPS2[edit]

Not notable web forum, Alexa: 379,797. Also vanity and promotion feydey 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, website and forum advertising. With DBZ being so popular there's fansites with a far more respectable ranking. Also, listing forum moderators and members is a big no-no. Maybe we should mention that somewhere, I've seen too much of that type of articles today. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Lets hope someone starts Wikinetforums soon, as I've previously stated. Alf 17:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlueAirNews[edit]

Article appears to be spam. Written by User:Blueairnews. NSR (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website/linkspam. --DrTorstenHenning 13:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see above comment for DBZ forum. Alf 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trisine Lattice[edit]

original research. Appears to exist only in the one old (unpublished) preprint referred to in the text. Salsb 12:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original "research", exists only in the completely unrefereed arXiv.org (14 revisions since 1999). --DrTorstenHenning 13:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per DrTorstenHenning Dlyons493 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely OR, anyone can post to arXiv.org, but that doesn't meant it gets into a journal. And this hasn't. --Etacar11 01:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Headwound[edit]

Non-notable band. Al 12:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substub promotion for external link. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Which means delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity substub. --Etacar11 01:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koldfusion[edit]

Right, this is a fun one. I'd never heard of a band called Koldfusion despite knowing the Oxford music scene pretty well, so resorted to the dreaded google. Only music related hits I got were for 'Kold Fusion' - who have a stubby allmusic page and one electronica/dance EP release, on the orchard. So, in short:
- Koldfusion seem to fail WP:MUSIC
- Kold Fusion also seem to fail WP:MUSIC, having only one release on a 'digital label'
Any questions? --zippedmartin 12:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proof of cult following is presented Fornadan (t) 13:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blankbabied[edit]

Neologism. Kelly Martin 13:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator.--nixie 13:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. DES ^(talk) 14:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Delete, delete, delete. --Several Times 14:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 14:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If I felt that this article was speediable, I would have done so. It's not, and I didn't. It's a credible claim of some bit of net.culture, which is an area I know not enough about to decide whether it's encyclopedic or not. It certainly doesn't appear to be nonsense to me, at least not in the definition of nonsense that we use. So let's not call it nonsense, ok? Kelly Martin 17:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 05:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Mitzvah Boy[edit]

There's nothing here that isn't already on the main Play for Today page already. I can't expand it myself as I've sadly not seen this Play for Today, and the stub seems to have been up for two weeks without anybody else being able to come along and expand it either. Angmering 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two weeks is no time at all. Osomec 14:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. — Well according to the Play for Today page, this was one of the more "famous" plays on that series. Based on a google search ("Bar Mitzvah Boy" AND BBC) it appears to be notable. There's even a musical based on the TV show. — RJH 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the radio series running that long, there must be someone who can expand this into something more meaningful. Alf 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 's a Jack Rosenthal drama isn't it? Those certainly all deserve articles at some point. --zippedmartin 19:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Cohen[edit]

Vanity Page - nothing to see here. Benjamin Gatti 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Emeritus professor, but does need a lot more to make it a good article. Alf 17:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This needs a lot more to make it a good stub. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be expanded into an encyclopedia article Dlyons493 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~I guess I go with Redirect to Bernard Cohen (disambiguation). Really nothing more on this page than on that one. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]
- After expansion, Keep. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the chap who in a televised debate offered to eat on-camera as much plutonium oxide as Ralph Nader could eat of caffeine. He compared the risks of such exposure to the risks associated with a six month vacation in Denver and to the risks of the average WWI draftee. A bit of a self-publicist, but at the time a self-publicising tenured professor at the University of Pittsburgh. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems notable enough. Keep as per Tony Sidaway, if the article has been expanded by the time the VfD is closed. Uppland 21:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely delete -- completely non-notable one-time attention-getter. This is a fifteen-minutes-of-famer whose fifteen weren't that important. Do you know how many tenured professors there are in the United States? Sheesh. JDoorjam 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why isn't fifteen minutes of fame enough? He's notable enough that he might show up in a history book. We've got minor actors galor, why not a tenured professor that reached national notability, if only briefly?--Prosfilaes 04:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had fifteen minutes of fame. Kappa 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This listing is partly my fault, and I apologise. I left it as a minimal stub, thinking wrongly that Professor Emeritus would be sufficient proof of notability, which in Australia it possibly is, but in the US people we would call Senior Lecturer or Associate Professor seem to be able to use this title automatically after retirement, so in hindsight what I left was a deletable sub-stub. I then got involved in NPOV discussions and didn't get back to expand it, but others now have (thank you). Cohen is very well known for his pro-nuclear activities, we've even heard of him in Australia. His 1990 book The Nuclear Energy Option doesn't sell very well largely because he has made the full text of it available online, but it does sell. Andrewa 06:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tony Sidaway, above.--Nicodemus75 06:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article gives relevant info. Could be also used for the discussion in the nuclear power phase-out article. Ben ^T/_C 07:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Passes the average college professor test. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Lord Voldemort on all points. Benjamin Gatti
- Comment: This is of course a change of vote by the page's nominator, leaving only one delete vote currently outstanding although that one is an absolute delete, which I assume is even stronger than a strong delete. I think I should also point out that as I am not Professor Cohen, this wasn't ever a vanity page. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Or rather, a change in content of the article, good work, and yeah I agree, the page has been saved. Benjamin Gatti
    - Comment: There doesn't seem to have been much doubt that it would be kept. I'm a bit surprised at your mistaking this for a vanity page, as you seem to have an active interest in the particular debate in which Cohen is prominent. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: I am interested, but without content, I found the page of no use. It needed to shape up or ship out. I learned something about him - no idea he offered to swallow plutonium. I wonder if he offered to live in Chernobyl? I wonder if he offered to adopt irradiated children orphaned by Chrnobyl? I wonder if his antics weren't merely sensational? As for Vanity, i think a page which serves no more purpose than a business card is a vanity page whether self-promoting or not - if i'm wrong about that - i'd be happy to use a different word. Benjamin Gatti 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Chernobyl has nothing to do with missions to Neptune that need plutonium-based power cores. Surely countering false claims about a material's danger is more than just sensational? --Prosfilaes 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Hall Monitor 19:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (again). -- RHaworth 06:17:42, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Left Overtures (reprise)[edit]

This should maybe be a speedy, as it was almost unanimously VfDed before, but the content might be substantially different now. The guy who recreated it was, I believe, the same guy who wrote the original article, and a complete ass during the last VfD. -R. fiend 14:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ronnie James Dio, Ted Nugent, and Kansas all shop there when in town. And R fiend calling someone an ass is like Elton John calling someone gay. --Boycottthecaf 17:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been updated. Hope that makes you happy, poopheads. --Boycottthecaf 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability; author should explain what is notable about the store. Sdedeo 14:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The award winning barbershop next door seems to to have more of a claim to notability. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the article about this shop was nicely written though, but I wouldn't want every second hand record shop which had a large collection of n to be in the encylopedia. Alf 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn store. Could be speedy deleted since this recreation is almost identical to the original article, including the long, irrelevant letter and the misspelling of "boasts". Zoe 19:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- If that's true I'll tag it for speedy and see what happens. -R. fiend 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability claim unverifiable. -- Schaefer 05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, with no rewrite. -Splash 05:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom bond[edit]

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ditto, but nice painting though. Karmafist 15:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reserved I'd really quite like to keep this one, it mentions his works hanging in galleries, if anyone can state a known gallery, that'll do it for me, the guy obviously has talent and I would say the claims of being a master watercolourist are probably jusitified. Alf 17:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just hanging in a gallery is not notability. Anybody can do that. Zoe 19:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - I am living disproof of that statement. Meelar (talk) 21:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

*Assert notability quickly, or delete. JDoorjam 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm struggling with this one, too. I was able to find two online art galleries that sell his originals and prints, some for up to $1,800. -PlainSight 03:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This appears similar to "vanity pressing" of a book. One demonstration of notability would be a review of a show (or a mention by name in a group show) in news media or notable arts media. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reserved This is hard, and having a common name doesn't help either, but the article seems to be a copyvio from http://www.pressellergallery.com/tom_bond.htm. --Apyule 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are promotional text copyrighted? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio. Tagged and bagged. JDoorjam 13:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UG Madness[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. Gets 861 Ghits...but most of them aren't even talking about the comic. Several Times 14:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death to all webcomiccruft. - ulayiti (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Several Times. Dragonfiend 01:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hristijan[edit]

Non-notable biography PubLife 14:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Initially, I added a nn-bio speedy tag to this, which the author removed and added some information about his appearance with 10 others on a Macedonian TV show as a child. Hence, the appearance here. PubLife 15:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. :( --Phroziac ^(talk) 01:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

56th Street[edit]

