Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 merged and redirected. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sui thor[edit]

23 Google hits for sui-thor and 5 for suithor, none clearly related to the general usage claimed. Isolated term from an online game, and the link to the game is not active. Samaritan 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with SubSpace (computer game). Al 00:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I was bold, and just completed the merge per Al Wikibofh 03:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Nice job with the merge, but instead of deleting the page, it should now be kept as a redirect in order to preserve the page history as per the GNU license. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I agree it's necessary, but OK. :) It would be nice if we could close this out early then. Wikibofh 04:11, August 31, 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 MERGE to Lawrence High School. -Splash 00:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence High School Red Scare Marching Band[edit]

non-notable, vanity GinaDana 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lawrence High School. Pburka 00:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Lawrence High School. else delete jiminy cricket! Roodog2k 01:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lawrence High School per above. Jaxl | talk 01:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. I hope school bands don't become the next "thing" to be inherently notable. Alr 01:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed! Roodog2k 01:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. -- DS1953 02:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above --Machtzu 05:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They have been increasingly popular among marching band audiences and have numerous musicians in their band who have performed at the Region and State Level.

That's weasle wording. If they performed at a region or state level, they should be easy to name. Anyway; Merge and redirect as per above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above DV8 2XL 12:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above... local high school spam is bad enough. --Vengeful Cynic 15:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn marching band --TimPope 17:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Neutrality^talk
School bands can be notable, but are not inherently. The article does not adequately assert the notability of this band (as mentioned above), so delete. Cmadler 13:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as suggested by User:Pburka. Also needs cleanup (see Mgm's comment). --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge this is ok Yuckfoo 18:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing that the utterly bizarre nickname (is it McCarthyist or poking fun at McCarthyism?) is neither explained nor mentioned in the article. Anyway, merge and redirect indeed. Chick Bowen 02:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 15:28, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Comment. I have merged the content into Lawrence High School, and cleaned it up a little bit. Pburka 19:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy redirect. Good job with the merge. Flower party 07:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above.Gateman1997 19:19, 6 September 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. Woohookitty 08:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper![edit]

Non-notable game. Al 00:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete Google for jumper "helix games" gets only 200 results. Seems like a cult game. Ashibaka (tock) 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete as per above. Wow... someone actually decided to improve on Berzerk *yawn* Roodog2k 01:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wonder, is this some kind of spam? Alr 01:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 01:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As notable as a good portion of our content, like small schools, tiny villages in Europe, broadcast towers, etc. Is well written and is linked to. It would be notable if it were a cult game. -- Reinyday, 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's actually not linked to. All of the links are user pages, VFD pages, and a single article about another game by the same creator. (That last link is just a see-also.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it matter if a tiny village is in Europe? They should be treated as any other American village. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - That is exactly my point. I hate when well written articles are called "non-notable". We don't know when that content will be wanted. If people want it, they will search for it or click links to it. If they don't, they won't. It is a loss for the Wikipedia when we delete good articles. -- Reinyday, 14:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per above. A rather good read IMHO DV8 2XL 02:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn game. ManoaChild 02:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and as noteable as other content on site, 200 results is easily enough to keep something on here. Not redundant it also needs to be rewritten for perspective.--Machtzu 05:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Not sure whether this is notable enough for a "Keep", but I see no reason for deleting it either, once someone has taken the time to write it (and quite well too). Kiss L 08:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Surely there are thousands of other entries more deserving of our wrath? --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I would argue that it's well-written, at least marginally notable (200 hits isn't glory, but it's not vanity or nonexistance either), and seemingly-significant to some populaation segment. Passes the Pokemon test with flying colors as well.--Vengeful Cynic 15:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Pokemon test? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Is it as or more notable than an individual Pokemon character?" Most Pokemon stubs have been merged because this was a notorious VfD joke, but the individual character (e.g. Charmander) is still a good marker for just bare notability. Ashibaka (tock) 22:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You need to be careful about that, as there are a LOT of Pokémon that have appeared in two games and maybe one episode of the anime. Charmander isn't a bad breakpoint for notability (I use Professor Frink as my personal test), but then you have Beldum or Trapinch... - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a well-written article about a notable game. I actually have the game, and the article taught me a lot of new things about it. - ulayiti (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ - This is a freeware game made with a "make your own game" toolset. I'm ambivalent about its notability, but please don't confuse this with a game published by a major publisher. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a decision. Homebrew games with no specific extraordinary claim or attribute are not notable. Delete. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuredly not notable. And, last time I checked, being well-written didn't give an article a pass on being deleted. Al 22:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
delete I don't like spam! And spam it is. Read the last two paragraphs The JCP is still under production. We have most of the programming done, and are now focusing on the creation of new levels. Some of the JCP-only objects that are available in the editor cannot be talked about until the JCP's release, but I assure you, anyone who was a fan of the official Jumper! games will love them! Spam spam spam spam spam. Sabine's Sunbird 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to change it if you don't like it, or add a {{cleanup-tone}} tag. Deletion is not the way to deal with POV issues. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 12:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well-wrtiten is not a keep criterion. Zoe 06:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Machtza.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

Delete The sheer obscurity of Jumper is not, in my opinion, reason enough to delete it. The following stuff is: First, it doesn't seem to provide much information one can't get from helixgamesinc.com or jumper fan sites. Also, the entire JCP section sounds like a sales pitch. I honestly think Jumper should have a wikipedia article, but not an ad campaign within Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.142.107 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}. Personally, I think it's a non-notable subject, but if you feel it is a notable subject, expand and establish notability. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't really know enough about it to expand the article. (If I did, why would I have tried to look it up?). Also, I'll admit I don't really know much about how Wikipedia works, but what exactly would be the point of expanding and revising an article that's about to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.142.107 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not necessarily about to be deleted. AFD isn't an automatic death sentence, just a review to see if the article is worth keeping. If an article is rewritten to demonstrate notability, it generally ends up being kept. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many less notable games have articles. --Nicodemus75 10:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you vote keep on those? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 18:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it matter? --Nicodemus75 21:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you feel that there's are legitmately less-notable games that deserve keeping, your logic is consistent. If it's only because those less-notable games' articles haven't been deleted yet, it's not. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly verifiable and encyclopedic. The JCP section needs some serious cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. I can easily imagine someone playing the game and deciding to look for more information about it here. The name of the article does not seem to conflict with any other topics. Therefore, there is an advantage to keeping it, and no disadvantage to keeping it. Factitious 11:45, September 5, 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 SPEEDILY REDIRECTED to KBPA-FM. No need for 5 days deciding this! -Splash 01:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KPBA[edit]

This was created as a result of a typo. The correct spelling is KBPA. MaTrIx 01:19, 31 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 SPEEDILY REDIRECT to KBPA-FM. No need for 5 days deciding this! -Splash 01:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KPBA-FM[edit]

This was created as a result of a typo. The correct spelling is KBPA. MaTrIx 01:17, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ofiend.tk[edit]

From the article: Canadian zombie related, Gothic,hardcore, obsessive Forumcruft. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 01:27:13, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Delete, non notable forum. --Fallout boy 01:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zombiecruft without an Alexa rank. -Splash 01:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ref. DV8 2XL 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn forum. Jaxl | talk 02:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, offends other notable forum, Gwat.tk. I suspect it is a satire.

How do u get an Alexia Rank?

- By having a large number of visitors. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Cnwb 04:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Samaritan 08:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A6; otherwise, Delete. Kiss L 08:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, attack on other forum (which I doubt is dead) and fails to assert any importance. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forumcruft. the wub "?/!" 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about a non-notable website. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:14, 31 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. Though ostensibly there is a huge delete consensus, many of the delete voters seem to believe that content could be merged--since there is more than one article author this is not possible. Another reason for deletion given is the name--this can be solved by moving the article. One delete voter wanted deletion "per nom" although in fact the nominator was asking for merge suggestions.

There is therefore no consensus on a course of actions that can be performed under the GFDL. I therefore invoke the cornerstone of our deletion policy: When in doubt, don't delete.

This is a problem that cannot be solved by AfD. I ask those who think the content is useful to find a suitable article and merge, and those who think the title is wrong to move it to a new title and delete the redirect.

Closing is difficult, and it's easy to get it wrong. I would not oppose an early relisting of this article if anyone feels strongly that I have got it wrong. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Artifacts from Asia found in Japan[edit]

Merge? While I do think the topic may have some merit, I don't think that NPOV can be achieved with that title, and I'm not sure the topic warrants its own page. Perhaps someone can suggest a good place to merge this material. -- Reinyday, 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

delete b/c with a merge, POV title would remain. Roodog2k 01:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not persuaded that the title is problematic enough to warrant deletion. On the presumption that the article is true, and items have been returned, they must have been at the least taken from Asia, and they certainly weren't borrowed! If they were 'taken' during conflict, they were probably stolen under any common definition. That the word might cause offense to some doesn't make it POV. Seeing as I can't think of a merge target, I'll abstain. -Splash 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stolen" refers to an unlawful act. While the "taking" of the artifacts in question was probably arguably unfair, it certainly doesn't seem to have been unlawful. Therefore "stolen" is inappropriate. (Not to mention that it is clearly offensive.) Kiss L 09:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, offensive title. The content may be added to Foreign relations of Japan, Sino-Japanese relations, and similar articles, in a more NPOV way. Kiss L 09:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete the edit history and keep the content. It's in violation with the GFDL. Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Japan and/or Sino-Japanese relations as suggested above. If current title is a problem move to Stolen art in Asia before merging. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. DV8 2XL 10:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move, merge and redirect as per Mgm. David Sneek 12:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stolen art in Asia is no better. Thats still POV. The issue isn't with the word "Japan" its with the word "stolen". Roodog2k 14:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about we move it to Artifacts from Asia found in Japan, then merge the content into one of the above suggestions? -- Reinyday, 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Merge any useful information into the appropriate articles. DO NOT REDIRECT; the name is POV and a redirect would be pointless as nobody will search for this topic under this name. Neutrality^talk 21:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
per Neutrality, delete and do not redirect. Cmadler 13:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neutrality. But please see Japanese cultural artifacts controversy, which I just spent the last hour laboring over. Uncle Ed 15:11, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Phroziac ^(talk) 13:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. To verbose and over-detailed. This can be mentioned elsewhere. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:09, 9 September 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gwat.tk[edit]

nonnotable students web forum [[User:Drini|-- (☺drini♫|☎)]] 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --PhilipO 01:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Alexa rank is off the bottom of the scale. I suspect some relation to Ofiend.tk which mentions this site. -Splash 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per referer DV8 2XL 01:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 02:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete, historical events on a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.96.143 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 30 August 2005
- What is the historical event? And can you give third party sources about this event? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Drini. Can't think of a single reason to keep this. Kiss L 09:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chronicles feud between non-notable sites. Filed with unsubstantiated POV language. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yet more forumcruft. the wub "?/!" 14:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:15, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amonity.com[edit]

No search results. Domain name not even reserved. - choster 01:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-existent. Presumably a typo, but I can't manage to guess what it was meant to be. -Splash 01:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and even if it is real, "created in June 2005" makes notability of a web site highly unlikely. -- DS1953 02:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. I agree; two months isn't enough time to make a website notable. Jaxl | talk 02:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless surprising new evidence of notability is provided. Samaritan 08:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Kiss L 09:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existent website. Article only lists etymology and name of owner. Vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-existent DV8 2XL 10:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existent site. *drew 12:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all the above. the wub "?/!" 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nn =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-existent site -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons outlined above. The Bearded One 17:19, 31 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. Woohookitty 08:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gnade[edit]

Non-notable musician producing albums out of a Portland basement. —Cleared as filed. 02:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

This article is "heavy with humid, festering decay" and should be deleted without delay. --DavidConrad 02:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AMG does list an Adam Gnade [1], but ~~he doesn't seem like the one being referred to in this article. Even if this was the correct one,~~ WP:MUSIC requires two albums, while the Adam Gnade at AMG has only one. Jaxl | talk 02:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to his website, this bloke has made a number of records see [2]. Allmusic.com has records of one album [3]. Concern about whether WP:Music has been met. Capitalistroadster 03:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I already cited the AMG entry, but WP:MUSIC suggests two albums on major record labels. This musician only has one full-length CD; the others are remixes or cassette-only releases, according to his site. Jaxl | talk 03:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he will be releasing his second album in November. While doing a search on Gnade, I noted that the German Wikipedia has an article on Gnade which presumably is on a different subject, It would be good to know what that subject is. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could derive from Google's translating tool, the Gnade on the German wiki is something about theology. Getting back to this Gnade, I don't know if Wikipedia is not a crystal ball would apply here, but I think we should wait until his second album is released before the wiki has an article on him. Jaxl | talk 04:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He may be worthy of an article in November, or after November, or in the year 2012, or at some other time in the future. But is he today? Deleting an article now does not preclude creating an article at some later date. --DavidConrad 04:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per David Conrad. Apparently, gnade is German for Grace by the way. Capitalistroadster 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN DV8 2XL 12:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 23:18, 31 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. Woohookitty 08:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Nerd_Who_Ate_St.Louis[edit]

Vanity article about a non-notable band that does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, should be deleted. DavidConrad 02:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could speedy delete this garbage. Alr 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
9 googles, no AMG entry, delete. Jaxl | talk 03:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Much as the world needs ska bands singing about Pacman, they don't currently meet WP:Music so Delete. Capitalistroadster 03:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Best band name since Anal sex in Brasil, but alas, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Policy DV8 2XL 12:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bandanity. the wub "?/!" 14:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable band. Not a bad name for a band though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:17, 31 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 Marskell 11:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1900 Summer Olympics mixed team[edit]

A single paragraph article that has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} for more than six months. I don't expect it to expand much more, and I can find no reference to Michael Ramus in the capacity in which he is described in the article. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:49, 2005 August 31 (UTC)

Keep. I've done a bit of research and rewritten the article to reflect information from the official IOC website. Pburka 03:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Good job on the re-write. I just stubbed it. Wikibofh 03:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Comment As I read this article, I am curious as to when these mixed teams were eliminated from the Olympics, and how the 1900 Summer games compare to other Olympics in this regard. (Were there mixed teams in 1896?) But I can't learn that from this article. Is there an article on the general phenomenon of mixed teams? If so, could it be linked here? If not, it should be written. Perhaps this article should be moved there and expanded to include mixed teams from other years. --DavidConrad 04:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is historical and worth maintaining-Machtzu 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site shows that the mixed team came fourth after France, the US and UK in the medal count. [4] Well done, PBurka for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 05:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still stubby, but contains the baer essentials for expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's OK DV8 2XL 11:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CalJW 13:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
either Expand or Delete - which nations did the individuals in this mixed team hail from? The article leaves many questions unanswered and is unencyclopaedic Rhyddfrydol 20:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on improving Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarianism in Gilgit, Baltistan[edit]

Previously speedied, but recreated by the user again. Wanted to get a second opinion on whether any content can be placed in another article, and whether this should be deleted. Thanks for your help! HappyCamper 03:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOR Wikibofh 03:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The page consists entirely of arguments, polemics, and opinion. Where there are facts mentioned they are used as support and are incidental to the purpose of advancing the author's POV, and in any case are not supported by any references. The overall tone does not appear to have ever been intended to be encyclopedic. I do not see how anything could be salvaged from the article as it stands. If there is a topic here deserving of an article, I strongly suspect it would be easier for a subject matter expert to write it from scratch than to use this text as a starting point. Delete --DavidConrad 04:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kept if verifiable and if can be rewritten to neutral pov — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Machtzu (talk • contribs) 05:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. --DrTorstenHenning 07:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DavidConrad. Kiss L 09:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay in first person. All statements unsourced. WP:NOR. What would be next? Sectarianism in San Fransisco, California? Anything that's verified and referenced can go into: Sectarianism. No need for granular detail. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy POV Manik Raina 09:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy. Neither a real encyclopedia article or even an honest attempt at one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV DV8 2XL 11:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, rant. the wub "?/!" 15:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – this is not the place for essays. And besides, it should be Gilgit, not Gilgit, Balistan. Pakistan city names do not follow the US convention, and as far as my knowledge goes, there's only one Gilgit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
delete rant. Sabine's Sunbird 01:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted it. -Splash 20:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A future loss[edit]

We begin the evening's festivities with a bit of band vanity for your dancing pleasure, complete with a myspace.com webspace! A one an' a two... - Lucky 6.9 03:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:music. Capitalistroadster 03:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have a MySpace webspace, too. Do I get an article? Delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 03:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, including move to A Future Loss. They've released something, and have played at various recognizable places. --Merovingian (t) (c) 03:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No indication of meeting any criteria in WP:MUSIC. android 79 04:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete policy DV8 2XL 11:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; "A Future Loss" band receives 188 hits, many of which are unrelated to this band. ral 315 04:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 04:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: El zippo over at allmusic.com; a sockpuppet account appeared out of nowhere to remove the deletion notice and add a photo...so it's protected for the time being. Prepare for the attack of the support hosiery on a VfD page near you. - Lucky 6.9 04:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They do not meet WP:MUSIC's criteria. Plus, this is just glaring vanity.|IINAG 04:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity / NN. Cnwb 06:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have an LJ, myspace, MSN Spaces, so I should get an article too if this stays. Oh wait, I have one. You find it by clicking on my user name and it sends you to my user page. (Sorry about the rant, my vote is delete). --Tito xd 06:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC and blatant vanity as the word "we" shows. Delete unless Merovingian shows up with evidence to support his claim further up the page. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. the wub "?/!" 15:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I'm withdrawing my vote; consider it null and void. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:49, August 31, 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 08:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davien Crow[edit]

Non-notable musician, part of a group of three interrelated articles that I am recommending for deletion. DavidConrad 03:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as platform for external linking. Could've been included in the article on the band. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per criterion A3; failing that, Delete. Kiss L 10:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-entity DV8 2XL 11:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont mind if this one is deleted. More information will be avalible later.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. I count 5 delete votes (including nominator) and 4 keep votes, which is too small a difference. — JIP | Talk 18:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Pollution[edit]

This former band does not meet the guidelines in WP:MUSIC. One of their 'albums' is a demo tape only available from their web site. It is one of three interrelated articles that I am recommeding for deletion as a group. DavidConrad 04:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- It satisfies WP:MUSIC. Factitious 11:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm. Kiss L 10:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete policy DV8 2XL 11:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep users:sin-thetik 11:38 August 2005 (EST) the Sin Star page lists a CD released on a record label credited as Mind Pollution. I also will find the others if possible. The Writer did not place it on the Mind Pollution page for some reason. It also states there is no known discorgraphy left for Mind Pollution however as with Sin Star I am very familliar with this band. I can correct the rumors from the facts , rephrase the writing , and get it all within the guidelines.
Keep I have edited the Mind Pollution page for the original author in order to meet the criterea. unsigned comment by Sin-thetik 12:33, 31 August 2005
Keep. Meets criterion 2 of WP:MUSIC. I think they also meet criterion 3, but I don't know enough about the specific indie labels in question to say for sure. Given that Mind Pollution is notable according to WP:MUSIC, the article should not be deleted. Factitious 11:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

How do you figure? There is no verifiable information on any of these albums or tours. There is nothing about them on allmusic. Several of the links they give are dead, several more go to their web site or blogs. They direct people to search for "Mind Pollution" on bandnameregister.com — OK, I did. Result: '"Mind Pollution" is not yet registered with Bandname.com'.

After an unsigned editor (the article creator?) above offered to improve the article, it remains in a poor, semi-literate state with unverifiable vanity bandcruft. (Note to editor: in English there is only one space associated with a comma, and it comes after the comma, not before.)

A Google search for "Mind Pollution" turns up a fair number of hits, but few if any seem to have anything to do with the band. I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but I still think this article should be deleted. --DavidConrad 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction: the unsigned comment was from new user Sin-thetik, who presumably thought the signature in the previous comment would apply to both. It is customary to sign each comment at the end with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.) --DavidConrad 05:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DavidConrad , you obviously aren't checking the sources out for one thing. You keep complaing about all of these external links when they go right to several pages on the net with information about them. Why don't you use your head and Google the names Davien Crow , Alison Bordan , Darien Starr , Nancy Marzulli , and so on and so forth ? For Both Sin Star and Mind Pollution. Davien Crow returns some decent hits. AND YES THE TOURS ARE VERIFIABLE ! all you have to do is use the Internet Archives to visit their former pages. These pages were cached several years ago and you can't alter them past when they are. There is a link to the internet archives (the way back machine) in the sources.
Keep They can both be found on [BYOFL.org BYOFL.org]. Honestly the number of sites with info on them is numerous. Perhaps they just arent at the top of the results list ? Especially since they've been broken up a while. I might also add that Davien Crow is a member of BMI. There is a link on the Sin Star page. However you can look up Crow , Davien using the correct paremters (songwriter I think) and it will show up as well.
- EDIT I have overhauled the entire page. Fixed information, removed promotional or biased language, corrected spelling mistakes (that I found). I added more information and properly cited all references. Hope you guys reconsider. If anything it may be wise to merge Mind Pollution with Sin Star but both currently fit the guidelines under WP:MUSIC and I beleive all of the other broken guidelines have been corrected as well. I am new to Wikipeidia , so please be more constructive with your criticism so that I may donate to articles correctly and provide Wikipedia with new information that it does not yet have.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. I count 4 delete votes (including nominator), 3 keep votes and 1 merge vote. Too small a difference for consensus. — JIP | Talk 19:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Star[edit]

This vanity page for a band that does not meet the guidelines of WP:MUSIC contains an unusually large number of external links. It is the third of a group of three articles that I am recommending together for deletion. DavidConrad 04:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

'There is no doubt Sin Star has a long way to go "on the road to fame" but they have proven they will stop at nothing to further establish their name and leave their problems in the wake.

There is no doubt this band should be deleted unless their name is established first. Contains rumours and promotional language. Article is also a school example of link spam. You don't need to link an official website and its forums seperately and if you link a forum as a source, you'll need the specific thread to back up claims. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm. Kiss L 10:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity DV8 2XL 11:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep users:sin-thetik 11:38 August 2005 (EST) I will edit the page to remove promotional language , I am very familliar with this band. They aren't just well known for their music but also their promotional sucsess. I will cite sources for them over if given time. It would be ashame to have them removed when it is apparent they had nothing to do with the creation of it. The external links you say are abundant are to sites that have a signfigance in that promotional sucsess.
Keep I have edited the page including information , sources , and otherwise that meets the guidelines. Thanks. unsigned comment from Sin-thetik 13:37, 31 August 2005
Merge with Mind Pollution. Factitious 11:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
There are 51 external links in the article. A Google search for "Sin Star" results, aside from their home page, mostly in pages that do not seem to have anything to do with the band, including [5], which appears to be a different artist altogether. The only thing allmusic has on "Sin Star Project" (they have nothing on "Sin Star") is Genre: Rock. A few quotes from the article: "Davien Crow has appared in [Ultima Online] as a promotion geusture but it is unknown as to if this was an official or not." "Sin Star currently does not have a drummer and their is no speculation that they will hire one until the completion of the upcoming album." "Sin Star's debut full length album ... has been in the works for over a year now." I'm sticking with my original recommedation to delete. --DavidConrad 05:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The link you provided "that appears to be another artist" is to an amature-semi-pro porn star. Not a band. Those quotes can easly be derived from the News section at http://sinstar.net/community/ , their main site is currently under construction (though a version was up some time ago). The entry is made by a fan , however I have been working to try to get it "corrected" to fit the guidelines get the sources correct. One important source that seems to have been missed is http://www.mushroomcloudrecords.com/wwbhvol2.htm which I will be adding myself to the Mind Pollution page and Sin Star page. This article is worth keeping , The number of external links is to site the sources .. ALL of the other links are links to the sites promoting sin star since one of the accomplishments of Sin Star (an important fact) is the internet promotion with these sites & people (such as Gidget Gein whom have done so stricly out of charity. SMNnews.com is one of the largest sites on the internet for Music News. So is Blabbermouth.net .. Marilyn-Manson.net is listed on the Marilyn Manson page. The promotional items are still viewable on those sites and on [6]. Gidget Gein whom is Marilyn Manson's former bass player has varifiable connections with Sin Star [7] , Marilyn Manson has verifiable connections with sin star [8]. Another link between them and manson is the fact that their manager (voluntarily) was Nancy Marzulli , whom is itnerviewed in VH1's Manson Biography for being his Editor at the magazine 7th Parallel. Her involment can be viewed by visiting by seeing some of the drama unfolding after they let her ho [9] or on several other topics containing "Clasmate" or "Nancy" in the subject line in The Recycling Bin for the sites old posts. Her name is also in the MTV Article as the author , she is after all a journalist. Tons of info can be found here [10] with links and sources. I hope you reconsider the signifigance of the links listed on the page , they aren't spam. The phrases contained within the page that are "promotional" could easily be edited out by onw of you as well.
- Edit I have done a complete overhaul of the page , added all missing information I could find , correctly cited my references , added some more information I came across (related to media appreances and relationships with bands such as [marilyn manson] and artists such as [gidget gein]) , and well just look for yourself. Most of your complaints are now taken care of. Oh and honestly , how do you expect fan pages and music sites to compete with Porn sites selling amature porn ? 04:22, 7 September 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. Vote as I have it is 33 for delete, 22 for merge and 19 for keep. So 52 of 74 votes want it to be deleted in some way. If you discount some of the anon votes, the percentage is higher. The problem is whether to delete or merge. For now, let's wait. I will put a note on the talk page about the vote. Once the target article is made, then we can merge and redirect or just delete the article. We do have similar memorials for 9/11 at [[11]]. Wiki could very easily decide to do something similar for Hurricane Katrina, so let's not be so hasty. For now, I'm going to leave things as is. You may rake me over the coals starting...now. I will also rename this article Hardy Jackson as it should be under his real name. Woohookitty 08:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Jackson (now Hardy Jackson)[edit]