Which 56th Street is this, you ask? Why, the one in Tsawwassen, British Columbia, of course! I mean, there aren't any other 56th Streets, are there? What we have here is a streetcruft article filled with a painful amount of trivia (including notes on where traffic lights are) on a road in a minor suburb. Mention a little of it in the Tsawwassen article, but this is ridiculous. I believe even the most inclusive guidelines for road articles don't include things like this. -R. fiend 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's incredibly comprehensive, but per R. fiend, we don't really need it. --Several Times 15:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? 56th Street was where Brad and Jimmy from the highly talented and influential Nobody (band) (currently signed to CD-R Records Ltd) got their idea for Yet Another Student Critique of Capitalism. (Yes, delete) The JPS 15:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia notable road, we had similar issues over streets in west tulsa. Klonimus 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But they were deleted. -R. fiend 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly why is this road notable? The article does not have any encyclopaedic content. The JPS 17:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is not a notable road. Maybe include a blurb about it in Highway 17 or 99.Gateman1997 17:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but Move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia and Don't Redirect after move. maybe remove some unencyclopic facts from the text - if any, redo the Wikipedia:traffic light markup and create article annual Tsawwassen Sun Festival. Zanaq 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable street. The very idea of trying to keep articles on every street in the world boggles the mind. Zoe 19:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what I enjoy about it though is that some of the intersections are in plain text, others in bold and yet others in bold italic. --bodnotbod 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, at a minimum, with the Tsawwassen, British Columbia article, although a delete is probably more appropriate. No secondary road is twice to three times as notable as the town it traverses; yet here is a 56th Street article twice to three times as long as the article about the town it runs through. And 56th Street may be a tertiary road. I quail to think what will happen to the WikiServers when the articles for the first 55 streets in Tsawwassen are created. — Friejose 20:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely and spectacularly ordinary road, thus, not notable. Being made of cement and having cars drive on you does not an encyclopaedia subject make. Lord Bob 20:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per User:Zoe Pilatus 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete textual description of a road. --TimPope 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The reason why this road might be notable and probably why this article exists is that 56th Street in Canada is the only road access to Point Roberts, United States. Martg76 22:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Over there, at Tsawwassen, British Columbia, where that piece of information belongs, it says so already. That's still no reason to include every single traffic light on that road. Pilatus 22:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's delete it. Martg76 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the anonymous user who created the page and is obviously local to the area would get out his camera and upload a photograph of the border crossing point or of Point Roberts, Washington. That would be useful information; giving details of all intersections and traffic lights is just cramming irrelevant trivia into Wikipedia. Pilatus 11:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete completely ordinary street. ESkog 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:POINT, until we get a WikiProject:Roadwatch. If we're keeping every school in the country, might as well keep every road too. This one seems to have some decent claims anyway. But move to location disambig'd page. FCYTravis 23:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One set of nutty obsessions doesn't justify another. --Calton | Talk 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry Travis, but it seems your vote is more relevant to WP:POINT than this nomination. Besides, if there are X-thousand schools in the world, then there are a thousand times as many streets. -R. fiend 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. 23skidoo 00:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why, it's got a McDonald's AND a Tim Horton's! Delete. Canadian roadcruft.--Calton | Talk 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (added sig - oops!)
Merge useful content with Tsawwassen, British Columbia, then delete and leave no redirect. If this is the highlight of the community then it should be described in the community page. -maclean25 00:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the guide to votes for deletion. Merge and delete is not a compatible vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge, if possible, otherwise Delete is featured as a possible voting option, and it appears to me that this is the option maclean25 suggests above. It is certainly what I intended to convey in my vote above. — Friejose 13:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move, and clean-up. It appears to be an interesting and important major street in Tsawwassen. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable. It should be moved to a more suitable name. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, it should be noted that this is the only major street in Tsawwassen. So if any street in Tsawwassen is deserving of an article it is probably this street. -- Webgeer 07:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete most streets. R adiant _>|< 08:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - any and all resons for this strip of tarmac being notable are already covered in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Proto t c 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First move to more appropriate name, then merge a condensed version in Tsawwassen, British Columbia which should include it's the major street in that town and that it's the only access road to Point Roberts but not every single shop, intersection and traffic light. (This way, the redirect can stand as per GFDL requirements) Merge and delete is not compatible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep at a diambiguated name. --SPUI (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all deference to Tony Sidaway and others in favour of keeping, this in no measure can be described as encyclopedic. It's a street. A street. Dottore So 18:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT'S A STREET!!!!!! --SPUI (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you're comparing 42nd Street in New York, you know, the one that has has a musical named after it, with 56th Street in Tsawwassen, British Columbia? This shows a serious lack of perspective. Not all streets are created equal. – Friejose 12:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be confusing a street with a place. A street is just infrastructure. The 56th Street article does a much better job at detailing the actual street. The 42nd Street article discusses topics that happened near the street (not on it). All streets are created equally. Well, except dirt roads. --maclean25 22:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, but Move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia Piecraft 00:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia because I said so! --Cloveious 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do you people really think that someone would have the patience and time to write a lengthy and detailed article about just any old street, unless it was an important 'landmark'? I see no reason for people to want this article to be deleted. The author of the article is clearly trying to illustrate the importance of a street which is considered to be of some significance in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. No one should judge this article simply because they have never heard of it nor seen it. I'm sure there are many of you who don't know what the Blarney Stone is, but if I told you it was a mere rock that was of historical and mythical value to the people of Ireland would you all vote for that article to be deleted? Piecraft 03:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Counter-Comment, I realize that many people define their sense of space through their local street system. However, this does not make sreets places in themselves. The vast majority are no-man's-land in which no life can exist on them for very long. Yes, some streets have grown culturally important and evolve a life of their own and these deserve articles. (But) secondly, streets are not notable because what they are associated with. Would I be notable if I had Bill Gates and Michael Jordan living on either side of me? Are streets notable because of a notable business or landmark that exists on their flanks? Thirdly, nobody goes to a street. Streets are the means to achieve an end, and not an end it itself. If you told me that every sinlge citizen of that town used that street twice a day, I would say "Hey, that street should be mentioned in the town's article." If you can muster enough information on the street (that is relevant, on-topic and not duplicated in the town's article) to make the town's article uncomfortably long, then it would justify its own article. The point I'm making? The contents of this article should be moved to the town's article because it is locally important (in terms of access and infrastructure) but means nothing to the rest of the world. Btw, I thought the Blarney Stone was just a great pub in Gastown. --maclean25 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to Point Roberts, not Tsawwassen, British Columbia. Point Roberts is quite interesting because of it's special status, and 56th street is important to that hamlet. However, it is not that important to the people of Tsawwassen. Rename it also to something less ambiguous. It's a minor road, all the information can be included in the Point Roberts article. - Hahnchen 00:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot believe there is any debate on this. A random street in a random town with a few random facts that will not be kept current through the years anyway. One person's obsession that contains information that even a monagraph on the town would probably not mention. This is not encyclopedic. Indrian 06:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Street provides the only land access through Canada, to part of the USA called Point Roberts, unattached to the USA mainland. That lone should prove significance.--Simon.Pole 10:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Indrian 03:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Main road through a large town, but, especially, as per all those who've pointed out about Point Roberts.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Byron - Augusta (Poem)[edit]

Delete. POV/OR essay, duplicate of Epistle to augusta which has been redirected as per a recently concluded VfD. This title isn't worth redirecting. --IByte 15:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous VfD. Agree that redirect is not necessary, as it's unlikely anyone would type the exact title in the searchbox. -Satori 17:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree. Punkmorten 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous VfD. Dottore So 18:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pristine the band[edit]

A non-notable "band from the MK area", could not find any Google hits except "the official site". -- Mormegil 15:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band. Woodland {{nnbv}}. JDoorjam 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as nonsense. (00:10, 23 August 2005 Geogre deleted "National Insurance Corporation of Nigeria" (Not a VfD! Contents were fgfgh)) - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

National_Insurance_Corporation_of_Nigeria[edit]

If this is an actual company, I'd say edit it. But as it stands, gibberish. Christy747 15:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Fries & Dogs[edit]

Article claims "Super Fries & Dogs is an American fast-food restaurant chain that serves hot dogs and french fries, located in most United States shopping malls"; Google shows that it has one or two locations in the San Diego area. Non-notable; from [email protected], formerly MascotGuy. tregoweth 15:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable small business.-choster 16:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. - Lucky 6.9 16:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Located in most shopping malls? I've lived all over and never heard of it. --Etacar11 01:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X Airways[edit]

This is a poorly-written, content-free article about an airline that doesn't seem to exist. The external link to their home page is broken, a google search for "X airways" turns up nothing, and no one answers the phone (there's a generic voicemail message) at the number listed on the domain registration. Steve Summit (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no prospectus, no routes, and no planes. Not much of a carrier, is it? Mindmatrix 16:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created in 2002 and still nothing in the air? The only info I could find on this was on Wikipedia mirrors. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonairline. --Etacar11 01:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. -Splash 05:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Henderson[edit]

Not notable. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is notable, so this page should probably redirect to it. In a similar way, Gene Ray and Time Cube should be the same page, as they once were and it is debated again now. &madsh; Timwi 16:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Sdedeo 16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Alf 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Nothing new here, that would warrant a seperate page. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Alf. --Apyule 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, until it has more meat to it and something to differentiate it from Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.--Fang Aili 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Flying Spaghetti Monsterism then Redirect.--Eoghanacht 14:16, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Move. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Productivity of Wikipedia Authors[edit]

This doesn't belong in the main article namespace. Delete or move to the project (Wikipedia:) namespace. Mindmatrix 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't bother moving it as it doesn't belong. It's a weird kind of OR that draws irrelevant conclusions. Comparing wikipedia articles across languages "might give some clues on the intellectual climate in various countries." Or not. Points out that Slovenia has an enormous % of articles relative to population compared to China. ~~No sh*t.~~ Marskell 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at this and realized my comments were unnecessarily disparaging. This article was posted by a new user who obviously went to a lot of work even if I don't think it belongs. Anyhow, sorry GJG if you stop by here. Marskell 18:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipedia namespace. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:48, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia namespace. Give medals to Slovenes and Swedes. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Move to User:GJG/Productivity of Wikipedia Authors. Numbers are hokum. Zoe 19:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia namespace. "might give some clues on the intellectual climate in various countries" can be taken away. Punkmorten 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Highly interesting original research. Move as above and create link within Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics. Martg76 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OR, to start with, and the conclusions are inherently flawed. If there were some way to count the number of edits from each specific country in all Wikipedias and compare that with the country's populations and internet penetration, you might have some acceptable research. But this one is so fatally flawed by false assumptions that it is next to worthless. It assumes, for example, that no one from one country can speak a language which is not that country's primary language. That no Americans speak Spanish, for instance, and that no mainland Europeans speak English. This assumption is so clearly false as to render the statistics meaningless. How many English Wikipedians do you know not from "English-speaking" countries? Hell, there are a dozen of more English admins that are not from "English-speaking" countries (Joy, for instance, and Ahoerstemeier and Wilfried Derksen, to name just two more). Pointless pseudoresearch. Delete Grutness...wha? 01:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I meant when I said the numbers were hokum. You said it much better than I did. :) Zoe 18:19, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Astrology prince[edit]

nn. seems to be an ad for their website. 202.156.2.74 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-known astrologer and writer. — Instantnood 17:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Is it verifiable? The Google test does return many results, but most of them are either 1) the WP article 2) sites using the WP article 3) link to his own website. - 218.212.97.56 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A well-known astrologer and writer who has kept his identity a secret!!! Let's help him to continue to keep it a secret. Delete. Dlyons493 17:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like a version of Russell Grant. Alf 17:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. --PhilipO 20:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add your reasoning. Thank you. BorgQueen 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't verify it. --Apyule 04:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please take a look at "The Internet Public Library". He is also one of the e-card providers on Yahoo! Hong Kong [14]. — Insta ntnood 10:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

That might verify his existance, but I can't read Chinse and I'd like to see something more than a link to a personal website. --Apyule 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Insta ntnood 09:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. — I followed the link which User:Instantnood provided, and found the Internet Public Library only listed his sushi fortune-telling website. We are not talking about the website here, are we? We are talking about "the astrologer who keeps his identity secret" himself. Second, since there are countless people and company who provide e-card on regional sites for promotional purposes, I don't think it in itself qualifies him for the notability. Third, his book, allegedley published in 1997, has no ISBN, and I could not find on Amazon.com. Unless some better proof comes up, I vote Delete. BorgQueen 11:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here is a list (in Traditional Chinese) of books he authored, with ISBN. — Insta ntnood 12:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dottore So 18:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add your reasoning. Thank you. BorgQueen 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this person is going to be that secretive, then just how much material can we add to this page? It will probably remain a stub forever. :D Jokes aside, I would like to see more evidence over the notability of this person and his books.--Huaiwei 10:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But now what are the actual reasons for deleting the entry? it is because 1)it sounds promotional 2)we don't know the name of this person recorded on his ID card 3)it will probably remain a very short entry. Which one(s)? --K.C. Tang 12:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too sure for the rest, but all three reasons u quote are valid for discussion here, although I am not too concerned about his real name. I am more concerned over just how much content u can add for something as secretive as this. Is wikipedia going to become a source for original research by unravelling this mystery?--Huaiwei 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to add, even if this individual is somewhat known in Hong Kong, (if I understand correctly) Hong Kong is just a small part of China, and since it seems people from the rest of China never heard of this person, this person does not meet the requirement of WP:BIO. 202.156.2.75 16:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you the same person as the one who made this nomination? By your IP address I can tell you're currently located in Singapore, and I'm not surprised by your comment on Hong Kong. By searching for sites by country on Google, I got 29,900 for sites in Hong Kong, 1,680 for Taiwan, 40,000 for China (I suppose CN refers specifically to mainland China). Of course a Google test doesn't provide the full picture of his notability, but that already refutes the claim that " people from the rest of China never heard of this person ". Take a look at the descriptions of him on the sites from the Google test too. — Instantnood 16:48, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  - I am sorry, but may I know what you mean by "I can tell you're currently located in Singapore, and I'm not surprised by your comment on Hong Kong."?--Huaiwei 17:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think this guy does earn some publicity in Hong Kong, but, persoinally, I don't like this guy. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this guy does have some publicity in Taiwan and mainland China too, and of course, overseas Hongkonger communities. — Insta ntnood 07:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I don't like a lot of people but that doesn't mean they should be deleted (from wikipedia or otherwise). I think a policy says articles on writers are acceptable if they publish (but not by vanity press). -Ajshm 16:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all published authors are eligible. I've followed the link WP:BIO and found this: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more - BorgQueen 16:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then our petite prince should be qualified ... HK girls are crazy about astrology and the likes, u know. :P --K.C. Tang 01:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And he writes on several newspapers currently and in the past. I don't think it's possible for any newspaper in Hong Kong to survive with a readership less than 5000. — Insta ntnood 07:05, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

That said, 5000 is actually a very small figure, and it probably should not be the only criterion when evaluationg this case. Just about any book published in Singapore and which are by law required to be stocked in the national library here already automatically gets an audience of over 5000, even if you are a minnow no one know about.--Huaiwei 07:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In addition to the popup-ad-laden website this person apparently (per a review found here http://www.wicce.com/roth14.html) has published a rather ugly Tarot deck. Perhaps someone can show notability. Crypticfirefly
Keep. No apparent sign of coincidence with the deletion criteria. Doesn't fit much as a vanity deletion. Deryc k C. 10:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic cock[edit]