I say keep it. I speedied this article twice, but it was restored twice (once by me). Still, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While I offer my condolences to Mr. Jackson, he needs to be more notable for stuff other than losing his wife in the recent hurricane and going on TV about it. Due to the heavy loses in the hurricane, there will be others going on TV to express their sadness. Delete, but a gentle one. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if folks want to merge the article to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi, I personally have no problems with it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Zscout could you please clarify what exactly your vote is? Marskell 11:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I crossed out the delete vote. It seems that this was not a one time interview. Most likely, I will support a merge. Also, I was told that the guy's real name is Hardy Jackson, so for those who are Google-checking, we could try this new name out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep for the moment. It could turn out his story is fake or his wife was actually a space alien or he runs for Congress or something in the near future. Weak keep. Stlemur 04:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; he's become a celebrity, more or less. --Merovingian (t) (c) 04:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the moment at least Nick Catalano (Talk) 04:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or transwiki. Wrong project. There's nothing wrong with the content except that it's not encyclopedic, because nobody is going to remember Mr. Jackson in a year or two. The fact that people are voting "keep for the moment" is a perfect indication that this is transitory content: interesting now, but not for long. That makes it news, so it belongs on Wikinews. Isomorphic 04:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps when the Harvey Jackson Trust opens, but at the moment he's no more notable than any other named or photographed interviewee in a disaster report, i.e. he isn't notable. Besides, how do we know he isn't lying? -Ashley Pomeroy 04:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe add later if still noteworthy. Jehochman 05:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However macabre it might be he has been referenced on TV and has been reported by the BBC that alone makes him nontrivial--Machtzu 05:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Millions of people loose loved ones in tragic circumstances every day. The fact that a TV crew happen to stumble upon Mr. Jackson does not make him notable. Similarly, every day the news media reports on non-notable people whose lives are momentarily thrust into the spotlight. If Jackson gains notability, then we can add an article. Cnwb 06:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Harvey Jackson is not notable. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People die all the time. Coffee 07:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator Pilatus 07:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Biloxi, after Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Samaritan 08:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I second Samaritan's merge idea. --Ferretsage 09:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. It wasn't even him who died, and his wife wouldn't warrant an article, either. Proto t c 09:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added an article on historian and professor Harvey Jackson III. If the concensus is to delete this article, I would suggest moving the article on Harvey Jackson III to this namespace. Capitalistroadster 09:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to Wikinews if possible. Being the subject of a 2-minute interview on the news, doesn't make you encyclopedia worthy. Besides, the article tells nothing about him, apart from the fact he's got two children. It's totally mistitled. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete (nothing to add to the above) Kiss L 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, pending a merge delete in a week if no suitable article to merge it with is written by then. Thryduulf 10:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but reevaluate two weeks from now. I'd rather defer a VfD until a time when we can have perspective, rather than a cycle of add/delete/add/delete while the news is big. --Bletch 10:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator DV8 2XL 11:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this can always be rewritten later if he becomes more notable. Nandesuka 11:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Samaritan. ~~ N (t/c) 12:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep He became a symbol of the emotional response for Katrina and does extremely well on the Google Test. Notable. ---FoodMarket ^talk! 12:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think most of these aren't this Harvey Jackson.
  - Agreed. Harvey Jackson isn't a particularly unusual name. ral 315 13:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if the person is notable later, the article can be recreated. -- Kjkolb 13:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- If this person is non-notable later, this article can be deleted then. 64.59.209.89 14:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Delete.--Encephalon | ^ζ 14:01:04, 2005-08-31 (UTC) I'd support Zscout's latest proposal to create an article at Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi, and merge this into that, leaving this page as a redirect (save page history).—Encephalon | ^ζ 04:42:05, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
- Wasn't my idea, but I gladly supported it, hence the offering of merging this article. If others can agree to the merge, I can have the deletion debate closed early. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, I feel so sorry for the closing admin. This is not going to be a fun close.—Encephalon | ^ζ 05:24:26, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Delete. WP:ISNOT a memorial. -Splash 14:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, pending a Merge. I say merge it with the main article under effects in Biloxi Mississippi for now. It's really WAY too early to tell what his place is. He may go vastly unremembered in the long run, or he may become the symbol human element of the entire event, like Tank Man with Tiananmen Square or Baby 81 with the Indian Ocean Tsunami disaster. jcomp489
Delete. GhePeU 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nandesuka. Getting your 15 minutes of fame does not make for encyclopedic notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice to a later nomination or (better) a later merger when all this material is more settled. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:20, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
'keep please why should this ever be erased Yuckfoo 17:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Temp keep as per jcomp. This guy could be the one everyone remembers. I know I've had him EXPLICITLY cited to me at least twice now... -HX 17:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per jcomp, since this interview is like the photo of the fireman carrying the baby after the Murrah bombing...it's a symbol of the event, and is getting a lot of play in the media. People may remember him or his story and search for it, so it should be somewhere - best in the Biloxi article.
Delete. WP is not a memorial. Quale 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Harvey's story caps the plight of those drastically affected by the natural catastrophe. His tormented face, and the interviewing reporter's vain efforts to contain her emotional response are seared in the memories of those who have seen the clip on T.V.
Delete. Short-term interest (although tragic) Dananderson 19:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, Merge later let's see if his story becomes iconic enough to warrant an indvidual page. Glowimperial 19:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Everyone who's on tv gets a Wiki entry now? --Barryap 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with people who said wikipedia is not a memorial 210.54.8.253 20:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. I agree with Samaritan on this one. Also, I hate to be a cynic, but don't believe he should have his own article unless it can be proven that his story is actually true. If anything, he might only be notable for pulling off a terrible hoax during a time of tragedy. Beginning 21:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Zscout370, Proto and Nandesuka. WP is not a memorial. --Blackcap | talk 21:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Hurricane Katrina for a brief reference; redirect to Harvey Jackson III, the notable historian. Neutrality^talk 22:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Wait at least three weeks before processing a VfD, or Merge with one of the Katrina articles. -- Seth Ilys 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean that my nomination should have waited or should the closing take place three weeks later than usual? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Carnildo 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So
Delete - He is just one of the many devastated. Just because you are caught on camera, doesn't make you any more noteworthy than the rest. - Hahnchen 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not notable enough for a seperate article. siafu 00:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews or Delete in 3 weeks if nothing else concerning him happens. If something notable happens with him later, the article can just be rewritten. --Miroku Sanna 00:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I am sympathetic, no, I do not think man's story is worth a wikipedia article. User:tstockma
Delete. WP is not a memorial. Tonywalton | Talk 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For all you people saying WP is not a memorial -- Harvey isn't dead. The "memorial" would be for his wife. this article is about Harvey as a symbol of the human suffering of Katrina 69.142.21.24 03:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was only started because Mr. Jackson lost his wife in the Hurricane and got facetime due to it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zscout, couldnt you make a similar argument for Scott Peterson? Or are all murder trials notable? There are dozens of murder trials each week not given articles in WP 69.142.21.24
    - Scott's murder caused debates about how fetuses are treated as criminal victims and caused for the passage of state and federal laws. Due to that, Scott Petterson has a lasting effect on victim's rights and criminal procedures (and perhaps American attitudes on the dealth penalty). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thousands died. Sadly, Harvey's story is not unique. If an article is added on the Media Coverage of Hurricane Katrina or Media Coverage of Natural Disasters, this would fit there. Harvey as an individual does not warrant an article. 141.154.244.208 03:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. Revisit in a few weeks. People may be interested enough in this person to turn to Wikipedia for information about him, at least for a little while. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for now. I agree with BD2412. I believe we should keep this article for now should Mr. Jackson become more prominent. If not, delete at a later time. --Blue387 02:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge for now, consider separate article in a month or two --Sophitus 05:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge A two-minute interview, when he's one of potentially thousands of comparable stories. Unless he becomes a spokesman for survivors or something, he's not individually notable -- even for this. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. While Wikipedia is not a memorial, per se, mention of Jackson may be appropriate in a Media Coverage or Effects article. Deadsalmon 07:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename for now. As it stands, this is an article about a media event or a media phenomenon, not an article about a human being. --arkuat (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into effects/media coverage. I've seen the clip featuring Jackson on CNN, Vesti, and ZDF, so it seems to have been one most widespread clips of early coverage, and is therefore noteworthy, but probably not noteworthy enough to deserve its own article. 66.177.132.73 08:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The interview's been shown on all the main news channels here in Britain, and is likely to be something people remember from the coverage, but an article to himself is overdoing it a little since he's not (at the moment, anyway) notable in any way that can be separated from Katrina. Loganberry (Talk) 11:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--Ted-m 13:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an obituary column. ral 315 13:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Dude's not dead. jcomp489

Wife is.—Encephalon | ^ζ 13:42:11, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

Delete. Would Wikipedia keep an article about a Bangladeshi Harvey Jackson? We need to, constantly, be aware of the problems with Ethnocentrism and Systemic bias. --Tsaddik Dervish 13:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the article as it is now I change my vote to keep.--Tsaddik Dervish 17:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would. See Baby 81 64.59.209.89 14:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Googling ("Harvey Jackson" Katrina -wikipedia) only gets 35 hits, all on the first page false positives. Rich Farmbrough 13:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- try doing that same search on news.google.com -- dozens of results, all relevant. 64.59.209.89 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If being on TV is all it takes, I am several times more notable than Mr. Jackson. But I am not notable, and neither is he. Cmadler 14:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- are you a symbol of a national tragedy discussed offices, schools, and homes world-wide? And were your appearances aired and re-aired countless times by EVERY MAJOR NEWS STATION IN THE WORLD? If so, maybe you too should have a Wikipedia article 64.59.209.89 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - If his appearances have been 'aired and re-aired countless times by EVERY MAJOR NEWS STATION IN THE WORLD' why was this AfD the first time I heard of the guy? I hardly live in a hole. I listen to NPR daily, and have watched local and national broadcast TV news daily for the past week. I have seen scores of people interviewed (should they each have a page?) but none that seemed notable or were repeated over and over. Cmadler 11:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or transwiki This is the wrong place. CJewell (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a hoax. Harvey Jackson is a artist from Gillette, Wyoming. 212.101.64.4 16:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to be sensible. --Blackcap | talk 18:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- That vote shouldn't count, as it's not a legit reason. Luis Rodríguez is a couple of notable baseball player, a singer/actor, and an character on Sesame Street. People share names. -- user:zanimum
  - I think there's a good chance he's just taking the piss and joking. I'd have to hear him say it for it to count, though. --Blackcap | talk 18:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
    - Sorry, I thought that the smiley wasn't necessary. However, the delete vote remains. come back in a month and see whether there's any interest in him. then create the article. 212.101.64.4 07:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in some way, shape, or form. When people remember events, then remember emotions. This is the most notable interview, and will likely be the best remembered, in 10, 20 years from now. -- user:zanimum
- If it's remembered at all. Can you remember a single interview from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake? I can't. No one will remember this man's two-minute claim to fame, if you can call it that. --Blackcap | talk 18:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wiki is not a memorial and even if it were there is something gratuitous and off-putting about this entry. The man, presumably, hasn't even had a chance to bury his wife. Marskell 19:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, maybe merge later. This article is NOT a memorial. NO ONE IS DEAD. Harvey is clearly alive, and his wife is MISSING. All the votes that say WP is not a memorial should be discounted, as no one is dead. This article is notable because it represents the emotional response to Katrina much like, argued earlier tank man or baby 81 64.59.209.89 19:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong. See Encephalon's argument. This man is only notable because his wife is dead or missing. That's where the memorial part is. Obviously he himself is not dead. --Blackcap | talk 19:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Just because notability initially stems from someone being dead or missing does not mean that notability is not warrented. Arguments like Encephalon's would disqualify any subject whose initial rise to notability arose from death. See Cindy Sheehan. 64.59.209.89
    - Point, but Cindy Sheehan practically has a daily column in a number of newpapers and is protesting the death of her son, whereas Harvey Jackson's wife died in a natural disaster, had a 2-minute piece on some television channels, and he's not protesting anything or otherwise doing anything notable except having a wife who died in a hurricane. --Blackcap | talk 19:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
      - I agree he is not as famous as Cindy Sheehan. However, it's arguable his story has been covered by as wide a range of media as Mrs. Sheehan, if not as repeatedly. Although according to the article now, the Today Show is looking to do a follow-up story so his "15 minutes" of fame may be longer.64.59.209.89 19:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, but what's he doing that worthy of a WP article? Being on TV and having a dead wife? --Blackcap | talk 20:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
        He's not doing anything, nor has he asked for coverage within or without of Wikipedia. The world's response is the heart of the story; if you would like perhaps we can re-name the article "response to Harvey Jackson interview" but I think the name should be simpler --64.59.209.89 20:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        O.K. He's not doing anything special, so what makes the world's response to this paticular interview special? Why shou;d this interview be mentioned in the response to Hurricane Katrina? Isn't it just another survivor story? As far as I can tell, all that should remain of this article is a sentence in the Effect of Hurricane Katrina article saying something like, "The world feels great sympathy for the sufferers of this hurricane," and have this as a source. Not worthy of a merge, definitely not an article. --Blackcap | talk 23:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - Mr. Jackson's story is not just his own, but that of many natives of Louisiana. This is not some 15 minutes of fame story, this is historical.-- 204.108.16.101 (Vote moved here from article discussion page) 64.59.209.89 19:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then should this be merged? If it's merged, then it gets kept, but as a section of another article. If this isn't a unique story, why does it deserve that? 19:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Merge - If he becomes as notable as the Peace Mom (Cindy Sheehan) or the Tank Man, then an article about him can be created. Milena 19:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

See my argument above. --Blackcap | talk 19:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi. It would be hard for him to keep an article, even though his story has been very heart-wrenching. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge unless he becomes more notable later. Tuf-Kat 22:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect he is certainly notable, and is likely to become a cause-celebre. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --WikiFan04^{Talk 20:52, 1 Sep 2005 (CDT)}
Delete Per tonywalton. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Deaths suck, but this is not the place to commemorate the dead. I feel awful saying this but it's true. Plus, Jackson may not want to be famous. I don't think anyone's mentioned that yet. --- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if he "wants" to be famous, Jackson is notable, like it or not. Wikipedia cannot poll each living subject in its encyclopedia asking if he or she approves. Also --No one is dead, so it's not a memorial. Who has died? 69.142.21.24 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - His wife did. Because of his wife's loss, he was put on television. If he did not lose his wife, we most likley never heard of him. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - His wife is NOT dead. She is missing. there are over 30,000 still missing and they are not all dead 69.142.21.24 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - The way the lead was worded when I first saw the article, she was dead. But since there is a chance she could be alive. So, I changed the lead a bit to state that she went missing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yes, Wikipedia is not a Memorial but Mr. Jackson's story reflects those affected by Hurricane Katrina. Merge to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Lheaom 03:57, September 2, 2005 (UTC).

Oops, Merge to Effect of Hurricane Katria on Mississippi. Lheaom 03:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC).
- I think you mean Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi Merge and redir sounds fine to me as a compromise 69.142.21.24 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, dunno why people want to merge with Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans when the man was from Mississippi... 24.250.105.29 04:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite and additions now I believe justify keeping his own article 64.59.209.89 16:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new article on Hurricane Katrina survivor stories. -St|eve 21:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mate, all Hurricane Katrina survivor stories is is this article vut and pasted over there. It's worthy of a speedy as a duplicate article. --Blackcap | talk 22:14, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Comment/vote. In my opinion, this article was listed for deletion too early; we need to keep this listing up for a little while longer as the news story continues to play out. We don't know yet what kind of role he's going to have in the aftermath, if he'll become a famous celebrity, etc. There are people who become famous because they are victims in tragedies (Todd Beamer, etc.) or relatives of those who die in wars (Cindy Sheehan, etc.). If Mr. Jackson ever gets this kind of notability, or anything close, I'd say keep and move to Hardy Jackson (for crying out loud, that page should be moved now, if his name is not Harvey Jackson, but Hardy Jackson!) Otherwise delete per WP:NOT a memorial, or transwiki to an appropriate memorial wiki as we do for 9/11 victims. So far, hurricane victims and 9/11 victims aren't that different from each other. --Idont Havaname 01:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For your argument about Cindy Sheehan, please see my post above. --Blackcap | talk 01:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for now, his story has been featured all over the world and for many he is a symbol of the suffering in that area. May need to be merged later. Zerbey 03:44, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. At the very least, merge to a Hurricane Katrina article. --FuriousFreddy 04:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)JonBenét Ramsey has an article[reply]
KEEP. Notable story, has been broadcast many times nationwide, especially by people trying to collect donations for the victims. Notable person. At least belay a VfD until this has all calmed down a bit. --Golbez 08:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Interpretations of consensus[edit]

Consensus seems to be to merge to a new article, not to outright delete it or keep it as it. -St|eve 21:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not sure how longer the AFD should last, but the article should be merged. Ecen with all of the Annon votes striken out, it would be a mix between merge and delete. But where should we merge it too, we have to figure that out now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not remove the vfd notice from article and leave it until the destination article is written? As of right now, there is no destination article but the consensus is we want to save this material 69.142.21.24 22:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has been up for two days, let's give it a few more days. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - How's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_Mississippi#Hardy_Jackson. I know it was mainly a copy and paste job, but I think more details could be added or the article trimmed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed is what I did. When you take out the redundant prose, it's substantially smaller. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Perhaps we should postpone this decision until things have settled down; at the time being, it's difficult to keep any article detailing rescues/evacuations in order due to the constantly changing nature of events. I'm guessing that in a couple of weeks, the dust will have settled some and things can take a more coherent order. In any case, by then it'll be easier to understand the notability of Jackson's story in light of other survivors and integrate it into wherever it ends up. Deadsalmon 06:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Queen's Golden Gaels. -Splash 00:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Thigh[edit]

Despite it's dubious-looking name, this is the fight-song of a college sports team. The article consists largely of the lyrics. perhaps this is a case for merging, but deletion is surely a viable option too. Grutness...wha? 04:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article on team. Cnwb 06:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove copyvio lyrics and merge and redirect to Queen's Golden Gaels. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge also title misleading DV8 2XL 11:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - I bet that if someone were to flesh out the history of the song, it would be pretty interesting. -Joshuapaquin 01:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted the copyrighted lyrics. This leaves a one-paragraph stub. Merge and redirect to Queen's Golden Gaels which is only a similarly-sized stub and has plenty of room for this one. Zoe 06:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Are the lyrics actually under copyright?Homey 18:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to something. This is certainly an interesting name for a song. Karmafist 21:56, 5 September 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, defaulted to keep. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Edward Tudor[edit]

There is only flimsy evidence that this individual ever existed. There is nothing to show he ever did anything, notable or otherwise, besides possibly being born to royalty, and even that seems unlikely. Sarge Baldy 04:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Henry VII of England doesn't mention him having a son of that name. Neither does Historic World Leaders published by Galenet in 1994. As it is not verifiable, the contents should be deleted and it should become a redirect to Edward VI of England. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect With only a couple of sentances in the entry it would be better to redirect this to the Henry VII page untill such time more information can be located as to the veracity of the entry--Machtzu 05:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Henry VII of England and label as rumor until more verifiable info can be found to warrant separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Henry VII of England, then redirect to Edward VI of England (possibly adding an "otheruses" notice to the top of the latter). Kiss L 10:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteLack of evedence DV8 2XL 11:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Henry VII of England until confirmed proof of existence can be found and verified. Prsgoddess187 15:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward VI of England, an Edward Tudor who definitely did exist. This article is rumour, probably unfounded, even turning it into a redirect to Henry VII of England could be giving this rumour undue legitimacy, although it could be mentioned very briefly in the article on Henry. PatGallacher 17:41, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
Keep - The fact there is a possibility he existed, and that there is discussion, is grounds that he is of significant historical interest, and should be kept. Rhyddfrydol, 22:27 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep Any son, or possible son, of a King of England, deserves an article. Bhoeble 01:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward VI of England, who is by far the most famous person named Edward Tudor. john k 03:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward VI of England. Contents practically already are at Henry VII. 217.140.193.123 20:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bhoeble. Do not merge. —RaD Man (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bhoeble. --Nicodemus75 11:01, 3 September 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Abramson[edit]

Delete. I hate to do this to someone to whom I'm probably related, but he gets about 30 real Google hits, has no allmusic.com entry, and does not indicate any WP:MUSIC criteria. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN. Cnwb 06:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nobody DV8 2XL 11:25, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fujinomosist[edit]

I can't find any indication that this is real Rx StrangeLove 05:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, if not a hoax, more to Wiktionary. Cnwb 06:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion G1. Dicdef with 0 google hits = patent nonsense. Failing that, Delete. Kiss L 10:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax DV8 2XL 11:27, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Internet Exchange[edit]

Delete. advertising, nn business. MCB 06:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. Little of the current content is useful, but the IXP itself is notable. If it doesn't deserve its own article, redirect to Internet Exchange Point. Kiss L 10:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DV8 2XL 11:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MCB. *drew 12:34, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CYBORIS[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; 13 irrelevant google hits on "CYBORIS," 0 on "CYBORIS +unix". --FreelanceWizard 07:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on whether CYBORIS is a good or bad post. I don't know. I just think the author shouldn't include his own personal opinions on a company's operating system and then freely give out his/her E-mail address. It makes the post feel a bit personal and more like an Advertisement. (unsigned comment by User:Fabian Boudville)

Delete, Usrnme h8er 09:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP and FreelanceWizard. Kiss L 10:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep make stub DV8 2XL 11:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not even a whisper of an assertion of notability in this article. Nandesuka 11:44, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E.W. Blake[edit]

The article claims Blake is most well known for his short story "Social Solidarity", yet Google reveals no results for "Social Solidarity" + any of the following; "ew blake", "e. w. blake", "eric blake", "eric winfield blake" Cnwb 06:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn and probable vanity --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kiss L 10:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator DV8 2XL 11:31, 31 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. Close vote (20 to 10) but I'm going to side with delete due to the pointlessness of stuff like this. Woohookitty 08:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of all two-letter combinations[edit]

Non notable, non-encyclopaedic, meaningless collection −Woodstone 21:18:35, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

keep please this is interesting and wikipedia is not paper Yuckfoo 21:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What possible purpose could this serve? If someone's interested in two-letter combinations then can sit down and think up some themselves. The list has absolutely no encyclopedic value. Soltak | Talk 21:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lists of random combinations are not useful but rather just static. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Tεx τ urε 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopaedic rubbish, and where will it stop, three letter combinations, four letter combinations, ten letter combinations? DV8 2XL 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information --Carnildo 23:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree that Wikipedia is not paper, I must agree with DV8 2XL. Psy Guy 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless, non-encyclopedic exercise. Dottore So 23:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless Contextless junk - Hahnchen 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carnildo. -Splash 23:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to accidentally have voted twice. Oops! -Splash 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per nom. DES ^(talk) 23:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not-paper is not-an-excuse for not-encyclopedic not-content. -Splash 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten to just real words and rename as List of all two-letter words - a far more useful article. Grutness...wha? 08:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the TLA lists are also deleted. -Sean Curtin 01:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask you to reconsider this. I agree with you that the TLA lists should go, also, but that's no reason to vote against your own beliefs just to make a point. Nandesuka 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful and doesn't violate any policies. --Apyule 05:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like the list of three-letter abbreviations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TLAs are common, and even have their own article. This is not a list of all two letter acronyms that mean something, it's a list of all 676 combinations of two letters. WP:NOT an indiscrimnate etc etc etc. Proto t c 10:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is utterly meaningless. Abbreviations or words are one thing, but simple combinations of letters...Shall we create a page for all 17,576 combinations of three letters, all 456,976 combinations of four letters...the approximately eight billion combinations of seven letters? Cmadler 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there are pages for the three leter combinations. --Apyule 16:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- You might want to look at: List of TLA-Dabs, Category: Lists of TLAs, Category: Lists of two-letter combinations. 132.205.3.20 19:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does anyone notice that almost all of the two letter combinations link to an actual article? The blue links far out number the red links. Sure the applications for this page may be limited, but it is not likely to need much in the way of maintenance and may, conceivably, be of use to someone.Brian Schlosser42 16:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, useful as an index and for navication. If this is deleted, then so should List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations, and TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ, TLAs from IAA to LZZ, TLAs from MAA to PZZ, TLAs from QAA to TZZ, TLAs from UAA to XZZ, TLAs from YAA to ZZZ, List of TLA-Dabs, the categories Category:Lists of two-letter combinations and Category:Lists of two-letter combinations... (like various articles contained in the categories) 132.205.3.20 18:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could be a useful article, but the more I think about it, the less useful it seems. If someone is searching for a particular two-letter combination, they can just type it in the search box. Having a page with all combinations listed just isn't that useful. In addition, many of the links are redirects or lead to disambiguation pages. Carbonite | Talk 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic pointcruft. Nandesuka 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Brian Schlosser42. -- DS1953 00:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Move to wikipedia namespace. As a reader I find it useless. As an editor it may be useful to keep it around. Nabla 01:09:57, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Keep, nnn. —RaD Man (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but turn into a disambiguation page - merge all Xx pages with XX and list only XX here. - Tintazul 09:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nonsense. Why don't we create a list of all possible sequences of integers between 0 and 2005? I hope there is a consensus to delete, and we can go on nominating the pages mentioned above by 132.205.3.20 (except maybe List of TLA-Dabs). KissL 09:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you keep List of TLA-Dabs? It's not anymore or less useful or encyclopedic than any of the other articles. 132.205.44.43 16:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't that one be in Wikipedia namespace? Aquillion 16:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carbonite. If someone is interested in one or more of the meanings of GM, are they going to type "List of all two-letter combinations" in the search box, or, perhaps, "GM"? --Metropolitan90 07:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Wikipedia namespace. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have the Quick Index. Tito xd 06:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now that is a stupid article. (No offense to everyone who voted keep.) Aquillion 07:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I have found it a useful key for checking out 2 letter combinations. Rich Farmbrough 20:26, 7 September 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.