Band vanity. Most of the 400-odd Google results for "Cosmic Cock" are unrelated. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as band vanity. I pulled the plug as I interpreted it as link spam and I intended to undelete and VfD it anyway after second thoughts. Thanks, Ryan. - Lucky 6.9 16:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, total band vanity, plus they say "MySpace" is controvercial, but they put two dots in the link, so it doesn't even work... not only band vanity but sucky band vanity :-P. - Jolb 17:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dom The Bomb[edit]

Unverifiable hoax by known vandal. Another one of this guy's plausible-sounding hoaxes is on VfD as well (see "O.A. Ruscaba" below). - Lucky 6.9 17:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives no related hits, most are for a Stanford women's Ultimate Frisbee player. Search for "Dominick Devon" gives 8 hits, none related. Doesn't pass WP:V, so Delete. -Satori 17:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I tried a google search and another one and didn't find anything, either. Steve Summit (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The User responsible has 'owned up' to this one. :) Alf 18:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Power (international). There's nothing to merge. -Splash 06:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World powers[edit]

This entry's topic encompasses too much information, and, since each of the topics listed within here are discussed elsewhere (and would be more in-depth in their own context,) I find this topic to be non-encyclopedic. Jolb 17:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge with Power (international) or move to List of international powers and massively expand. Alba 17:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power (international) unless some added value can be found. As it is, it looks like an incomplete List of world powers. -- Zanaq 19:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Power (international). "World power" is uncommon phraseology, IR journals are far more partial to Great power and Hegemon (which redirect to power (international) and hegemony). If intended in the sense of global multi-pronged projection of power, it is entirely unknown versus superpower (and hyperpower). - choster 21:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one way to peel a banana[edit]

Original research, neologism. -Satori 17:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think this counts as OR; it has some unverifiable facts (which is impressive for such a short article) but the point of the article is the phrase, not an analysis of it. Nonetheless, it is a neologism, and one with no significant cultural importance, at that. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete CSD A1 --Outlander 19:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn neologism. ManoaChild 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than one way to delete a banana. R adiant _>|< 15:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
There's really only the one, right? Delete. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelappee[edit]

This page seems to be nonsense, possibly slang used by some tiny group of people

Delete as a neologism apparently used by just a few. Joyous (talk) 19:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I imagine most forums develop slang of their own. On one I use undubdibe has entered the language due to someone's failed attempt to leave the mailing list. --bodnotbod 20:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. JDoorjam 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. hic! -- Visviva 02:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Warriors[edit]

The content of the article does not seem to be verifiable. See Talk:Tino rangatiratanga. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unverifiable. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Tony Sidaway. --Apyule 04:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of article series[edit]

What's the point of this page? List all the articles that have subarticles? This page could include all countries (History, economy, culture...), languages (Grammar, alphabet, pronunciation...), wars (causes, casualties...) ... CG 17:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Seems harmless? Sdedeo 18:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But reserve for series that paint a bigger picture. or something. like {{Template:Christianity}}, {{Template:DuneSeries}}. and add some description, so it transcends mere categorization. Zanaq 19:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a list of articles which are themselves part of distinct series, so I would be happy to have grammar, alphabet, culture, dune series, etc. there, after all they are part of a distinct series, unless the editors of this page specifically view it as "Grand Series Only" page, and give a good reason for not doing so, I suggest 'get them in there'. Alf 20:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - article was created by User:Jengod who seems a dedicated Wikipedian. I imagine there's some rationale behind it. It seems related to Wikipedia:Article_series, though I'm rather at a loss to what they're achieving that they can't by using categories. --bodnotbod 21:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Amren ^(talk) 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, harmless, in Wikipedia space; if someone finds it useful, why not? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I seem to remeber it was integrated with the article series page. The list could give additional info on which articles are included in a series and why. Categories can't. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per WP:CSD clause G1. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Vector Inducer[edit]

Appears to be nonexistant device; no source provided A2Kafir 17:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Tagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Speedy - fantastical device. But the thought of a device to "artificially inseminate wormholes" makes me wonder what is going on in the mind of the creator. -- WCFrancis 18:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's a cow-ranching amateur astrophysicist.A2Kafir 18:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all those cow-orkers at NASA. GraemeL ^(talk) 19:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, NASA's talking about going back to the moooooooooooooon.....A2Kafir 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. ManoaChild 19:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reserved. I've suggested to the intital editor that they might like to comment here :) Alf 21:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa nellie. You actually edit conflicted with me as I was about to close this one out as a speedy, but I shall defer to your superior patience for now, Alf. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: all googles are just wiki mirrors. Nonsense. JDoorjam 23:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate delete. This is either Star Trek physics or, more likely, a joke. Collabi 23:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the author's own admission on his talk page, it's nonsense. Closing out. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:14, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Obfuscated Weird Language[edit]

Too weird for Wikipedia. Advertisement for nn language (very few google hits) Punkmorten 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn joke programming language. ManoaChild 19:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. but not a hoax programming language, badvertisement. Alf 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. advertisement. BorgQueen 16:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. programming languages are inherently notable. Voyager640 20:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Malnic[edit]

non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete (or else expand biography to explain or at least describe a major result or other mathematical achievement). Malnic has no preprints listed on arXiv and I've never see any papers by him, although I am a mathematician who occasionally reads papers in this field and has studied two standard books. In contrast, I moved Tutte's biography into Category:Algebraic graph theory, his name wasn't mentioned. If Tutte isn't notable in this field, who the heck is? ---CH (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify something--- of course I agree that just because I don't recognize Malnic's name on the basis of my somewhat limited (but nontrivial) reading in this area is not grounds for non-notability. I mentioned that precisely to indicate what I know or don't know, but I didn't express myself very clearly. Again, what I am really trying to say to whoever wrote these three articles is: please either tell me something interesting this person did in mathematics, or in some other walk of life, or else let us delete it.---CH (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify something else--- I agree with Paul August and DS1953 that of course Wikipedia growth will be haphazard and therefore it will frequently happen that some towering figure in field F has no biography while lesser figures already have theirs. Of course, the solution then is to write the missing biography! But again, I think a good biography should not leave the average reader with serious doubt about whether or not the subject of the biography is suitable for inclusion in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Now, just because you occasionally read papers in the field and did not see his name is no standard for no-notability. :) This author has 22 papers listed at MathSciNet, but that is I guess typical of a lot of professors. Overall, I would think that there are many much more worthy mathematicians which don't have a page on Wikipedia yet, so I would vote to delete this one. Oleg Alexandrov 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the lack of "much more worthy mathematicians" is not a very strong argument. Nowhere does it say we should (or will) write about the most important people first! ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, let me put it that way: there are much more worhty mathematicians (like my PhD advisor let us say) who have more papers than this guy but who still don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. :) Oleg Alexandrov 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that argument makes sense. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Paul, are you abstaining or did you forget to vote? ---CH (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess I am abstaining. I agree this guy (probably) isn't very notable, but I am reluctant to delete based on a lack of notability. For some background on this see: Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Importance, and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. If I were writing for a paper encyclopedia I would have a different view but of course, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper. While some are worried (not unreasonably) about the possibility of Slovene "boosterism", I'm also worried about the possibility of first world parochialism. If you forced me to vote I'd probably have to vote keep. Paul August ☎ 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Paul, just to clarify: my concern is not really with possible Slavic boosterism (no-one has exactly come forward to explain the origin of the List of Slovenian mathematicians, but comments from a few users seem to support my guess that some math person active in the Slovenian wiki decided to tranlate a list there into English and port it to this one, without really thinking through the implications), but with making the math pages less useful as an encyclopedia. The discussions you pointed me at leave me unimpressed; I simply don't think they are relevant to the special needs of the math students (at all levels) whom these pages exist to serve (in my opinion). Wikipedia is not paper? The point is, Wikipedia can be better than paper (as an encylopedia), in fact, it could be so good (as an encyclopedia), that it's worth trying to make it as good as it can be!---CH (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the existence of one article, makes any other article less useful. Paul August ☎ 13:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Oleg that not recognizing his name (from having studied a couple books) is not a real compelling reason. But the fact that no accomplishment of note is listed and there are indications that this is a result of Slovenian boosterism suggests to me that deletion is appropriate. --C S 18:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. He has published some results with Marusic (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Dragan_Marušič) which indicate some notability. --C S 03:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless some indication of notability is given. The only accomplisment listed in the article is a PhD. Well, everybody can do that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that he passes the "average professor" test, although I also agree with Paul August that we don't delete someone just because more notable people have not had articles written on them yet. If someone can show me that there is something notable about him, I am happy change my vote to 'keep' even if there are many more worthy mathmeticians awaiting their own articles. -- DS1953 23:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete No assertion of notability. Dottore So 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Teen Podcasters Network[edit]

Advertisment for a podcasting site established less than a month ago. Site has no Alexa ranking. GraemeL ^(talk) 18:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sdedeo 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had my hopes up that this would have something to do with Teen Girl Squad. Alas. Delete as advertisement/recruiting page for non-notable website. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badvertisment. Alf 00:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Page was edited to not self-promote. Vote by 69.22.224.131 (talk · contribs), [15]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already deleted this page earlier, but it sadly has expanded to a point where I cannot kill it again via speedy deletion. Oh well, delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Amazingly I found it intresting that the site actually got together and built it up. (the wikipedia page) EDIT: Aswell, self promotion has been decreased from the original Vote by Leer (talk · contribs), [16] , whose majority of edits are to the said article up for deletion. Also, with this vote, it show's clear vanity. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Vanity? How about giving suggestions on how improve instead of destroying it? Creating is lot more work than destroying... what suggests do you have on fixing it instead of marking it for deletion?

None. Your website is not notable, it does not pass the Alexa text and there are thousands of other podcasting sites that do not have articles here. And from the admission above that the members of the site created the article, that is clearly vanity. There is nothing you can do to save the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your arrogance and lack of flexibility will be your demise... and when do you see so much talent and creativity on a youth network? That's rare-- podcast directories have no spark. And since when was Alexa the big thing? Who exactly do you think you are? Members are the only one who know the history and what have you done for the Internet today? Deleting and destroying-- that's what...

The Alexa rating, along with the Google test, is what we at Wikipedia use for standards of notability. I am just enforcing the rules here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no explicit rule stating you must use the Alexa or Google toolbar. Correct me if I'm wrong b/c I see no proper documentation on low-ranking websites to be removed...

- We have deleted other non notable websites recently. Check the other VFD's and you will see other websites being deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, maybe someday this site will be important, but not yet. Zeimusu | Talk page 02:20, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
Delete nn, vanity page. Dottore So 18:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Dvorak was right-- the downhill of wikis are imminent due to the arrogance of the admins and the Wikipedia community. Leaving gracefully here, and you've given us a new mission statement: ""We're not the Teen Girl Squad. A non-notable site established less than a month ago with no Alexa ranking. Members of the site show clear vanity, self-promotion and self-love. We're unimportant and we love everyone on TPN." ---Wikipedia" Sneer.

Don't Delete Podcasting is a very serious thing. It needs to be saved not destroyed by discouraging the teens who will turn it into a phenomenon Vote by 70.177.111.74 (talk · contribs)

Don't Delete I agree with what the person above said. Teens are going to be the ones who are going to make this a phenomenon in the not so distant future. Besides this is one of the first sites i've seen so far that deals with teenager podcasters. I think that they are heading in the right direction. Vote by Sinisterlaugh101 (talk · contribs), whose first edit was this VFD vote.
Delete - Your work may be worthy, and I wish you all the very best of luck in your endeavours. But your podcast site does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia yet. Come back when you have achieved that success, and we'll welcome an encyclopedia article on it. FCYTravis 00:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with FCYTravis, we don't wish to dismiss your good work and creativity, however we only include websites that are newsworthy, extremely popular or notable in some way. If you win an award, get mentioned on the BBC or in the New York Times then by all means have another try. In the meantime you may want to copy your article into a textfile so that you have a backup if it gets deleted. Good luck. --bodnotbod 19:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. --I've heard of it. So?? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InuYasha Valley[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB with only about 100 members. --Durin 18:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per nom Alf
Delete Nezu Chiza 03:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tappen[edit]

Delete: Dictionary definition. --Durin 18:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to hibernation after it's verified. I think it sounds suspicious. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

USACasino.com[edit]

online casino adspam. No claim to notability. Sdedeo 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Nothing but spam. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad-spam.--Firsfron 21:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badvertisment. Alf 00:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Cue Vikings) Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, one of many online casinos. No claim to notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Obviously an ad for the website. NRS11 23:13 August 25 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Playtech[edit]

Non-notable online casino adspam; company is non-notable (170 employees.) Sdedeo 18:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearification Please be more specific as to what exactly is wrong with this article? Is it that I mentioned the number of company employees? ,Lets try to improve wikipedia not by just deleting information, rather fixing it. Waiting for your kind reply. thanks Johny

Update Notice I have removed the so called "Non-notable" information about the number of employees altought I personally think its harmless. please advice. thanks Johny

Clearification (sic). The fact that all of their major customers listed in the article are notorious spammers does not make them notable. Delete. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Adspam Dlyons493 19:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- self-promotional, insufficiently notable. [Side note to Johny: the way to make sure that it's notable enough to be included, and written in a neutral, non-promotional style, is to wait for someone else to write it; you can't expect to promote yourself and get away with it. See WP:AUTO.] Steve Summit (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Cue Vikings) Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Although the $1,853,850 May 2005 payout might deserve some notability as the highest online jackpot paid out, this is not mentioned, as is, the article otherwise reads as an advertisement. The Guiness Book of Records certainly maintains records for the largest jackpot in a national lottery, I couldn't find anything for online jackpots. I suggest you talk to them Johny. Alf 00:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as needless commercial promotion...AKA spam. --Several Times 13:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 18:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

MonacoGoldCasino.com[edit]

Online casino adspam; no substantive claim to notability. Sdedeo 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Adspam Dlyons493 19:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. One of several spam entries from the same user. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Cue Vikings) Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:35, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dottore So 18:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woopiedoo[edit]

Content has been moved to Wiktionary. Article isn't, nor couldn't be, encyclopaedic. KeithD (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been moved to Wiktionary, it's a speedy. Punkmorten 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not. It would only satisfy the speedy deletion criterion after transwikification if it had already been through VFD once and the consensus had been to transwikify and to delete. This article has not. Uncle G 22:40:41, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
Delete slowly then, per nomination. Kappa 04:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and I've always heard this as whoopdeedo. -- Reinyday

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumpster[edit]

This is clearly a vanity page. Author 63.228.216.236 has shown his blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy with repeated vandalizations of the Chaos magic page. Denial 18:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn vanity. Sdedeo 19:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Sdedeo. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Long overdue Speedy Delete, pure vanity by a frequent vandal. Collabi 20:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 00:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity, ad. --TheMidnighters 12:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement

EDIT: This is not a vanity page. This page was created by a fan of his site that felt is should be listed on Wikipedia. The edits to the Chaos Magic page were made by a different user of the same computer and I would like to apologize for them.

Sure. And the deletion of my user page was presumably done by a different user on the same computer, as well. This is ridiculous. Denial 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, my jerk roommate won't stay the hell off of my computer. All of this is really pissing me off. I just wanted to make an entry about a site I felt deserved recognition. There are plenty of other personal sites (The Best Page In The Universe Homstarrunner) that have had entries put up. I've already kicked my roommate out, and if you'll notice I also restored your user page AFTER he went in and blanked it. I want to set things right and again I apologize.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:25, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

O.A. Ruscaba[edit]

Not a real person, though plausible enough sounding. No evidence of the name or the novels. Boojum 06:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense - see [17] by what appears to be the author of the article (see [18] and [19] as well). Cursive 22:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see [20] - The original author's IP was blocked, which would explain the comments in the first link. Cursive 22:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy or otherwise. Alf 00:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appparent hoax. --Etacar11 02:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

End of Summer Classic[edit]

nn - no google hits for either team, no references to the ball field, either. Outlander 18:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC) I did locate a "Sara D. Roosevelt Park" , but it has only a running track and basketball, no baseball diamond. --Outlander 18:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts appear to be from [21]. No copyright notice on that site, so I'm not tagging it for copyvio. Anyway, Delete for non-notability. --DrTorstenHenning 18:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Anderson (Canoli Dynamite)[edit]

Probably a fabrication. Even if real, not important enough to save. (Unsigned nomination by Uucp (talk · contribs))

Delete. The canoli dynomite murders of 1984 were mostly non-notable. Sdedeo 18:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sdedeo is confused; surely you're thinking of when US President Richard Nixon resigned and was replaced by Vice-President Canoli Dynomite. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom. Alf 01:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity at best. --Etacar11 02:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Who is the judge of an entry's "importance"? Just because some may find an event/person/thing as insignificant doesn't make it so. I'm from Minnesota and I've seen the piece; Though I disagree with the critics in comparing him with any notable dancer, I think the entry should stay. Better to lean toward more information rather than less. (Unsigned vote by 204.220.135.129 (talk · contribs), first edit)

According to the deletion policy, "Can't verify information in article" is listed under the "Problems that don't require deletion" heading.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Optimo[edit]

Not notable enough

Delete Al 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badvertisement. Alf 01:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaz Pisanski[edit]

non-notable biograpy CH (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Although I could be wrong, particularly in this case, but if so, someone who knows should expand the biography to tell us about at least one truly notable mathematical achievement of the subject. And yes, sorry, I didn't follow the correct procedure correctly the first time. Thanks to Oleg for helping me out with that.---CH (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears distinguished, but not at the level I think is required for a Wikipedia article. --C S 18:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, a full professor who has been advisor for nine Ph.D. students, and claims to be co-founder of a newspaper[22]. More notable than the average professional baseball player. Uppland 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another question for Uppland: if his grounds for notability are that he founded a newspaper, shouldn't the biography explain the signficance of this newspaper? Or again, re the Order of Merit: I have no idea what that means. Shouldn't the article tell me? If this information doesn't convince any fair minded individual that the recipient is indeed suitable for inclusion in an English language encyclopedia, maybe the biography should go?---CH (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the job of being a professor is to be an advisor, so that part is not notable. So his claim to notability, according to you, rests strictly on co-founding a newspaper. Well, is this a real newspaper or more like a newsletter? --C S 00:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Part of the job of being a professor is to be an advisor, so that part is not notable. - That is a non sequitur, as it is dependent on how you evaluate things in the first place. Part of the job of being a professional baseball player is playing baseball. Besides all kinds of Pokemon cruft, Wikipedia includes anyone who plays any sport professionally, mostly people of no interest except to the fans of that particular team. This, admittedly, is rather convenient, as it avoids most VfD discussions over sportspeople, so I don't really want to change it. But, to use CH's comparison below, I do not consider a baseball hall-of-famer to be anywhere close in status to somebody winning a major, international scientific award like the Fields Medal. Uppland 05:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a non sequitur, but it's one that you brought up! You're the one that mentioned him as a "full professor who has been advisor for nine Ph.D. students". If you are now admitting that it was irrelevant, and you just meant to mention that he is a full professor, fine. But don't bring something up as if it were relevant and then call my criticism of its relevancy a "non sequitur".

As for your position...I was just thinking the other day I would use a bot to input in every professor listed in the AMS directory into Wikipedia. I hope you will support any VFD's that occur over that! --C S 16:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! I hope you're kidding, CS! Please don't create mindless lists here. Why on earth would anyone want to duplicate here a snapshot of the AMS directory? Who are you trying to help? Disgruntled students eager to spam every math professor in North America? You'd just make a list which would updated irregularly at best, so unreliable, and God forbid some drone should decide to move arbitrary articles from your list into categories like this one. That would be terrible, because we want to help math students at all levels get a quick impression of who some of the major figures in field F are, and of course what their major contributions were. As I see it, that's the whole point of these darned VfDs! I wouldn't bother if I didn't see potential degradation of the utility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the overarching purpose, yes?---CH (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was not meant seriously. My main motivation in these VFDs so far is that unless a person is just super-famous, they should have some particular reason for being on Wikipedia, so their bios aren't orphaned. If there is an interesting math result that would link to their bio, great. Otherwise, there should be some particularly compelling reason other than "there's already a lot of junk on Wikipedia". I believe that now all the three persons you originally listed for VFD have futures on Wikipedia because they have some results that somebody will hopefully create pages for. --C S 03:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Hillman's comparison was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, you've made your stance clear. You are not so concerned with the rationale, but how many VFD discussions you can avoid. I can certainly see the appeal in that position, but I find it sad nonetheless. --C S 16:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find it sad that you feel a need to misconstrue what I have actually written. Uppland 18:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose this could go on forever, so I'll just stop with this. You wrote right above that Wikipedia has articles on non-notable professional athletes, but you "don't really want to change it" because it conveniently avoids many VFD discussions. Which part of that did I misconstrue? Since you've made no effort to explain the newspaper angle or why being a professor is so noteworthy except to explain how convenient it is to allow cruft, how could I do anything else than "misconstrue" your position as I did? --C S 23:45, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, passes the "average professional baseball player" test. Kappa 22:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. Care to explain your reasoning? --C S 00:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! Kappa, to me (and I guess to CS), the analogies run something like this:
earned a Ph.D.: made the local Little League team

serves on the math faculty at some uni: plays AAA Minor League professional baseball

won tenure or obscure award: got a pat on the back from the team after a big game

made a major contribution to mathematics: set a significant major league baseball record

recieved an internationally known mathematics award: recieved MVP award

recieved Field's Medal: entered Hall of Fame

Do you see what I am trying to say? ---CH (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does Slovenia have an Order of Merit? this list doesn't think so; and it's not on Prof. Pisanski's resume.[23] Septentrionalis 22:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's called the Order for Services. It wouldn't be on a military medals page. Clair de Lune 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Pisanski was awarded what is called Red za zasluge, which can be liberally translated to "Order of Merit". According to a national law, this ranks in the middle of 7 orders and medals that can be awarded by the President of Slovenia, them being "Red za izredne zasluge" (Order of exceptional merit), "Zlati red za zasluge" (Golden order of merit), "Srebrni red za zasluge" (Silver order of merit), "Red za zasluge" (Order of merit), "Medalja za zasluge" (Medal of merit), "Medalja za hrabrost" (Medal of courage) and "Medalja za castno dejanje" (Medal of honourable act). --Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly verifiable (Order of Merit statement possibly excepted). JYolkowski // talk 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exceeds bar set by precedent. Clair de Lune 02:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What precedent? The sports pages metaphor? Please note that I propose that we use a more appropriate standard for the math categories in the Wikipedia.---CH (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Random professor Pilatus 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable professor. Nandesuka 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — published 80 research papers, &c., &c. Appears notable. — RJH 16:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that publishing 80 papers alone makes one notable. I've seen C.V.s cluttered with scads of nonsense or almost identical "papers", even in math. No idea about this man's C.V.; I'm just saying that this alone is a worthless criterion for math biographies. Really, evidence of widespread recognition of significant work is the touchstone. There are plenty of ways to validate that criterion, e.g. by checking for mention in good review papers, in relevent textbooks (using common sense; very recent work probably won't be in the textbooks yet, e.g Wile's theorem took several years to make it into a proper textbook), etc.