As the vote was split, there is no rough consensus to delete, thus I undeleted the page. -- User:Docu

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 speedy deleted. --fvw * 14:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Truax[edit]

Vanity mixed with nonsense, scrambled and served with bacon Cnwb 06:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMHO, A7 should be tweaked to make this sort of thing qualify for speedy... Thatdog 06:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Capitalistroadster. Thatdog 07:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter nonsense. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Speedy. The only claim to fame is inventing Sushi Done Right which according to the article is only notable in his hometown. Thus there are no real claims of notability. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Sushi Done Right now has an article and probably isn't notable outside his own kitchen, much less his hometown. Thatdog 07:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User who wrote article is retorting with nonsense on my Livejournal. I've lost any sense of WP:FAITH in this case. Cnwb 07:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7, I've recreated the nn-bio template that was removed by the creator of the article. Usrnme h8er 09:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - And I hope he dies a horrible, horrible death in the hands of Japanese chefs with those ginsu knives. Deep-fried ham-and-pork "sushi"? YUCK. --80.222.74.5 10:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7, DV8 2XL 11:32, 31 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 speedy delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Index to tables of contents of National Geographic[edit]

Apparently it's intended to link to articles containing the tables of contents of issues of National Geographic for each year. Ignoring the fact that this would produce approximately 1000 copyvios (one for each month since 1923), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Carnildo 06:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carnildo. See also the one for Reader's Digest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Kiss L 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvios DV8 2XL 12:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tables of contents aren't copyvios any more than lists of episodes are. Issues of National Geographic are far more encyclopedic than Simpsons episodes. Kappa 13:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are copyright violations. Indexes / tables of contents of a copyrighted work are copyrighted. Strong delete. Proto t c 14:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne --TimPope 17:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a strong argument can be made that tables of contents and similar material would fall under Fair Use, at least under U.S. law, considering the statutory criteria for a Fair Use balancing test. Also, WP routinely features lists of music recording tracks (CD contents, etc.), which are part of the copyrighted work, but also, to my mind, fall under fair use. In this specific case, however, even if permissible under Fair Use, I agree that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MCB 18:57, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marile Soft[edit]

non-notable software firm - no Google hits Cnwb 06:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, vanity article. See CYBORIS. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. Kiss L 10:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Nandesuka 11:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisment DV8 2XL 12:03, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Jam (Band)[edit]

NN / Band vanity Cnwb 06:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity DV8 2XL 12:04, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

House of Ten[edit]

Non-notable house where college students live Cnwb 06:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the random dorm. Pilatus 07:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I bet it's the wackiest dorm on the planet, but it's a non-notable kind of wackiness. . . Delete. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Demogorgon's Soup-taster, but if it's still going in a few years I'll reconsider. --Apyule 11:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 11:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN DV8 2XL 12:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh those ker-azy students and their nn houses. the wub "?/!" 15:11, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MarileSoft[edit]

Delete. I ended up here through the VfD of CYBORIS. Not only does MarileSoft get no hits on Google, its founder only lands 64. Hell, even I manage over 700, and I'm still non-notable, IMHO. :) Furthermore, this page reads like an advertisement for this company and doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information. The founder does have a Linux distribution to his name, but since anyone can throw one of those together, I remain unimpressed. FreelanceWizard 07:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. --DrTorstenHenning 07:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, vanity. See Marile Soft and CYBORIS. — JIP | Talk 07:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP. Kiss L 10:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Nandesuka 11:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prob. ad. DV8 2XL 12:58, 31 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. -Splash 00:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi Done Right[edit]

Looks like a homebrewed recipe for sushi, invented by Mark Truax, another article up for deletion. Coffee 07:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to The Wikimedia Cookbook. Thatdog 07:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per Thatdog. Kiss L 10:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Changed vote: Delete per ManoaChild. Kiss L 08:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki DV8 2XL 12:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki as per above Roodog2k 16:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete per original research, also, serve the author some chicken sashimi (raw)... Usrnme h8er 17:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. If this is transwikied, change the name. This food item does not resemble sushi in any way, shape, or form. ManoaChild 21:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft - Transwiki is a waste of time. Ugh. Dottore So 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete What makes anyone think Wikibooks wants this? If it arrives at the Cookbook, I'll delete it there myself. Gentgeen 07:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gentgeen--nixie 07:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The author has put a couple of requests for this to be transwikkied into the article itself; I've removed them and asked that he place stuff like that on the article's talk page. Per Gentgeen it looks like it wouldn't happen anyway (quite understandably). Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 13:10, 1 September 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Index to tables of contents of Reader's Digest[edit]

I believe that the Reader's Digests tables of contents would be a series of massive copyright violations, but also note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as above. --Carnildo 07:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Kiss L 10:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DavidWBrooks 11:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvios DV8 2XL 12:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe that Tables of Contents would constitute copyvios. This is more an issue of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Roodog2k 16:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne --TimPope 17:37, 31 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. Tito xd 23:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Sayar[edit]

Another article that keeps picking up bad speedies. Listed here to decide the issue properly. For guidance, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents says: "Authors and writers are notable if they have released a book (other than through vanity press)"

Keep and expand. Seems to satisfy the criteria for notability. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should go to cleanup, not to VfD. If it doesn't improve it can be deleted in due course. Pilatus 07:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it was tagged for speedying only once, and at that point it didn't have the list of books and ISBN numbers attached. As it stands now, looks notable enough to me, so keep. Why is this nominated for deletion if the nominator wants it kept? Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Another sysop wants it deleted; that's good enough reason for me to bring it to VfD. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC supports the assertion that any author who has a book published through any publisher is NOT inherently notable. Let's speedy keep this for now. Pilatus 09:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that I am notable? I've had two books published by a non-vanity press [12] [13] and although they didn't sell, they exist. I'd vote to Keep the sickeningly trendy Homa Sayar (an Iranian living in Paris! and a poet!) on the condition that Editions l'Harmattan is not a vanity press. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editions l'Harmattan's submission notes for authors are here. It looks kosher to me. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I vote to keep. She makes me sick to the stomach, and I haven't even met her, but I can separate my mind from my guts. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published author DV8 2XL 13:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, duh. (and I like the speedy keep idea Pilatus) HoratioVitero 15:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this one does not make sense to me Yuckfoo 17:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has been tagging this for speedy deletion. Tony Sidaway VFD'ed it to get a proper debate, instead of just having a revert war over the tag. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, basically this is Warren Benbow take two. Same sysop. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The admin who is edit warring instead of using established channels...

07:36, 31 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Homa Sayar"

00:21, 30 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Homa Sayar" (Undeleted out of process. Use VfU or create it fresh.)

00:08, 28 August 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Homa Sayar"

16:20, 27 August 2005 TheCoffee deleted "Homa Sayar" (non-notable bio)

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the datestamp for the first version of this VfD, which I created, is five minutes after I restored the article for the second time. Sounds like it's exactly the way A Man In Black said.
The original article as wrongly speedied is here. It clearly lists the major works published by this author. The article was not a speedy deletion candidate. The first sysop made an error. The second sysop has a Warren Benbow-shaped axe to grind. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 04:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to WP:FAITH? It's poor form to assign questionable motives to another as cover for your own actions. If in fact this was improperly speedied, what's wrong with using established channels as indicated in the edit summary? VfU is a proper debate.
brenneman^(t)^(c) 04:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Tony has already indicated that VfU is not incumbent upon him and he will do whatever he feels like doing regardless of what anybody else thinks. Speedy delete, nn writer. Just having published is not a valid keep criterion. I shudder to think of the consequences. Zoe 06:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Just count the keep votes, Zoe. If I'm on my own in this, where did those keep votes come from? And don't say it's because I added a bibliography. The original article already enumerated her published works. At the very least it should have been listed on VfD, not speedied. RC patrollers are good, they get rid of a lot of nonsense, but sometimes a good article gets caught in the crossfire, and that's where I come in. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 12:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was an incorrectly speedied article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mistakenly speedied by somebody, and then correctly undeleted by Tony. I don't see why Aaron and Zoe are wasting time contesting this. "She has written several Poetry books in Farsi and has also translated the famous Shahnameh (the Epic of Kings) into French" (in addition to being a Ph.D. from a French elite institution) may or may not make her notable (depending on the quality and reception of the publications), but is, at the very least, an assertion of notability. BTW, the article doesn't currently list her Persian production. It would be useful if somebody could make a Persian Google and library search and add that to the article. Uppland 07:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for catching the bad speedy Tony. Kappa 13:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like VfU would have, without Tony's "heroic" efforts. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I take it you agree we can skip the unnecessary instruction creep since I almost invariably only rescue and improve articles that are capable of surviving a VfD. I refuse to get involved in VFU because (1) Wikipedia undeletion policy says I don't have to and (2) it would be asking people to vote on the status of an article few of them could see and none of them could edit. It would be silly to engage in editing an encyclopedia with one hand tied behind one's back. Arbcom can make arbitrary decisions, we grant it that right. I won't grant WP:VFU the right to make arbitrary and unaccountable decisions, permitting it to rubber stamp a deletion by one sysop, without the right of general scrutiny by all editors. When I undelete, we can all see what I've done and act accordingly. I don't take on cases I am likely to lose. I do not lose many cases. I win many. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you Tony for demonstrating the actual problem far better than I could: To you this is about winning.
    brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - So the issue is Tony's motivations, not his actions and their consequences? Kappa 01:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It appears to be about the fact that I am able to perform actions of which he, personally, disapproves. I'm not required to jump through his hoops, so I don't, and this appears to annoy him immensely. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk
    - Clearly, it's all three. By his admission, he's keeping score, so this restoration was in violation of WP:POINT. What is so wrong with Tony doing what has been suggested to him by numerous editors and administrators in good standing: Use VfU. Stop acting as though his opinion matters more than others. Stop revert warring. Is that too much to ask? Just because you are able to perform an action doesn't mean that you should.
      brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - This could go on forever. At 04:37 last night Aaron asks what happens to WP:FAITH and at 02:08 this morning he falsely accuses me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... Go figger.... -D --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing which you can do if you are worried about other users not being able to see the content when listing things on VFU is to make a temporary undeletion. That is, undelete, replace with a {{TempUndelete}}-template, and protect. That way, the voters on VFU will be able to make a fully informed decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and delist from VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kiss L 09:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guys, I'm lucky enough not to know much about either Tony or Aaron or any of the others involved in the above discussion. What I can see is this:
- The page was created with enough content for a stub and two assertions about notability ((1) the subject having published poetry and (2) her having translated the Epic of Kings). Note that assertion not proof of notability is required.
- The page was speedy deleted per criterion A7, although it does not fulfill that criterion (because there are assertions). WP:CSD explicitly states: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."
- The page was directly undeleted by Tony Sidaway. Given that the deletion was out of process (as shown above), this action is acceptable. The undeletion policy explicitly states: "If the page was obviously deleted "out of process" (i.e. not in accordance with current deletion policy), then a sysop may choose to undelete immediately. In such a case, the sysop who deleted the page should be informed of the undeletion and the reason for it. If deletion policy dictates that the undeleted page is a VfD candidate, please list it there." From his contribution list though, Tony seems to have failed to inform the deleting sysop of the undeletion; also, he didn't immediately list the page here.
- The page was deleted again (this time by another admin) with the rationale "Undeleted out of process", which is not a speedy deletion criterion. Tony restored it again, which is therefore again acceptable; but he did not inform the deleting sysop, which is again a mistake. This time, he listed the page here.