I think the lesson which is emerging here is that non-mathematicians should be circumspect about creating math biographies; if you can't convince the math literate users that the subject is mathematically notable, then unless you're writing about someone who achieved notoriety in a non-mathematical context, expect the article to be proposed for deletion repeatedly.---CH (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear lack of notability. Dottore So 18:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable. Grue 19:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was my professor of Discrete Mathematics II at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics in Ljubljana. Demokracija was notable (although political, not mathematical) Slovenian newspaper back then. He was also chairman of the DMFA in 1998-1999. I'm not sure what Order of Merrit means, but I wouldn't be surprised if he won some national award. --romanm (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Romanm, I'm glad you enjoyed (apparently) taking the course, but if you really meant to imply that "he was my professor once" is grounds for notability, I doubt very many would agree with you! Founding a now defunct newspaper in Slovenia? Might be notable enough for the Slovenian language wikipedia, but is that really notable enough for the English language one? How many newspapers have been founded around the world in the past two centuries? We don't even have every "notable at the time" civil war era American newspaper listed here, much less obscure defunct ones in other languages! ---CH (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If something is a valid topic for Wikipedia edition in one language, it should be a valid topic for all other languages. That "sum of all human knowledge" thing. Grue 13:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read Romanm's comment more as an affirmation that professor Pisanski is a real professor teaching at a real university. But this, I believe, was never questioned anyway. --Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I certainly never had any doubt that he exists, that his uni exists, that he works there as a professor, or the other facts of his life as given in the article. My problem is that no-one has told me why any of that information is sufficiently interesting to belong in an encyclopedia article. The only cure is for someone to describe a clearly interesting/important mathematical result clearly enough for me to agree that P has done something sufficiently notable in mathematics (or for some other good reason) for these mundane details (that he exists, where he went to school, where he works) to possibly interest a general audience in an English language encyclopedia. Again, my problem is simply this: I don't think it should happen that after reading a Wikipedia biography, a general reader has no idea why anyone would think that the subject is sufficiently notable for such a biography.---CH (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunalety, I cannot do that. I am not a specialist in this field, and after having a brief glance at your presentation page, I actually believe I know about graph theory much less than you do. Still, even though I have a rather high oppinion about your credentials, I don't believe the decision on whether to keep or delete a biography should be left to an individual's "feeling". We do need an agreed-on set of criteria about what qualifies for a matematics biography and what does not. And, unless I am wrong, we don't have it yet. Furthermore, as I argue below, I believe that the question you have opened concerns more the organization of articles in a usable manner rather than the sole existance of articles. Cluttering the Wikipedia might indeed be felt as a problem when you browse the article. Often, however, you simply search for a particular article, either using Google or Wikipedia search function. There, having more articles are a clear bonus. OTOH, I would speculate though that the ratio between searching and browsing the English Wikipedia is higher among non-native speakers of English, who often just try to find a particular article rather than browse a category. --Peterlin 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see two principal problems concerning deletion of the article.

Without clearly defined rules, I wouldn't have the guts to call any professional in any field "non-notable". There are of course many possible ways where to cut the list, e.g. a theorem is named after him/her, is a recipient of Fields Medal, is the editor of a major scientific journal (what is a "major" scientific journal? measured by its impact factor?), has published an important scientific monograph (what is an "important" monograph?), won a tenure, earned a PhD, etc. Any criterion is equally legitimate, if it is agreed on. Wikipedia not being limited by paper, I would vote for a wider coverage rather than a narrower, but this is just my oppinion. But first of all we need an agreement about who does qualify as "notable" and does not.

With English being a modern lingua franca, I believe that the "English" Wikipedia should strive to serve as a reference aimed at an audience wider than Americans, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders put together. English Wikipedia continues to grow and mature not only because of the contributions of native English speakers, but also because of the contributions of other peoples around the world. I am also not sure there is a consensus about which topics are interesting and important enough for the English speaking readers to be included in the English language Wikipedia. The argument doesn't hold even if the English language Wikipedia would be limited to native English speaking world. We probably all agree that articles in geography, zoology or botany describing topics not present in the English speaking world should remain in the English language Wikipedia. What is so different with biographies of foreign nationals? I am actually surprised by these cleansing tendencies in the English Wikipedia. Personally, I would be delighted to have short biographies of all American professors of mathematics along with all American professional baseball players in the Slovenian Wikipedia, and the only problem concerning this I percieve is that probably nobody is willing to write them up.--Peterlin 13:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peterlin, I agree with you that the English language Wikipedia is also the default lingua franca encyclopedia, and should strive to serve students and people all over the world. My concern is precisely that allowing unlimited cruft, particulary in the math pages to clutter up the encyclopedia will cause it to become unusable. Specifically: there are enough truly "notable" mathematicians to populate categories like Category:Algebraic graph theory with a dozen or more biographies. I feel that we need to keep the number of articles in each category to a few dozen at the most, but I hate to think of creating an even more complicated category tree than is already forced upon the math editors by the complexity of our subject. This is why I say that we can't get away with applying rules which originate in the sports pages everywhere, certainly not in the math pages.

I take it everyone noticed that after finding one of the other two is cited in a review paper I respect, I changed my vote to a weak keep for that individual. I still feel that the case has not been made that the remaining two individuals are anywhere near notable to require a biography here. They might well be notable enough for the Slovenian wikipedia, but what about the Urdu wikipedia? The Finnish wikipedia? Are they notable enough for these, or for the English/lingua franca wikipedia? I think, clearly not.---CH (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your concern. But I believe that it mostly concerns the organization of lists and categories, rather than the existance of the articles itself. It is completely clear to me that all the profesors of mathematics from around the world can not fit onto, say, a List of Mathematicians. The same goes for the categories. I believe though that with introducing a proper hierarchy a biography list can still remain manageable. I agree with you though that we don't want Category:Algebraic graph theory being cluttered by thousands (I am wildly guessing the number of people working in this field) of biographies of researchers. But I would move them to a separate subcategory within this category, say Category:Researchers in algebraic graph theory or simply Category:Algebraic graph theorists, then, once necessary, subdivide this category alphabetically, by country, by field of work or by some other means. There can be of course also some wiser way of organizing categories – from the usability point of view, there is probably some maximal depth of hierarchies that should not be exceeded without harming the usability of the Wikipedia itself. As for your other question – I cannot speak on behalf of the Urdu Wikipedia, but I certainly wouldn't mind having the content of Urdu Wikipedia – including the biographies of all Pakistani professors present there – translated to Slovenian and appearing in Slovenian wikipedia. With a proper organization, I don't believe they can harm anybody. Considering the number of people fluent in both Urdu (the situation with Finnish is a little better, but not much) and Slovenian, I don't consider this a realistic option, though. In fact, the most likely way for Slovenian Wikipedia to ever get some potentially interesting article from the Urdu Wikipedia is that the article is translated from Urdu to English and published in the English Wikipedia. --Peterlin 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peterlin, yes, I think we agree on many points. You are right, I have no objection in principle to mindless lists, I just want to be sure cruft doesn't adversely affect the experience of readers who really need to find some information here. Of course it occured to me that one can try to handle this by moving cruft into tailor-made "cruft categories", but my objections to that are:
it is all too easy for vandals to move cruft right back, in fact to move articles arbitrarily. You probably know some robovandals are doing just that; so far, this hasn't been a huge problem in these pages, but it's worrisome because even the small amount of this which has happened so far has clearly been a real headache for the admins.

to whom would the task of this endless subdivision of mindless categories to organize all the cruft fall? Why, to those who care about not impacting the experience of serious students, namely you and I! I don't have time to spend doing that, and you probably don't either.

Unless "cruft control" can be automated (potentially dangerous, since recognizing cruft might sometimes require expert judgement), I still think it's only a matter of time before everyone sees cruft as a serious problem. Maybe participants in the Math Wiki project should set up a page to discuss formulating an "official policy". I am still a neophyte in such things, so I don't really know how policy issues are handled here.---CH (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, White-Pisanski method is listed in the table of contents of a Dover classic http://web.doverpublications.com/cgi-bin/toc.pl/0486417417. Tomo 01:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks good. I'm changing my original delete vote. In addition, the book's authors appear well-known and have collaborated with Pisanski. --C S 03:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

lukewarm Keep. Good work, Tomo, if this is indeed P's most important contribution, the author of the original article (that wasn't you, was it?) should ahve described the result and why it is important in algebraic graph theory. Can you please do that? Otherwise someone else will come along and start another VfD on the same grounds that I did!

Hmm... just noticed that "Tomo" might be short for "Tomaz", as in "TP". I have no reason to think "Tomo" is TP, but this raises another point about mathematical biographies. The Wiki guidelines apparently do allow people to write their own biographies, so long as the article is factual/NPOV, and so long as the subject clearly meets the "notability" criterion. (As I think we've seen here, this criterion might be too imprecise, and setting the bar too low might cripple Wikipedia as more robovandals become active here, simply because the more articles exist, the harder it is to organize them, keep track of them, e.g. move them back when WoW moves them. So even if "Tomo" really were TP, my principal objection would not be to "self-promotion", but to failure to explain why TP is notable to mathematical audience which presumably includes the users most likely folk to be browsing Category:Algebraic graph theory. The current article makes no case at all that will impress we hard-nosed "show me" mathminded users, so, please, Tomo, fix up the article to explain why TP is notable. And why not write a biography of White? And improve the biography of Tutte, someone we all agree is a truly notable figure in math history? TIA---CH (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He has made several interesting contributions to the graph theory. -- Naive cynic 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Marusic[edit]

non-notable biography CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lukewarm keep; the citation in Cameron's review suggests that Marusic is an accomplished research mathematician whose work is recognized as useful by an international authority, which I guess convinces me that M "plays in the major leagues". Although I have to say that there must be dozens more who fit that bill, just in this one field. We need to always ensure that category pages never list more than perhaps a few dozen articles. If we had hundreds of pages on algebraic graph theorists alone, we'd have to have an even deep categorization tree, but I hate to think of getting any more specialized than the topic "algebraic graph theory" already is. Math is complicated enough without letting foolish prattle about "precedents" from the sports pages, for gosh sakes, mess up the experience of math students who could otherwise benefit from this encyclolpedia. The problem is that the more we try to include, the longer it will take for Wikipedia to achieve a more balanced coverage, which is absolutely neccessary for Wikipedia to be a really useful and reliable resource for anyone who needs to find information about some mathematical topic. I mean, c'mon, we need to employ some intelligence here. Clearly standards appropriate for sports fans can be inappropriate and even disastrous in more intellectually challenging pursuits. Math is not really very comparable to sports, and helping people find and absorb information about mathematical subjects calls for very different organizational principles than writing the sports pages.

For the benefit of latecomers: yes, I started this VfD, and yes, I did change my vote (see discussion below). Originally I wrote: Delete or else expand the biography to explain or at least describe a notable theorem or whatever. In lieu of that, Marusic has no preprints listed on the arXiv and I've certainly never seen any papers by him, hence my nomination. More discussion on the article's talk page. And I am sorry that I didn't follow this VfD process quite right on my first attempt.---CH (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like this article will survive, but it should be rewritten by someone who actually knows M's work, or at least knows algebraic graph theory. I don't really want to take the time myself, but it seems that while I doubt there can be very many Slovenian mathematicians in the world, some of them happen to be Wikipedians (and might even have written or contributed to this article), so I urge them to dig up some papers by M, bone up, and add to the article an explanation of the substance of at least one clearly interesting and important result of Marusic.

Again, my bottom line is that I think that every mathematical biography should include a description of at least one clearly notable mathematical achievement of the subject. Let's drop the silly sports analogy at this point because it is clearly not serving our purposes here. We want Wikipedia to be a valuable encyclopedia for a wide audience. Those who come here searching for sports statistics may well have a legitimate need for articles on every major league baseball player from the beginning of time. That all inclusive umbrella might be appropriate in the sports pages, but it is not appropriate in the math pages, whose readers consist of students who need to get good information quickly about a subject which is inherently difficult, confusing, and daunting to newbies. We can't drive them away by allowing unlimited cruft in the math pages. Rather, we must above all guide them to good information which is genuinely useful to them. Among many other things, this means good categorization, which in turn means: no cruft. Cruft must be strongly discouraged in the math pages.---CH (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 01:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Someone's going to have to give a better reason than "he's a professor". --C S 18:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. After all the discussion, it seems this individual is particularly influencial in Slovenian mathematics, not necessarily for the depth of his mathematical contributions but his contributions to creating a mathematical infrastructure. His bio should be edited to reflect this. --C S 23:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I can't judge the importance of his mathematical contributions except to comment that he has one publication (with collaborators which include Malnic) in Combinatorica which is probably the most prestigious combinatorics journal. Also, he has the gray graph result (also with Malnic) which Tomo has linked below. I only noted these facts after Tomo's contribution to this discussion. Regardless, since I'm already of mind to "keep", this doesn't change anything for me, but it may for others. --C S 03:33, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article claims he was awarded the Zois Prize, and according to the article on the prize, it is "the premier science prize in Slovenia". Unless either of these claims is wrong, I'd say he is notable enough. Uppland 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a comment for Uppland: I have never heard of the Zois prize, which may or may not be a bad sign, but my point is that when a biography of mathematician M which appears in Wikipedia, and describes no non-mathematical notability to M (as in the case of the Unabomber), this article should explain a significant mathematical accomplishment of the subject. If the author can't do that, he should be able to cite a web page for the Y Prize or whatever which gives the formal Prize Y citation for M. If he can't do that, I feel the article should be deleted as non-notable. Er, hope it's OK for me to interject a comment like this. I cast my vote earlier, see above.---CH (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be the premier science prize in Slovenia. The question is if that makes it notable. Has anyone outside of Slovenia ever heard of it? A Google search indicates to me that the answer is no. I expect that any reasonably accomplished individual from a country like Slovenia would have such a prize. Should we, in effect, lower the standard for these individuals? I'm honestly asking this. --C S 00:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain for now, but the citation is at http://www.mszs.si/slo/ministrstvo/nagrade/zois/2002.asp (I think), though I admit that I'd never heard of the Zois prize before. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Jitse, I hereby award you the first Biographical Barnstar for Brain-numbingly Obscure Web Research :-/ Congragulations!

So can someone, maybe Tomo, please translate this citation? Maybe it will convince me to change my own vote, eh? Like I said, if I'm wrong about any of these three being non-notable, please edit the article to explain or at least describe some truly notable accomplishment! ---CH (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quick translation:

prof. dr. Dragan Marusic - Zois prize for scientific achievements at the field of graphy theory and algebra.

Dragan Marusic, professor at the pedagogical faculity at the University of Ljubljana, is one of the leading slovenian mathematicians, and is also known around the world. His main area of scientific work is algebraic graph theory, where he explores the symmetries of graphs and the workings of finite groups on combinatorical objects. He is the founder of algebraic graph theory and the theory of permutation groups in Slovenia, where he has taught a group of co-workers which is now well known around the world.

The main scientific opus lies with the research into half-transitive graphs and their classification. The sequence of his work on this area reached its apex in the accurate description of transitive permutation groups with their mirrored orbits of length two. This enables the description of orbital graphs of length four and the complete characterisation of the stabilising crossings. This deep and important result got a wide response in the world. Professor Marusic also achieved important results in other areas such as Hamilton paths and cycles in Cayley graphs, and in the research of half-symmetric graphs. He has published his results in 52 original scientific papers in international journals, from this there were 32 articles in the last seven years. His work is often cited by other authors, and he has presented his work at various international mathematical conferences and foreign universities.

prof. Marusic is one of the most visible researchers in the field of finite groups on graphs. His research work is characterised by deepness and a well of ideas, and the findings of totally new methods at solving problems. His results on half-transitive graphs have opened new ways of development on that area. Much of his work presents a lasting contribution to the knowledge of mankind.

(I apologise for any errors or possible mistranslations of mathematical terms (I'm going to FMF this fall). Based on this I'd say keep, but I will not vote.) 193.77.153.149 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks much, 193.77.153.149, whoever you are. This is very helpful, and gives us a much better idea of what this Zois award is all about. The sentence He is the founder of algebraic graph theory and the theory of permutation groups in Slovenia, where he has taught a group of co-workers which is now well known around the world clearly means the Marusic has founded the Slovenian school of algebraic graph theory, meaning that before he came along, this wasn't being taught at the graduate level and research in this subject was not done in Slovenia. I'll take the Zois award committee's word for this, since this claim certainly seems plausible.

From the time I spend trying to promulgate the Joy of Math here and elsewhere, it should be obvious that I take my hat off to anyone who is a successful and accomplished educator, and I acknowledge that far fewer can teach at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level, because to supervise doctoral students of your own you must have enough ideas for yourself as well as for your students. Founding a school of subject X in your native country is a significant accomplishment of which anyone should be proud. However, with all due respect, hundreds of professors could credibly teach graduate students the basics of algebraic graph theory, and there must be dozens of mathematicians who could supervise doctoral students in this field, so I am not sure that (in the baseball analogy), we are really out of the minor leagues yet.

Well-written award citations usually state the most important reason for the award first, and I take this to mean that the Zois award was given to M primarily in recognition of his service to the developoment of mathematical research in Slovenia. At this point, I observe that since this came up, I noticed that the List of Slovenian mathematicians apparently first arose in the Slovenian language Wikipedia, and then someone, mabye 93.77.153.149, translated this list into English and put it here. Now cross-fertilization between the various Wikipedias is obviously a good thing, but I also think that some sensitivity is appropriate to whether a translation of everything which is appropriate/timely/important for the Slovenian language Wikipedia is important for the English language Wikipedia. Going the other way, guessing that say Cricket is not a popular sport in say Finland, translating pages on cricket from the English language encylcopedia into Finnish is probably a waste of time; anyone who can translate English to Finnish should be translating the math content articles :-/ And going the other way, translating any good articles on indubitably interesting Finnish mathematicians (I can think of a few) into English.

32 papers in 5 years could be very impressive output, or not, since it is an apolitical fact that the quality of journals varies very considerably even in English, and it is true that the highest quality work does tend to appear in the major journals in the major mathematical languages (English, French, German, and a few others; the roster is generally agreed upon, although it has changed over time, as you would expect is probably becoming less eurocentric, and I stress that I am not denying that important papers have appeared in more obscure languages like Ukrainian, and that I am not denying the possibility that important papers are appearing right now in some of the many languages which very few "Western" mathematicians read). My point is that it is not clear from this figure along that everyone would agree that M is a truly major player in the international mathematics scene. Again, I am now convinced is a major player in Slovenian mathematics, but I don't think that alone would make him a notable person in the English speaking world.

I happen to have read some of the literature about Hamilton paths and cycles in Cayley graphs a few years back, so I know that Peter J. Cameron is a leading authority on permutation groups in the international mathematics scene who has written a recent survey paper which I happen to have right... (mumble, mumble). Ah-haaaa!!! Here we go, Cameron does cite Marusic's paper on vertix symmetric digraphs, and one other. Ok, 2 out out of 104 papers. OK, at least some of M's papers are internationally known and recognized as significant. What we need now is a recent survey of algebraic graph theory... Hmm... I am not finding one on the arXiv, although we all know that some extremely valuable papers are never listed there, including the one by Cameron I just used. The books I mentioned are too old to take account of any recent work by Marusic.

OK, bottom line; the article should have been written by someone who actually knew enough about M's work to describe his work, and anyone who knows that much would probably know the literature sufficiently well to be able to judge its importance. At this point, I am convinced that Marusic is an active research who has done some good work, so he must be a competent mathematician and a dedicated teacher. I guess I could change my own vote to an abstention or even a weak keep, if that is allowed.---CH (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the information on the Zois prize is correct, he appears to pass the "average professor" test. -- DS1953 22:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)**
Comment: with all due respect, the "average professor" is NOT notable. Recent professorcruft is starting to annoy me. With that said, yes, I'd like to see this expanded and more detailed, but weak keep for now. JDoorjam 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF say "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included." For my own voting, I assume that college professors fall into a type of bell curve and that the "average" includes the middle part of the bell. You can't really put a percentage on it, but as I apply the test, it would not be limited to the top 2 or 3% of professors nor would it sweep in 49%, but rather somewhere in the middle. I think any professor in any country that receives national recognition, like the Zois prize (whatever that may be) must certainly stand out from the "average professor". Finally, though this is an English language encyclopedia, we need to be careful not to concentrate our coverage in favor of English-speaking areas. -- DS1953 14:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I notice that you avoid my question above: if an individual is above average for a Slovenian professor, but is well below average (or at best average) internationally, are we supposed to lower the bar for this individual to be in Wikipedia? --C S 16:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your question above. My personal answer would be that I would not knowingly lower the bar to admit a professor whose qualifications are sub par simply because the poor quality of academics in his country makes him notable among his own peers. Obviously all of this is very subjective, however. The fact that a professor from a small country may not have as many English language papers published, or even present as many papers in total, as a comparable level professor at a publish-or-perish American university does not necessarily mean than his contributions are less notable. For my vote, receiving a national prize will generally tip the scales in favor of keeping the individual in a vfd vote. -- DS1953 17:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you assume that average Slovenian professor is automatically "well below" his counterparts from other countries, CS? -- Naive cynic 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, stop, let's not go there, because nobody is implying that Slovenians are less capable than other folk. Lots of academics get some kind of award at some point during their careers, so just getting an award by itself doesn't mean much. I think CS is just saying that this particular award might refer to a limited pool. I.e. if there are only 100 Slovenian mathematicians, and if (as I guess) this award only goes to Slovenian nationals, then by itself, the fact that M has recieved it might not imply that he's very notable compared to an international award for which the pool would be the tens of thousands of active research mathematicians around the world. See what I mean?

The useful evidence is not the prize citation, but the keywords which led me to look at a review paper by a mathematician who's work I know and admire (and who I know is an internationally known authority), Peter J. Cameron, where I found that PJC does indeed cite the work of Marusic. The award itself probably doesn't mean much at the international level; the citation in Cameron's revivew is much more impressive. What the heck, I'll change my vote to a weak keep.

Keep. The Zois award page at the site of the Slovenian Ministry of Science and Education calls him "one of the greatest researchers in the world in the field of actions of the finite groups on graphs", and says that "results of his research on the semi-transitive graphs opened new possibilities of development in this field" (or something like that, I don't know Slovenian). -- Naive cynic 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough for me. Paul August ☎ 22:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep professor's who win national level awards. Klonimus 03:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His result with Malnic was a featured headline news in Math World. He is also on

the editorial board of Discrete Mathematics. Tomo 02:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tomo, by now we've spilled a lot of virtual ink, but this VfD would never have been initiated in the first place if the editors of this article had described this result and why it is important! Think about the users browing Category:Algebraic graph theory. They are likely to be math students, and unlikely to be Slovenian or to know personally the subject. So, they are unlikely to find mundane details (where he attended Gymnasium, some decoration which is very unlikely to mean anything to a non-Slovenian user) at all interesting. So grab their attention by describing an intriguing result! So please edit the article to explain this result and its importance in algebraic graph theory. TIA---CH (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hugh Howard Gibson[edit]

This page appeares to have been created in Error the actual name for the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was Hugh H. Rowatt, as verified by this link Commissioners of the Northwest Territories I think what happened was someone got confused between Hugh H. Rowatt and Roy A. Gibson Cloveious 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not fitting for redirect. Punkmorten 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, false imformation in any case as Hugh H. Gibson was NOT the commissioner of Northwest Territories. --Hurricane111 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, good spot Cloveious. Alf 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to deem this a speedy, on the grounds that it's an objectively wrong title that isn't suitable for redirect to the correct one. Go go gadget admin privileges! Bearcat 16:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCREE FORD[edit]

Advertising. Not notable DJ Clayworth 19:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising that, like most annoying car salesmen I've known, shouts at me. -Satori 19:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- looks like an ad to me. Steve Summit (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertisement --Hurricane111 21:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badvertisment. Alf 01:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Redirect to Diff. R adiant _>|< 09:18, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

ExamDiff[edit]

The first deletion nomination was borderline by my count, and I decided to close it with a keep after a good rewrite by the author. This has been disputed and one sysop even peremptorily deleted it. I'm listing this for further discussion. I would like to ask the deleting sysop not to make further attempts to delete this without a proper discussion. It is in no way a candidate for speedy deletion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a popular programming tool, given a good editorial review by download.com. The article was written by the author of the software, but in my opinion the article lacks the promotional language and the unjustified superlatives (or inded at the moment any superlatives) that are characteristic of advertising. It is well written and encyclopedic, and is useful. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC) addendum: If not kept, redirect to diff. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it seems like a nice program, it is really not very notable -- it's just a windows implement of the unix command "diff". Sdedeo 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, of all the diff tools I can find listed on download.com, it has both more downloads total and more downloads last week than all the others put together. It is given the third highest CNet rating after both versions of DiffDog, and the second highest user rating after ExamDiff Pro. It had more downloads last week than the CygWin Unix porting suite. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a verifiable topic. There are precedents for this sort of article: see kompare, WinDiff, WinMerge. If the program is really just a variant of "diff" (doesn't look like it, because it includes a GUI), then merge into diff and redirect. --MarkSweep 20:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advertisement, even after the re-write. --Carnildo 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Am I allowed to vote?) -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are the author of the article and of the software tool so as long as we all know that, the closer can take it into account. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the author of ExamDiff. Why do you think I am? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Brainfart induced by excess consumption of anno domini, I should expect. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diff. It's already mentioned in the Related Proprietary Software subheading of the Diff article, and I fail to see what's so encyclopedically notable about this program that it merits its own article. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I could go with that one. If it isn't kept, I think that would be good. I'll edit my vote. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually use this product but am puzzled as to how it could be considered encyclopedic. It is a very ordinary piece of utility software that, though well written, is simiar to many other competing products. I cannot imagine how it would contribute to history in any way, and can't imagine why an encyclopedic project -- even one as broad as Wikipedia in scope -- would be a suitable reference source for such ephemera. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per Uninvited Company --TimPope 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tony's assertion that it's a popular programming tool. Kappa 22:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's "popular" for a very limited definition of "popular": Linux and MacOSX both come with a very nice "diff" utility, which is far more widely used than ExamDiff. Also, most programming IDEs come with an integrated "diff" utility. That means that this program is popular among programmers who meet all of the following:
Have a need for a "diff" utility