So, the three sysops involved all made mistakes. But I think those mistakes alone haven't caused much harm to Wikipedia (we are here discussing the article, a consensus is going to emerge, and that's that). I think the most harm is caused by the above violations of WP:FAITH and WP:NPA by sysops. Please. This kind of discussion would have belonged to your user talk pages, or nowhere. I'm amazed that a plain editor like myself has to say this. Kiss L 09:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I shouldn't let myself be provoked into responding. On the idea of listing the page the first time I undeleted, I don't think that would be in order. Since the article was obviously a good one and the precedents strongly suggested notability, there was no reason at that time to consider a VfD listing. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 11:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could try to play well with others. User:Lucky 6.9 deleted two articles which I thought should be kept, and I wrote him a note asking him if he would mind if I undeleted them, giving my reasoning. He agreed and thanked me for asking beforehand. If you had just communicated with the other admin involved beforehand, giving your reasoning, none of this kerfuffle would have occured. But you prefer, as you indicated above, to score points against others instead of working as a community. You are on record as having nothing but scorn for the VfU process, which others feel works just fine, and prefer to cowboy it alone instead of trying to garner consensus. Zoe 19:49, September 3, 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. Nufy8 20:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of indexes to tables of contents[edit]

Apart from encouraging mass copyright violations (a table of contents of a copyrighted work is copyrighted), Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. --Carnildo 07:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct and merge to Directory of lists of indeces to tables of contents. Naw, delete, as above. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete. Kiss L 11:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. --Apyule 11:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination DV8 2XL 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne --TimPope 17:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Rhyddfrydol, 20:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the indexes themselves have already been speedy deleted leaving this article with no useful content, and little hope of having any as per nominator. --Metropolitan90 07:34, September 3, 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. Although the comments are few, even the editor choosing 'cleanup' admits there may be factual errors/problems in the article. The other commentors have no doubts about deletion. -Splash 01:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narancsos Bukta[edit]

Title is a neologism in Hungarian, not widely used (36 non-duplicate Google hits, most of these is a username at a discussion forum). Article is orphaned, and full of statements that have nothing to do with reality. Delete. Kiss L 07:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs a substantial cleanup ~~but contains notable factual information not available elsewhere. Either Redirect and merge to Politics of Hungary or retitle as Hungarian elections 2002~~. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make the term notable in any way. Also, please cite one factually correct piece of information not mentioned elsewhere. (I can't find a single one.) KissL 10:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I must confess I only looked at the entries for Politics of Hungary and Elections in Hungary - I couldn't find the relevant info in either. Agree about the term not of itself deserving a separate entry. If the rest of the info does appear elsewhere, this should be deleted, but the info (from here or elsewhere) should still be merged to Elections in Hungary. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing is, the only factually correct information this article contains is (1) that MSZP (not MaSZoP: this is a twisted version of the name which sounds similar to "it sucks", used colloquially by those who dislike that party) won the elections in 2002 (though not with 52%, see Politics of Hungary), and (2) that Péter Medgyessy (not Medgyessi) resigned in August 2004, and was subsequently replaced by Ferenc Gyurcsány (but there was nothing like a "coup"). Both points are pretty much covered elsewhere. KissL 11:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I bow to your superior knowledge! Still a shame this info isn't on the Elections in Hungary entry. -Demogorgon's Soup-taster 11:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete POV issues, lack of references. DV8 2XL 12:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic information. Adam78 16:42, 5 September 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann L. Kim[edit]

Delete - non-notable biography, no response to requests for explanation of notability after 16 days, google test brings up only this article -Werdna648 08:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worse, the author says the article was made as a personal birthday gift. --rob 11:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN DV8 2XL 12:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - vanity article with no assertion of notability. Proto t c 14:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think "nationally known" constitutes a claim of notability, thus not fulfilling CSD:A7... Usrnme h8er 17:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete vanity... already userfiedRoodog2k 16:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity. Usrnme h8er 17:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Ann a happy birthday. However, as she is not yet notable enough as a lawyer to warrant an article, I also vote to Delete this article. Capitalistroadster 19:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funnier than most articles of this kind. I wish Ann and Kyster the best and hope that Kyster gets, uh, whatever it is that he was hoping to get out of this. Although reading the Nesting section I have to wonder what she will think and whether perhaps on the whole a dozen long-stemmed roses would be more effective. Note that the article has already been userfied. Dpbsmith (talk)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta lies[edit]

Delete - A great band, I'm sure, but unfortunately, as it says in the article, it's just a local band, so unfortunately this is band vanity. --Werdna648 08:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity DV8 2XL 12:13, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo threeie[edit]

Delete - personal essay, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Werdna648 08:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Policy DV8 2XL 12:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lame speculation, with little basis in fact. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:41, 31 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, as per author request. Graham 10:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style (foreign words and names) (draft)[edit]

I started this page myself as a draft. I am the only contributor. The material is now at a better place (Wikipedia:Proper names). Nobody is every going to search for this, so redirection is futile. Remove this page with all speed! Arbor 08:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I put a speedy delete tag on it. If only a single author has contributed to a page, and the author reasonably requests it to be deleted, it can be speedy deleted. Graham 09:21, 31 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. Nufy8 20:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compdudes LLC[edit]

Real company, but nn, garners a smashing 6 google hits (4 unique) of which 1 is the own company and 2 are webhosting companies listing clients. Delete Usrnme h8er 09:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prob. ad. DV8 2XL 12:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; would that there were {{nn-companybio}}. - choster 21:13, 31 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 speedy deleted --fvw * 13:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Cameron Wilson[edit]

Non-notable bio, author keeps deleting speedy tag -Werdna648 09:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userify, assuming page creator won't just put it straight back. This user is quite possibly also User:David.Frew who is on a last warning for vandalism PubLife 09:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the user is the subject of the article -- he's just got a whole heap of his friends (including david.frew) to support it.

Sockpuppet, Meatpuppet.. what's the difference, they're all bloody annoying, and an admin should take a look. PubLife

Delete Vanity article about a 14 year old boy. Provides references to show they have been published in the Sydney Morning Herald, but these are just links to a page on "Reader's reponses" and "Harry Potter: your reviews" on which we find a short paragraph by Cam Wilson. The www.camwilson.org website has three links, all of which don't work. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, pure vanity. Also get these damn {sock|meat}puppets out of here! Alphax ^τεχ 10:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They're meatpuppets - been reverting my nn-bio all afternoon. -Werdna648 10:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Werdna648, dont' say we didn't warn you, we have asked you nicely not to continue with this, but you have decided to be a spoil sport. I honestly can't be bothered continuing this, but you will be persecuted tomorrow (What are the rules on persecution here at Wiki? Persecution

I don't know, but you should A) not use my real name in discussions online, and B) Sign all your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Oh, and by the way, go have a cry :) -Werdna648 11:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Pure vanity bio. --Apyule 11:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd agree with speedy, but if he puts it back after a VfD has voted "delete" it can get a deletedpage tag all of its very own. Tonywalton | Talk 11:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, looking at the talk page I would suggest that Cameron Wilson's ego is big enough to achieve notability. --Malthusian 13:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Vanity DV8 2XL 12:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:CSD-A7, Usrnme h8er 12:49, 31 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 KEEP. -Splash 00:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Fish and the Mudbug Club[edit]

No claim to notability, practically empty --Werdna648 10:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable, Vodafone even used one of their songs for an ad of theirs. Played almost all Fastivals in Europe, including V and Glastonbury these past two years. Maybe you could add to it instead of VFDing it? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - they are a notable band, they're the sort of band who have plugged away on the circuit for donkey's years, playing to medium sized crowds all over the place. They have several well known songs and googling "Jerry Fish and the Mudbug Club" produces over a thousand Google hits. Bandraoi 12:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and heed Irishpunktom's advice. —RaD Man (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Research topics before attempting to delete them. Factitious 12:22, September 5, 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. I'm being generous here, and considering the commentary by Grey Pursuit to likely be the anon who had previously been editing the article; it seems fair to allow the principal author to want to keep. I'm also considering OmegaWikipedia, they aren't a AfD regular, but that is no disqualification and they edit extensively in pop music articles. The comment by Rightsaidfred was their 8th edit and disregarded. At raw vote count, that's 11d-5k and just above the traditionalish 2/3 threshold. Reading the debate, there are many delete votes that feel this is either a collection of indiscriminate information or a 'meta-article', and the few reasons associated with the keepers don't persuade me that the ordinary thresholding is not a useful guidance here. -Splash 01:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remixography of Mariah Carey[edit]

The information is all included in the individual articles; this is just fan-cruft creep, with no encyclopædic value. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creep? OmegaWikipedia 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just to keep things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's quite a bit of precedent for keeping discography info, and since Carey is undoubtedly a popular singer with a considerable history, we can afford to have some detail in this area. That said, I wouldn't want to see similar "remixographies" for every artist who's had a single or two, but this should stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We are standing at the top of the slippery slope, staring down. Nandesuka 11:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. DV8 2XL 12:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides which, something like Discogs.com is the best place for this kind of thing; once this article is up, people will create remixographies for everyone, including themselves, non-notable artists etc, because it's much easier to do than researching the life and times of King Henry II etc. Perhaps there could be a separate music Wikipedia. In the scheme of things, Mariah Carey is a transient phenomenon. After she grows old there'll be nothing left. Pop music is visible, because it's on television, but doesn't change the world. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 13:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, must not allow precedent creep. A "Remixography" (a neologism in itself) is not a "discography". And discographys shouldn't have their own articles, anyway. Proto t c 14:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete, per Mel.—Encephalon | ^ζ 14:35:30, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
weak delete this is basically a meta-article. its an article about articles. yet....Roodog2k 16:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if the title of the article is changed to a 'List of Official Remixes' instead of 'Remixography', then the debate over whether it is a discography or not could be settled. However, if some still believe that the article should be deleted, wouldn't that put into question other articles such as the 'Videography of Mariah Carey', where the information included could be found in detail in the individual singles articles, and the 'List of Songs By Mariah Carey', which can easily be found through articles based on each of her albums? Both of those articles also happen to be 'meta-articles'. On the matter of whether it is necessary of not, considering the miniscule impact made by pop music on the world, isn't a strong enough argument; it isn't the only thing that is unimportant, on a global scale, featured in this encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a 'general' compendium of knowledge, that is not limited to 'worldly' information. At this moment of time, Mariah Carey, unarguably, is a well-known icon and if ever they'll be "nothing left" of her legacy, then the existence of not just this article, but a large portion of her encyclopedia entry could be debated. Surely, that itself would be unnecessary, wouldn't you think? Grey Pursuit 17:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was the first edit by Grey Pursuit (talk · contribs). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about it? OmegaWikipedia 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. --Carnildo 23:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echoing above (WP:NOT). Dottore So 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. looks like a personal research paper. --Rightsaidfred 01:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Among other reasons on why this article should stay, songs like "Vanishing" which were not singles do not have articles and the listing of their other versions will be lost. OmegaWikipedia 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this sould be covered in the song or album pages.--nixie 05:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Im gonna have to say delete. While the information is a bit useful, its also trivial, I dont think people will necessarily look in an encyclopedia to seek the remixes of an artist. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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~~ keep rewrite. Coffee 05:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Townsville Primary School and Townsville_Primary_School/Temp[edit]