Don't use MacOSX or Linux

Don't use either Cygwin or MinGW

Don't like their IDE's "diff", or don't use an IDE

It's a very small market. --Carnildo 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's also used as the version comparison utility in QVCS. Uncle G 23:55:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a man page. Steve Summit (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not a criterion for deletion. At best it's an argument for improving the article. --MarkSweep 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my stated reason was a little flip, but my point was that I think it's inherently a man page, I can't really see how it could ever be properly encyclopedic, without duplicating too much information that would more properly be (and already is) on a central, non-particular-implementation-specific diff page. Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see how it's encyclopaedic on it's own merit. Would people wanting to know about ExamDiff actually go to Wikipedia to do it? Cursive 23:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not notable enough. Erwin Walsh

In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2, User:ESkog commented on the lack of criteria for determining the notability of software. I suggest the answer to the following question as at least a guideline: "Did anyone else care enough about the software to review it?" In cases of software products that would probably be universally considered notable, such as PKZip or PC Tools, that is the case, as such products have many reviews in computer magazines and the like. However, for this package I haven't yet located anything other than simple reprints of the "blurb on the side of the box" (sometimes thinly disguised, and mostly as product descriptions in on-line catalogues). You might be able to sway editors' opinions, User:Alex Nisnevich, if you can locate reviews of this package, to show that people have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published articles that focus upon it. Uncle G 23:55:50, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
I'm not sure this can be the sole criterion for determining the notability of software (and I don't think you're suggesting it should be). We have articles on a lot of traditional Unix system software, such as diff, dd, cmp, ls, mv, cp, even Unix system calls like mmap. I'd be surprised to find a serious review of cp somewhere ("All those of you who thought 'cat foo > bar' was great, wait till you try 'cp foo bar'! A++++++"). --MarkSweep 04:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Prepare to be surprised. You might not find a review, in the magazine sense of the term, but you'll find that for those programs, people indeed have "written and published articles that focus upon them". People write "Useless use of cat" articles about cat. If you look at the references section for diff you'll find that there's an entire book on that command. People have actually written teaching courses that focus on on cp, mv, and ls ([24] [25] [26]). And, yes, if you look at the references section of mmap you'll see that people have written programming guides that focus upon it, too.
The fundamental point is that people, independent of the original author, have actually considered the software notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it, be those works magazine reviews, teaching courses, books, programming guides, or other commentaries. So, for example, if someone had written a book on ExamDiff for O'Reilly Media, or a teaching course that specifically addressed it as a topic, then those would be arguments that could be used to sway editors' opinions towards keeping an article on the subject. Uncle G 14:41:25, 2005-08-23 (UTC)

Redirect per Fernando Rizo, no reason to leave a blank page here if we actually have information on the program somewhere. Doesn't need its own article though. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:36, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Delete, nn. --fvw * 04:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. What was the reason for creating Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff (second nomination) when Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ExamDiff 2 already existed, except to avoid the appearance of someone else reopening a questionable VfD closure? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was deleted out of process by User:Radiant! shortly after you listed it. I should have checked for your own Vfd and seen it, but I didn't and wasn't aware of its existence until today. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and if Tony had done a proper job at closing the original VFD in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. R adiant _>|< 07:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
I take exception to that false and damaging statement, one in a recent series of unjustified personal attacks. There were only four votes, it was borderline, and the article had been subject to a good rewrite. There are two principles that supported the keep in this case: that a rewrite during VfD should be taken into account, and Deletion policy, If in doubt, don't delete!. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if you make a mistake and somebody corrects it, it's not very nice to accuse and attack them. It is not very mature to take exception at criticism. R adiant _>|< 14:37, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, should have been deleted the first time round. Proto t c 10:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diff sounds sensible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete both because it is not notable, and because it is a process violation to have undeleted and relisted it here while discussion is still ongoing at WP:VfU, in my opinion. Nandesuka 12:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was deleted in violation of process shortly after an earlier VfD nomination. And there is nothing to stop an article listed on VFU being undeleted and listed on VfD, although I have made a personal undertaking to avoid doing so in the case of contested speedy deletions. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous allegation. The article was deleted because the earlier VFD had consensus to delete. Read up on our deletion policy, would you? (and also, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:FAITH) R adiant _>|< 13:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You have your facts wrong. I am the administrator who closed the first listing. I closed it as no consensus. Please don't make blatantly false statements. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You wrongly closed it as "no consensus" when it obviously had a consensus to delete. You should follow consensus in the future rather than impose your own point of view. And it wouldn't hurt if you stopped attacking people who disagree with you - it's not very civil. R adiant _>|< 13:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway did not have to count the votes, as Wikipedia is not a Democracy. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this, it looks to me like you (Radiant) are the one making statements which I would consider to be attacks. Just an outside view. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable - probably advert - Tεx τ urε 14:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Dottore So 18:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. Jonathunder 01:05, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

Comment. I think we can all agree that ExamDiff is no longer an advert, not after the rewrite. And Tony Sidaway explained about the program's popularity. While it will not make it to the Brittanica, it's certainly notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia with nearly 700,000 pages! So what's your argument for why this should be deleted?? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's no longer an advert. It is a simple man page. Wikipedia is not a repository of man pages. Jonathunder 01:31, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
Hmmm... do you really think it's a man page? Well, while I was rewriting it I guess I was so determined for it to not be an advert that I made it go all the way to the other side and become a man page: advertisement--------neutral------X-man page. I think that while we shouldn't leave the article as is, we shouldn't delete it. I'm determined to make a decent article about ExamDiff, even if it's just a stub. What do you think? -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The current page looks like an advert to me still, or part of an advert, the "Technical details" section often found in online ads for software. The presnece of a list of 'features" simply screams advertisement to me. But even if rewritten, I see no reason in the article or in anything said here to indicate that this utility is itself notable. The genreal class of diff utilities is of course notabel, and pershps this product could be mentioned in a "popular implementations" section in such an article. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --zippedmartin 01:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for this program on download.com, which is a major distributor of freeware programs such as this one, it shows that it has about 120k downloads. It has also been reviewed by the CNET editors on the same site. Absent a really good set of objective criteria for determining notability of software, I think that's probably enough to justify a keep. (vote pasted from aborted discussion at the other vfd) ESkog 03:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ESkog. -- DS1953 04:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Delete This is an ad, not an article. No indication of notability or widespread use is in the article. There are many "diff" utilities, and i see no reason why this particualr one should have an article, particualrly this article. DES ^(talk) 06:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; if kept, redirect. This is an ad; although not quite speediable. Septentrionalis 15:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, this piece of software would not be in a list (short, medium or long) of the most notable software applications. Reads like an ad. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Having looked at the article, the related article diff, the previous VfD, the VfU, the curiously abandoned second VfD, and considered WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, and the comments here, I think the page at ExamDiff should be made a redirect to the article diff, in which a couple of sentences may be written about ExamDiff as an example of the diff utility. UninvitedCompany's comment is compelling: this is not something that meets the notability requirements of an encyclopedia to deserve a page of its own. The only reason I do not vote for the page itself to be deleted outright is that I think it serves a useful purpose as a redirect.—Encephalon | ^ζ 02:28:30, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

After reading all the comments I'd say Redirect to Diff. Although i'm still wondering what will happen to ExamDiff Pro after deletion or redirect, as it is almost the same piece of software. And good luck for the closing admin. feydey 01:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable software product. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:02, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

"casual complex"[edit]

Vain, nn. Erwin Walsh

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC — Lomn | Talk 21:55:18, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Delete; the article itself says the band is "little known". Loganberry (Talk) 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As yet little known. Alf 01:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

completing VfD - nominator gave no reason. However, starts "Little known progressive rock band" WCFrancis 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. ~~I abstain at this time.~~--WCFrancis 21:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Also does not meet guidelines for Musician notability. (didn't take long to decide, did it?) --WCFrancis 21:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Paul Klenk 21:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:03, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Emperor Benedict XVI[edit]

NN. Google produces 20 hits. Erwin Walsh

Keep. See Satire. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Should darthbenedict.ytmnd.com this be added as an external link to the article? ‡ Jarlaxle 20:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, appears to be a hoax (how could a comic titled "Emperor Benedict XVI" have started in November 2004 if Benedict was only elected in April 2005?) -- Kirill Lokshin 20:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A non-notable character who appears in a non-notable web comic that ran for less than a year before shutting down. Sdedeo 20:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kirill Lokshin. --Scimitar ^parley 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kirill Lokshin. -- DS1953 22:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Sdedeo. JDoorjam 23:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who wrote this? Luke 'Paisley' Skywalker? (well I suppose that would make the - 'I am you Father' bit really interesting)--Doc (?) 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Hoax - Aranda56 20:33ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn at best. --Etacar11 02:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ha ha. Banes 08:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (don't forget the image) as it appears to be hoaxy and fail Webcomic inclusion guidelines. I wonder if the author of this article or the webcomic was involved in the vandalism of the Pope Benedict XVI article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable and wrong (how can the opposite of Benedict XVI be cruel and stupid?) — JIP | Talk 10:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being wrong is IIRC no grounds for deletion. But there are enough reasons left to Delete this. --DrTorstenHenning 17:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dottore So 18:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winning percentage[edit]

Irrelevant, definition, "winning percentage" highly ambiguous. Erwin Walsh

Keep, I've expanded this article somewhat. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:55, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Keep, a very common sports statistic and a stub that has room for expansion with its use and prominence in various sports. The term may be ambigious, but take that up with the people who invented it since that's what the term is. Lord Bob 20:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, common terms that has lots of potential to improve/expand.--Hurricane111 21:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fixed the incorrect forumla from [WINS / (WINS - LOSSES)] to [WINS / (WINS + LOSSES)], the correct way of computing winning pct (which, unlike the original entry, will never result in a negative number or a number greater than 1, including infinity). - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 21:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Key Baseball term - User:Aranda56 20:33ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep why not, short but clear article. Alf 01:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep short, but valid stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Please do not bite the newbies, Erwin. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Flavour[edit]

A very insignificant act. Suggest author listens to better music. Erwin Walsh

Comment. Erwin, your nominations are good, but your comments are overly agressive. Please try to be as civil as possible. Sdedeo 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC from what I can see. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sp1te[edit]

Irrelevant, vanity, no place here. Erwin Walsh

Delete. nn netusergroup. Alf 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. BorgQueen 16:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:08, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Herobracelet[edit]

Erwin Walsh

Comment: It could evolve into more than just a spam article. ‡ Jarlaxle 20:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

If it evolves to the point where it becomes well known (Notability HeroBracelet) then it will deserve an entry. Until then: Delete. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

. Sorry, couldn't resist. Sabine's Sunbird 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Erwin Walsh

Strong delete. No references from external sources explaining cultural impact means: not notable. Let's not let these vultures use the EnWiki to make money off of the tragedy of the Iraq War unless they do something encyclopedically noteworthy. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pilatus 22:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammish.Amren ^(talk) 00:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamster sandwich.jpg Extreme hamster, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Špããmm. Alf 01:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't top that with a better image ,Alf. Delete as spamvertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I DON"T LIKE SPAM!!!Indrian 06:55, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - spam - Tεx τ urε 15:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). No votes. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almanac (Jazz)[edit]

Delete - Not important/famous enough --Hurricane111 20:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:11, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Rj harris[edit]

(Note: Page is now moved to RJ Harris. If it's decided this should be deleted, please, don't forget about the redirect.) Vanity page; poorly written; badly formatted. --Ian Pitchford 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changed from Delete) thanks to Mgm's sniffing down (mostly WHP related) sites that show at least reasonable media coverage outside of the show itself, what the heck, it's good enough for me. Alf 01:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a notable radio show host. ([27]). Bad writing and formatting is not a reason to delete. I'll format it now. -Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per MacGyverMagic's inadvertent research. The link cited above ([28]) gives only 25 entries, the rest being duplicates (and of those 25, most are duplicates).