Primary schools are not notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete. Proto t c 10:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a known copyright violation and so there is a rewrite in progress on Townsville_Primary_School/Temp. The original article will be deleted as a copyright violation, so please address mainly the merits of the rewrite. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Individual schools at any level may be notable. But, there's nothing claimed, that would make this school notable. --rob 11:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Townsville"?? This has to be a joke.
- Note "Townsville" is the fictional city where the Powerpuff Girls live. Despite the silliness, though, there are several real-world locations with the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Further note - Townsville is also a major city in Australia. Yes a town that's a ville is a city. That's Australia for you ;) Grutness...wha? 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. FYI, it really exists somewhere in the central part of Singapore. *drew 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN DV8 2XL 12:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*comment: it's real and it's a copyvio of http://www.townsvillepri.moe.edu.sg/history.htm . While I think we should carry forward with the deletion (since the sole conent is a small copy/paste), I would actually support a future article on the school, if done properly, given the fact this elementary school is bigger than a lot of high schools (including my own). But, I don't beleive in keeping stubs in the name of "hope". So, carry on with the delete. --rob 13:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a copyvio. I tagged it too. --Apyule 13:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

change vote to weak keep for new article. --Apyule 05:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it needs work, granted but the life of every shild and young person is shaped more by their school than anything else. If the individual schools who make children into the adults they will one day become aren't notable than this entire project, this so called "sum of all human knowledge" (User:Jimbo Wales), is moot. HoratioVitero 15:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete High Schools are notable. Anything below is more difficult to say... Roodog2k 16:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn school --TimPope 17:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please but fix the violations Yuckfoo 17:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary school is not intrinsically notable. Sdedeo 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless article of a totally non notable elementary school. Also per Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 18:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten the copyright violation and added the rewrite to this VfD. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My vote still stands.Gateman1997 18:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rewritten version and expand. The school passes notability tests because it was officially opened by the Singapore Minister of State for Defence, Trade and Industry, Lee Hsien Loong, and was the subject of an official visit by Queen Elizabeth II. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The Queen appears at about 100 events per year. Other members of the Royal Family attend functions at about the same rate. Can we attempt to establish notability, not notability by proxy? Pilatus 19:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is established precisely by proxy. The claim of notability is that it was opened by a senior minister of the Singapore government and visited by the head of state of the United Kingdom. Other schools are said to be notable because some of their students went on to become famous (a movie star, a Senator, a major writer, and so on). It's all by proxy. Even John Wilkes Booth only has an article because the chap he aimed his gun at was a President and not a toilet cleaner. Booth has absolutely no other claim to notability. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Queen's building of Cardiff University on the Cathays Park site were opened by the Queen and consequently deserve an article because of that? The Queen opens dozens of buildings each year! I can't see why you are mentioning John Wilkes Booth either. Are you implying that anyone became a Head of State precisely because he attended Townsville primary school? The autism program the school is involved in is more notable, however, I feel that that program deserves an entry, not a school which is involved in it. It's the equivalent of having a List of roads in Washington, DC and no entry on the White House. Pilatus 14:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't even attempt to justify its existence here. Burn it with fire! Pilatus 19:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Carnildo 21:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak | Talk 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn school. Dottore So 23:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a stub. Now I've added the involvement of the school in the Pathlight project on Autism, one of only three schools planned to have colocation with Autistic facilities for the purposes of integration, the 2001 MOE Excel (innovation) awards held by the Singapore government at the school. Not to mention a government efficiency award received by a head of department at the school. This school clearly plays a notable part in the public life of the Republic of Singapore. Suggestions of non-notability are beginning to look as if maybe they're aimed from the wrong end of a telescope situated in America or Europe. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools are less interesting than secondaries. There is no notability conferred by a single Royal visit — the notability by proxy comment is a good one and applies to all the claims in the article. Thus this is a buiding with students in. So is my house. -Splash 23:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems to have attracted no small amount of attention. Article needs cleaning a little, though. -Splash 05:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And now added to Townsville Primary School/Temp a speech made by Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister, and a widely referenced web page tutorial on simple machines produced by students at the school. Queens, senior government ministers, deputy prime ministers, major educational initiatives, national mainstream newspaper coverage, how much notice must be taken of a school before people saying it is not notable realise that, well, there are a lot of people out in the real world, some of them senior politicians, who happen to disagree? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, I'm persuaded. Since I imagine this is still a touchy article, I'll not do this myself but: the stuff about which year they started teaching science in, and what the head of science gushed about it really needs excising! -Splash 05:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take it out if you like, but I think it belongs because it's apparently a big deal in Singapore, and made The Straits Times, which has a circulation greater than most British broadsheet newspapers. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 15:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the version at Townsville_Primary_School/Temp. Excellent rewrite. —RaD Man (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The new version, which is better than many high school articles. The school is bigger and more unique than many high schools. --rob 04:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary schools generally not notable, this one is no exception. Quale 05:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D, nn. R adiant _>|< 06:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite. Seems to be notable enough to Singaporeans. I don't think EIIR has visited every primary school there (or in the UK, for that matter). Uppland 15:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My school got Jimmy Savile to open the school fete one year, but he got lost and turned up late. Does it still count? :) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. The rewritten article demonstrates more than enough notability. (Unless every single delete voter can show that their primary school was opened by a cabinet level official, visited by a head of state, and covered by the major regional newspaper in their area.) Un focused 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even after the rewrite it just ain't encyclopedic, IMO. Nandesuka 00:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I live in S'pore, and I can tell you that the school is not worth mentioned in Wiki due to its non-notability. Kontrovert 02:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS.--encephalon | ^ζ 16:58:46, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
keep, borderline notability. 24 at 19:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable. Dunc|☺ 00:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 00:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article establishes even more notability than a typical primary school. Kappa 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Gamaliel 10:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this pointless, time-wasting, impositional deletionist nonsense! Keep. --Gene_poole 13:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable primary school. Jonathunder 15:30, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Keep After Rewrite Guerberj 16:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article establishes notability, and it seems that there may be more to add. Cmadler 19:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the school was notable enough for Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom to pay this Singaporean school a visit, then surely it is notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia? Silensor 23:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep thanks that makes it pass my standard. ALKIVAR™ 05:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. User:Proto's usual "four walls and a ceiling are not notable" applies here. If George W. Bush visited my house, I don't think my house would be kept. Delete, primary schools are not notable (see also). --Idont Havaname 14:42, 9 September 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. Nufy8 20:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admiration[edit]

Dictionary definition. Already at Wiktionary. KeithD (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marskell 10:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

as per nominator Delete DV8 2XL 12:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
agree with nominator Delete Cje 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteV. Molotov 14:41, 31 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. the wub "?/!" 14:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ham and cheese sandwich[edit]

Just read it

You know, I would not have thought that an article on a ham and cheese sandwich could have been encyclopedic, but this is actually pretty darn good. It's not a recipe, it's a full description, and it relates it to other types of food. Call me crazy, but for now I say keep. Nandesuka 11:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles on Monte Cristo sandwich and Croque monsieur (both properly linked from this one), so what's wrong with this article? --Russ Blau (talk) 11:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed a good article. More there than a recipe. Get it to WP:FAC! Keep. Proto t c 12:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is a good description of a ham and cheese sandwich. Something has to distinguish wikipedia from standard boring encyclopedias and to me this is it. It's also worth noting that while the big events of the day are recorded everywhere, the minutiae of everyday life aren't, and it's the minutiae of everyday life that can prove the most interesting to people in the future.
Keep - I look forward to a history section, anyone feel like doing some research on the background of the HCS? Usrnme h8er 12:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never realized the humble ham and cheese had such a storied history. Live and learn, eh? I suppose we could cross-reference with the Earl of Sandwich...or see which historical figures were partial to, say, peanut butter....The_Iconoclast 22:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep DV8 2XL 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Nandesuka. --Apyule 13:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep CalJW 13:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if such an enormous staple of a huge portion of the world's childhood isn't notable then we should also delete oxygen HoratioVitero 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, look at all the stuff in Category:Sandwiches! This is why I love Wikipedia! the wub "?/!" 15:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. maybe somebody can research monte cristo, which i think also has powdered sugar and dipping syrup. SaltyPig 15:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep all sandwichcruft Roodog2k 16:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — bread and butter article. — RJH 17:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this doesnot make any sense either Yuckfoo 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a perfectly reasonable article, and, with some history, pictures, and references, could eventually be expanded to a FAC. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly reasonable article. Not just a recipe. Culturally significant food in the United States. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone, but esp. Nandesuka. --Blackcap | talk 21:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just because it's a sandwich, that doesn't make it any less notable than the various other foods out there. It's a very common food -- a staple, even. Fight anti-sandwich bias (wichism?) on Wikipedia! :) Beginning 21:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed! I'm going to go make User:A Man In Black/Sandwichwatch right now to combat this destructive trend! - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has FAC potential. Cmadler 15:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cheesus Christ Keep. —RaD Man (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, it was the Virgin Mary and it was a toasted cheese sandwich. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - And cut. That was really good Mr. Trump. Except this time instead of Dominio's, maybe say Domino's, you know, like the game. [14] —RaD Man (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I visited this with a view to scheduling it for delete, and have to say it is a very good article indeed. Sjc 07:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article ought to be nominated as one of wikipedia's best as well as be scheduled as a feature article in the future.--Nicodemus75 11:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In all seriousness, if this had an image or two and was expanded a bit more, I would have to agree. —RaD Man (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't joking. --Nicodemus75 21:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just read it. Factitious 12:26, September 5, 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. The redirecter openly admits to being POV so far as I can tell, and the redirect is inappropriate anyway. The remaining participants are clear enough: the redirect is deleted. -Splash 01:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Facts_News[edit]

Apparently unnotable, zero Google hits, and the article itself fails to mention anything about who coined the term and where it would be used. Not to mention the "if something is said then the opposite has to be said because else it's POV" refrain. Rama 11:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless proven more useful than what I feaer it is Rama 23:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This item has been redirected to: Fox News DV8 2XL 13:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why? Does anyone actually call it that? I mean, talk about POV... Should we forward Miserable failure to GWB? --Quasipalm 20:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, that forward to GWB would be fun. Heh. I don't care about being POV when I'm not doing official Wiki business. :P Random comments FTW. Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 21:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no forwarding. --Quasipalm 20:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no redirect to Fox News; that redirect currently exists, and is misleading and unverifiable. It editorializes about Fox News, and there is no evidence anyone calls it that. Googling for "Facts News" and "Facts News" "Fox News" did not turn anything up. --DavidConrad 11:47, 4 September 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. The transwiki suggestion gathered no support. -Splash 01:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Value delivery network[edit]

Delete another definition of a business jargon term, neologism, no notability. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete only a definition DV8 2XL 13:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. surely there must be a firing squad somewhere for people who talk like this. i will donate. send me link. SaltyPig 15:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above Roodog2k 17:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wiktionary -- everyone sure is delete happy for things that would be perfectly at home in wiktionary... (And yes, a person who would use this word is not my friend.) --Quasipalm 20:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would wiktionary want this? Don't know if you have ever seen it, but this reminds me of the old Life cereal commercial where a bunch of little kids make faces at the bowl of cereal and say "I won't eat it, you eat it." --Russ Blau (talk) 15:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - just had a great idea, RussBlau. let's make an article called "Why would wiktionary want this?", and we can throw wiktionary a bone with "mikey factor", an article we'll create and then VfD over to them. see how creative we all are? let's not delete anything! LOL. use it all. SaltyPig 16:04, 2 September 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. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

3XC[edit]

Vanity page, seems to refer to a school band with no discography to speak of. Netvor 12:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't!!! (previous unsigned comment by user:Arza89)

What are you talking about. THis is the best band around. DO you even live in melbourne. dont give me that -'no discography to speak of'- posh tone. just say they have no cd out yet... its not that hard... say it with me... they have no cd out yet... just wait till you see 3xc on the front cover of a mag saying "Best of the Best". Get with the times.... Posted by Raph (previous unsigned comment by user:138.217.52.192)

I never said that 3XC is not the best band around. That is your personal opinion and I will not challenge it. Anyway, please have a look at WP:MUSIC for Wikipedia's policy on the level of notability required for an article. 3XC appears to qualify for none of the criteria mentioned in that article. Finally, I would like to suggest using Talk:3XC for discussions regarding the band, as well as regarding the policy in WP:MUSIC. Let's keep this page for the VfD process. --Netvor 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone deserves a chance so I'll support you guys *ary is standing behind me with a gun*. But for the public to decide, if you have noticed, half of the entire 3xc team(including people like producers etc..) are asians!When have you ever seen an asian group reach the number one charts? But then again because you haven't you might want to support it for that reason...Jay-T

Delete. "In the next few years they plan to be the best urban/hip-hop/R&B group out of Australia" - which can't be hard - and yet they list the Lighthouse Family as one of their influences. Clearly a hoax. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either band vanity or band cruft, nn, and certainly nt encyclopaedic. Usrnme h8er 12:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, vantiy DV8 2XL 12:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's probably a malicious hoax, but even if it's not it is still unverifiable and it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 13:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, but hold nose while doing so, for safety. SaltyPig 15:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete OR userfy utterly lacking in street cred, mate. Roodog2k 16:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol@wiggers that know how to use a computer and edit wikipedia. Vanity page. Gold Stur 20:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck with the band Ralph. - Hahnchen 23:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence presented that they meet WP:Music as yet. Capitalistroadster 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing suggesting a whisper at WP:MUSIC. If the quote cited above is carried out in full, they could of course come back in a few year's time. -Splash 23:56, 31 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 Alternative comedy. The nominator intimates that a redirect may be possible although does not support one; thus the outright result would be a no-consensus keep, but given the support and intimation for a redirect, I will do so. -Splash 01:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satire Bubble[edit]

Real phenomenon, but it's generally described as - and an inextricable component of - Alternative comedy. A google search returns one (1) result which isn't a Wikipedia mirror, [15] and it seems to be used there as a cheap pun. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect DV8 2XL 12:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there that isn't already covered sufficiently in Alternative comedy. Redirect. Proto t c 14:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SaltyPig 15:48, 31 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. — JIP | Talk 14:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZGMF-X901S Fortune Gundam[edit]