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:22, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Gesualdo (town) (disambiguation)[edit]

There is only one town named Gesualdo. There is a composer with the same name, but there is a disambiguation page at Gesualdo. I see no need for this page. Billhpike 20:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - what Billhpike said :) -Satori 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This title resulted from an editor helpfully filling in a redlink that in turn resulted from the use of {{otheruses}} instead of {{otheruses2}} at Gesualdo (town). I've fixed the disambiguation. Uncle G 23:05:45, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Delete, fix disamb note on town's page to say Gesualdo (disambiguation) instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group, Inc.[edit]

Delete Non-notable company? Their products get very few hits on Google. [29] Furthermore, the article creator is spamming links to their site from biological articles. PhilipO 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete image seems to have been posted by user created to upload this one image. Badvertisment. Alf 01:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

How to Sell Cars like a Pro[edit]

finishing nom. not encyclopedic Ben-w 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That what I would have said first if I could get this page to save. Rmhermen 20:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Original research - nn --Outlander 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, but delete as original research and as a how-to. - Lucky 6.9 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amren ^(talk) 00:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I first thought Wikibooks, but I don't see how this could become a useful module. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stanley Band[edit]

Article does not establish enough notability according to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Only notable member's two top 100 hits appear to have been after he left the band. Francs2000 | Talk 20:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band seems to meet WP:MUSIC; they " rocked arenas all over the midwest" [30]. Never heard of them, though. Flowerparty ^talk 21:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Michael Stanley. As indicated in Michael Stanley, the band had two top 40 hits under the name Michael Stanley Band (Michael Stanley had no solo top 40 hits), thus qualifying them under WP:MUSIC. (Allmusic, however, provides most of its information about them in the article about Stanley himself. [31]) I would change my vote to "keep" if this article is significantly expanded during the VFD period. --Metropolitan90 01:46, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Frisbie[edit]

Another band stub that does not establish the notability of its band according to WP:MUSIC guidelines. Francs2000 | Talk 20:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frisbee--plausible misspelling. Meelar (talk) 21:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. They seem reasonably notable [32] [33]. No reason to assume they fail WP:MUSIC. Is failure to assert band notability a CVfD now? Flowerparty ^talk 21:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC guidelines IMHO. —RaD Man (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Flowerparty. Alf 01:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig per the above. This is an alternate spelling for "Frisbee" in parts of Europe, and the band seems passable enough. R adiant _>|< 10:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I added more detail. Seemed like a fairly notable band to me. -- user:Matt.whitby

Keep and move to Frisbie (band). Add a disambiguation at Frisbie. Band passes WP:MUSIC, and is also a valid Euro spelling for Frisbee. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 17:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hut Hut[edit]

Band vanity --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of the worst kind. Sheesh. Delete with extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 21:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - band vanity page. --Hurricane111 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --PhilipO 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Trash | Celcius 21:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAmren ^(talk) 00:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 20:26, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The Third Temple[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Satori 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.75.31 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic. --PhilipO 21:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Needs rewrite and update including massive references | Celcius 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A well-written article on the movement to build a Third Temple would be encyclopedic. However, unless and untill such a structure is actually built, an article on the Third Temple itself is crystal balling. -Satori 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 56,800 google hits [34]. Kappa 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would expect enough people want to see this project succeed. I don't have a problem with the article, it's not like guessing who/what/where/why/name of a future happening. Alf 01:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given someone makes it encyclopedic. As for "crystal ball", this is an important concept of Messianism. We don't really need to have a material object to describe it. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 02:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article appears to be about the religious significance of belief in the temple, not about the temple itself. That said, article could use some cleanup/expansion. --Alan Au 07:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Black Bat[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with an animal; it's a company vanity page. --Firsfron 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, I messed something up)[reply]

Delete - vanity page--Hurricane111 21:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. --PhilipO 21:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 21:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No the company is real, is the Fox network page a vanity page? Is the Mcdonalds page a vanity page? Is the St George page a vanity page? Just because it talks about a company dosen't mean it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.62.10.9 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 August 2005

Delete - Fox and McDonald's are multinational conglomerates. Saint George is the patron saint of several countries. This is neither. That's the difference. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity+NN--inks 05:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eratosthenes stadia[edit]

The contents of this article is mostly just a copy of large sections of Eratosthenes, but spiced up a bit with the contributors ideas. Nothing points here. Delete -- Egil 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Either poorly written (wikify) or poorly explained (context). Can't determine validity (possible delete). | Celcius 21:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eratosthenes, I think. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 11:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
This article is a discussion of the various different combinations of stadia and feet, remen or nibw tthat either make Eratosthenes calculations work or not work. Just because Egil lacks the knowledgebase to see the value in this discussion doesn't mean it should be deleted or redirected. Its too much info to put in the main page and properly focused on just what it says it is focused on. It is not poorly written and its very difficult to wikify until Egil stops marking pages for deletion.Rktect

Weak delete. I have to agree with Celcius's comment above: if I understood what this was about, I might vote to keep this -- but as it currently stands it does not fit in an encyclopedia. And if Egil's tagging is preventing you from making it useful, then finish writing it offline until it is. -- llywrch 21:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, thats a good suggestion maybe one of the first good constructive criticisms I have encountered here. Rktect 03:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article seems to be meant to prove that the ancient Egyptians knew the exact circumference of the Earth, and that they defined their units of measure directly from it. There has been a number of articles on this theme from the same author on VfD before, and this is more of the same. For more info, see User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Selected_claims. -- Egil 09:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research.--Dell Adams 09:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is not about a specific, distinguished-from-others-by-the-Eratosthenes-name variety of the units of measure called stadia. Rather, it is known that Eratosthenes used stadia of some sort or another, and that he got the number of 250,000 (probably not 252,000) of them in the circumference of the Earth. This article is speculative stuff about possible theories which would fit that 250,000 to 252,000 and make it very close to modern values for the circumference of the Earth, and make it part of some system supposedly hardwired into the human brain or something like that. Gene Nygaard 13:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reposting of research that has already gone through may vfds. -- (drini|☕) 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Haven't I seen this stuff go through VfD before? --Carnildo 03:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Zach Stefanovich[edit]

Delete. Non-notable web designer. —Charles O'Rourke 21:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - as above. --PhilipO 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 21:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteD. J. Bracey (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yndamiro_Restano[edit]

Political acusation of an individual. This page appears to be a poorly written ALL-CAPS stub on a person of questionable notability, and consists of what appears to be a political acusation of loyalties. Does not seem to have any factual basis, or usefulness. Either a real article needs to be written, or the page deleted. Dmeranda 21:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline speedy unless someone coherent rewrites this to actually say why he should be in an encyclopedia. Delete. Meelar (talk) 21:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; Bashing, conspiracy, unfounded, nn | Celcius 21:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the obvious and already-stated reasons. Steve Summit (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Notes from the Cuban Underground

On February 6, 1996 Yndamiro Restano was awarded the golden pen by the International Federation of Daily Editors which represent more than 15,000 dailies in 100 countries. This group declared Mr Restano, " a pioneer in the struggle to restore a free and independent press in Cuba. He has demonstrated his courage in face of adversity and has paid with his own person for defending his convictions."

This is bashing of a notable individual, delete and add his name to the requested articles list. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jujimufu[edit]

Keep it! I doubt that Juji wrote this himself, and he has done alot for the sport. nonsense, almost speediable Ben-w 21:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday...check. Place of birth...check. Attempt to sound important...double-check. Anyone for a game of speedy? - Lucky 6.9 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Vanity | Celcius 21:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT! unsigned vote by 130.123.128.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-22 01:09:00 UTC

Delete as vanity, though not speedily as he attempts to assert notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Dottore So 18:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Al 02:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete already. Vandal targeted page with nonsense. --WCFrancis 18:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ascenzion[edit]

Could not establish notability; vanity page; contains little about the individual anyway. No links, and zero Google matches on "ascenzion freempeg4".-choster 21:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Blatant vanity | Celcius 21:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn, probably vanity —FlooK 22:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity.Amren ^(talk) 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 21:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Chaingun cha-cha[edit]

Gaming cruft (Google isn't god - by 87 hits says nn) shoot it down --Doc (?) 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not very notable. Then again, we have far more trivial stuff survive VfD here. Collabi 22:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck should this be deleted? It describes what it's about pretty well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.24.136 (talk • contribs)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Krebs[edit]

nn-bio He wrote a how-to book on tinting photos and he has an online gallery of his photos. Less than a half-dozen relevant hits, most to his sites. No R/T gallery shows, no media coverage, no publication of his art, no noteworthy reviews. Outlander 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pass — Should any published author with books available via Amazon be considered at least marginally notable? I'm not sure. Note that there was also an Ed Krebs who was a professor at UC Davis who appears somewhat more notable.[35] — RJH 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Amazon sells his books, he's notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 17:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with DrTorstenHenning's standard asserting notability. Dottore So 18:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this figure does appear to be at least marginally notable within his field. Hall Monitor 19:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mildly notable for his photography and his activism. Should be disambiguated, however. I will do that if the article survives. —Theo (Talk) 09:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). You might want to relist this, since IMO it would be deleted if it got more votes. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angel tech[edit]

Denied speedy as vanity. AFAICT a nn band not known outside Bristol; does not seem to meet any of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines -choster 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. They seem to be prominent in the Bristol music scene. Pburka 01:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC quite spectacularly. FCYTravis 02:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...except for criteria 2[36] and 6[37]. Since a lot of their work seems to have been for theater, film and television, I'm suspicious that the WP:MUSIC guidelines might not apply very well to them. Pburka 23:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 21:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Beeswax On Parade[edit]

Delete. Non-notable weblog, advertising. —Charles O'Rourke 22:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Amren ^(talk) 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity entry. Not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Article has been expanded to include educational and entertaining information from Beeswax On Parade with the kind permission of the author.

Delete nn vanity Groeck 06:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity in need of a life Cje 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish eats the goat[edit]

Hoax. Nothing on Google or Yahoo, nothing on imdb. Nothing on "Tiffie Risco" either. Created by a user with several warnings on their Talk page about inserting nonsense. Zoe 23:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. BJAODN material? David | Talk 23:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give it that satisfaction! Also, delete. 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Confirmed not on google or imdb. Steve Summit (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amren ^(talk) 23:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Zoe has invited the intial editor to comment. Alf 02:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, either hoax or not notable per lack of IMDB and google info.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Doogie[edit]

I'm new around here, so forgive me if this nomination is in error...but this page has no meaningful content at all. GinaDana 23:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Vanity page. Doesn't even bother to identify the person that the article is about. ManoaChild 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Vanity page. Aranda56 20:42ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. No assertion of notability. Pburka 00:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy per above. --Etacar11 02:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted under criterion A7 (no assertion of notability). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Toon force[edit]

Delete: Not encyclopedic. Original research (at best). Cleduc 23:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsense and OR. ManoaChild 23:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should've been speedied.Amren ^(talk) 23:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 13:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Balisto[edit]

It's written in a non-encyclopedic way and is somewhat irrelevant. If someone wants to change it - that's fine with me, but I think it's stupid so far Dungo (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn, opinionated Steve Summit (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't know if this candy bar deserves an article but definitely not this one. --Etacar11 02:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon DiTroia[edit]

vanity, original research Ben-w 23:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Vanity page. Aranda56 20:44ET, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. No assertion of notability. Pburka 00:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, speedy if possible. He's 18, I'd say nn as a scholar at this point. --Etacar11 02:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly. Hall Monitor 19:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as recreation of afd'd article [38] --Doc (?) 00:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stewart (Inventor IP Multicast and Music)[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Rje 01:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ed Wither[edit]

Only one result on Google. The article isn't even a complete sentence. Acetic Acid 00:12, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - as above. --PhilipO 00:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable - I can't even seem to get one Google result. --Kwekubo 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Likely Hoax. Aranda56 20.47ET 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy. "Very short article providing little or no context" and "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" Pburka 00:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

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