Article has no basis in fact, the whole article is unsubstantiated rumors FearTheReaper 13:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What part of the Gundam universe is based on fact? DV8 2XL 13:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-canon Gundamcruft. Although DV8's answer is funny. Proto t c 14:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a vengeance. Fake message board rumors with no basis in anything but the imaginations of the people that post them are not in any way notable or encyclopedic. Wikipedia doesn't have a directory of fanart or fanfic, so why should fan-created Gundams be any different? Redxiv 16:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fanfic/hoax by its own admission. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-canon fanfic per WP:FICT. -Splash 23:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no proof. - Plau 10:22, 1 September 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. 5 merge votes (including nominator), 5 keep votes and 9 delete votes. Not enough of a difference. — JIP | Talk 08:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jews Against Circumcision[edit]

Non-notable, content should be merged with Brit Shalom. Jakew 13:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have added brit shalom to this vote, as both articles appear to have very limited notability. JFW | T@lk 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator DV8 2XL 13:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a vfd (excuse me, AfD) for a merge, be bold. --fvw * 13:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

You don't with normal articles. However, in those pertaining to circumcision, here is what happens: 1) user sets redirect, 2) massive revert war ensues, 3) everyone gets fed up, 4) someone lists it for VfD, 5) the outcome is as it would be in a normal article. - Jakew 14:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Merge per nominator. Nandesuka 15:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why it would be non-notable. It gets 405 Google hits. WP:NOT paper. - ulayiti (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please because ulayiti is right Yuckfoo 17:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a website with absolutely no indication as to its number of adherents and its notability. I have similar doubts about Brit shalom, the extent of practice of which is completely unindicated, and I hereby vote to delete that page as well. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this craziness. You will always find "Jews against anything". If allowed to stand, this type of nutty article could encourage articles such as "Jews against peanut butter"; "Jews against themselves"; "Jews against the Torah"; etc etc ad nauseum. Stop the madness now! IZAK 22:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jews Against Circumcision as a non-notable organization. Google shows only barely a dozen links to the website of the organization. I have no opinion regarding brit shalom. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jews Against Circumcision and at most include a link to the organization in the "opposition" section of the external links in Circumcision. Merge and Redirect Brit Shalom to Brit milah. I know the one is an attempt to avoid the other, but "brit shalom" only exists because of brith milah. Tomer ^TALK 23:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jews Against Circumcision; Redirect per above. Dottore So 23:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per tomer. Klonimus 07:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Brit shalom" gets 3,590 Google hits - seems notable enough to be kept. The closing admin should note that this VfD originally did not include Brit shalom, and that most of the votes above are only about the article Jews Against Circumcision. - ulayiti (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed Brit Shalom, combined VfDs are controversial at best, introducing an extra article halfway through is definitely a bad idea. --fvw * 00:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that this "organization" is anything more than a webpage. Re-direct is delete fails. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge with brit shalom. --Apyule 05:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor organization with significant web presence. I suspect many of the delete votes are more motivated by the aims of this organization than with Wikipedia policy. (Yes, that's an accusation of bias, guys.) --Zero 10:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to refresh your memory of WP:FAITH, Zero. - Jakew 10:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Careful there. You are heading into the badlands with that comment. You say it's minor, where to from there? --Apyule 16:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. Non-notable. P.S. Wikipedia is neither a paper nor a repository of non-notable information. No need to clog up Wikipedia and provide non-notables with notoriety. HKT ^talk 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with brit shalom. Possibly merge both or delete considering their non-notability and direct relevance withing Brit milah where they are mentioned. When an author has enough information (and support) to write a separate article on Brit Shalom, then they can write it. Currently, it is sufficiently covered as an opposition in the above circumcision article. --jnothman ^talk 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Brit Shalom -- DanBlackham 04:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutrality^talk 04:40, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For those of you who say that we in Jews Against Circumcision are not really Jews, I hate to break it to you but all you need to be Jewish is to have a Jewish mother. That's Jewish law. Circumcision IS NOT required to be Jewish. My mom is Jewish. I had a Bar Mitzvah and I had a Jewish wedding. So guess what guys, I am a Jew. Now, about the subject matter. Why are you all so threatened? Is it because you don't want to have to be faced with the decision that mutilating your baby's penis is barbaric, mean, wrong and against the mitzvot (we are commanded to not mark our bodies or hurt others - remember that?) It's a no-brainer. Mutilating your son's penis and damaging his future sex life is despicable, and all of you are smart enough to realize that. Yes it's difficult to deal with the fact that our people have been wrong all of these years, but guess what, they have been. Think about how easy it is to look at other religions and see how their practices are wrong (like africans and female genital mutilation, mormons and polygamy, the lack of women's rights in all religions, etc,.) and then take a step back, look at your own religion, and realize it's shortcomings. Circumcision is wrong. Judaism is in your heart, not in your penis! Jews Against Circumcision 02:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Editor's first and only edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, nobody said you "weren't really Jews", and this vote page isn't for POV rants and amateur psychological analysis. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Comment: The person who listed this article is circumcisionadvocate listing articles against sexual genital mutilation and pro genital integrity for deletion. — — Ŭalabio‽ 00:45:48, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
- Was that a personal attack? Is your vote based solely upon your dislike of the nominator? Or do you have a rationale for voting "Keep" that has something to do with the merits of the article? Tomer ^TALK 02:24, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  - Not only was it a personal attack, it is also an example of failing to assume good faith, and demonstrates complete ignorance of neutral point of view, which means that no article should be for or against anything. Sigh. - Jakew 11:51, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  - This is not a personal attack, but an observation. Another observation is that when someone points out observations like this, you write personal attack. Indeed, One several people including me, pointed out that a supposedly neutral editor was about as neutral to Genital Integrity as Professor Severus Snape is to Mister Harry James Potter, you write personal attack, totally ignoring the edithistory of that one. I have no problem with circumcisionadvocates as long as they advocate circumcision only to consenting adults and present those adults with all of the information, not just ⅛ of information favorable to their position. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:01:37, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
    - Does this not just state that you're not considering the significance or non-significance of the article to Wikipedia, which is the question here, and rather taking a POV on the issue discussed in the article and using that as the basis for your "keep"? I was the one who proposed a VfD, although I did not create it, on the talk page in question, and I did not propose it because I disagreed, but rather because I think it does not need its own article, at least at this stage, and would much better be found in Brit milah where the information is already available in no less quantity than this article. Furthermore, the concept is much more important than the organisation itself. --jnothman ^talk 01:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Walabio, my personal feelings towards 'genital integrity' do not and furthermore should not make the slightest bit of difference. The same is true of your feelings towards 'circumcisionadvocates'. They are irrelevant. Wikipedian actions are all that matter, and here that means just the vote and reasons stated. Your observation that personal attacks are noted for what they are should come as no surprise. Neither, for that matter, should an RFC on this behaviour if it continues for much longer... - Jakew 09:28, September 9, 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. Nufy8 20:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISOP[edit]

Delete, non-notable orientation program for a subset of new students to a single campus of a single university. Sole inbound link is to an unrelated topic. - choster 13:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per referer DV8 2XL 14:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, an encyclopedia is suppose to contain various knowledge about everything, not only mainstream, well noted information. - Unsigned post from 160.94.154.119 10:24, 31 August 2005
- Delete Mate, I'm afraid that that you possess a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia, in this case Wikipedia, contains only verifiable, documented, NPOV, notable, information. We aren't interested in police blotters or orientation information. Please see WP:NOT, WP:V, and Wikipedia for more information. --Blackcap | talk 21:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No it isn't. Tonywalton | Talk 18:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 23:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is more notable than Islam? By your standards most everything should go. If you don't want to be associated with whomever uses your IP create an account. gren グレン 14:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you talking to? --Blackcap | talk 17:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete, Wiki is suppose to contain a plethora of knowledge, not only mainstream. Black cap, perhaps you should re-read WP:NOT yourself, and i quote "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover..." Match, Set, Point _{- unsigned post by Gephart. This is this user's second edit. --Blackcap | talk 17:12, September 1, 2005 (UTC)}
- Sign your posts, and don't change the votes of others. It is vandalism and will not be tolerated. If I was an admin I would block you for doing that, so you'd better be ~~gald~~ glad I'm not. It's true, WP is not a paper encyclopedia, but see my post above, and WP is not an indiscriminate collector of information. --Blackcap | talk 17:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 07:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. Alf ^melmac 11:29, 4 September 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. -Splash 01:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Devendorf[edit]

I'm not familiar with college basketball so I'm not sure if this constitutes a claim to notability sufficient for a speedy deletion. Definitely non-notable enough for being regular deleted though. --fvw * 13:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN DV8 2XL 14:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is like steve martin in "the jerk", when the new phone book comes out. SaltyPig 15:48, 31 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 — KEEP. -Splash 01:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fordson high school[edit]

I've generally given up on VfDing school articles, but this doesn't even contain enough to merge into a single sentence in a school district article. --fvw * 13:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Then it must die. Delete. Most school articles are vanity-based. Four walls and a ceiling is not notable. Proto t c 14:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable school. Klonimus 23:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, policy DV8 2XL 14:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy? Factitious 12:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a school article, but an attack page against the school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on the rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite heavily, schools are always notable enough and articles about them can become a source of pride and spring their writers into the realm of very active wikipedians. Besides, there is no doubt that a short school article can become rich and robust (see Moanalua_High_School. HoratioVitero 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SaltyPig 15:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Verify else Delete Agree that high schools are notable. Does this high school even exist??? Roodog2k 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably the one in Dearborn, Michigan. Unless, of course, it isn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone wants to write it again properly, they can. --Robert Brook 16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Nothing useful here that could serve as the start of an article. After deletion, list on User:GRider/Schoolwatch and in Wikipedia:Requested Articles, because the only real content of this article is the fact that someone wishes we had an article about this school. After you remove POV and original research, nothing is left, not even the location of the school (presumably Dearborn, Michigan but who knows?) If HoratioVitero or anyone else wants to write an actual article on this school, allow re-creation without prejudice.Dpbsmith (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- agree, Dpbsmith. that's the crux of most article "creations" that end up here. they're sometimes treated as if some great service has been dealt through what is basically an extremely messy topic suggestion. related rant (NB: foul language). SaltyPig 16:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote now. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete nn school --TimPope 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article completely rewritten by Silensor. Remarks above refer to the following earlier text: Dpbsmith (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Location Located on the vibrant street of Ford Road in the midst of a heavily saturated Arab and Muslim population, Fordson High School presents the epitome of immigration assimilation in America. Whether its G-Unit apparrel being worn in the newly constructed cafetria or a white Bentley with 22 inch chrome wheels, the stigma of modernization has truly spread across the students of this school. Thus, identity crisis has persisted due to lack of understanding of who they really are. Academics Fordson offers a dual semester program, with classes ranging from How to Cut a Knife with Purcell or Literatue/Philosophy with Misiakian (which offers nothing except nothing!)

Comment Remarks below appear refer to the article as rewritten by Silensor. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A typical high school article about a typical high school, which is to say utterly non-notable. Quale 18:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the rewrite. The school building in itself is notable enough for an article. Quite impressive. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after the rewrite, per Tony Sidaway. Most primary schools aren't notable, but this one's building seems to be. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 19:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also did some research on alumni. Some sources say George Peppard was there, but I don't think that's reliable because most say he attended Dearborn High. Chad Everett was there, though, as was one former Federal Congresscritter for Michigan, and District Judge Virginia A. Sobotka, and oh, that Chalabi fellow who was charged with spying at Guantanamo. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 19:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definite KEEP after excellent work cleaning up by Silensor and Tony Sidaway. Un focused 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already voted on this article but I would like to thank Tony Sidaway for rewriting this, now it is a respectable article and this just goes to show any one skepticle of a first draft that something good can come from a little effort. HoratioVitero 20:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's check the "proposed Wikipedia importance policy", "an article should not be deleted on the basis of notability if one of the following is true: 1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject." What highschool doesn't have 500 people interested in it? And almost every high school has had some notable history or notable students. Keep keep keep. --Quasipalm 20:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This standard would include every issue of every magazine and newspaper with any significant distribution, every city intersection, nearly every failed election candidate, and many bands that would fail WP:MUSIC. The proposed importance policy has a lot of problems. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, resonably notable. Worthy of an entry per my reasoning at Schools for Deletion.Gateman1997 20:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially after nice cleanup (thank you!). Beginning 21:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is a school after all.--Nicodemus75 21:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a school after all. Soltak | Talk 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this vote is precisely why you deletionists are losing vote after vote after vote. Your criteria is simply ridiculous, and this childish delete vote comment demonstrates the problem. Many inclusionists believe that schools are inherently notable. While that is a debatable hypothesis, the obverse is simply not true. I can obviously hold that a school should be included because it is a school on the basis that schools are inherently notable, but it is ridiculously absurd to suggest that any given school should not be included on the basis of it being a school. Some schools are notable and encyclopaedic by even the most restrictive standards. Enjoy losing another VfD. --Nicodemus75 23:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment was sarcastic given that schools aren't inherently notable. Some schools are indeed noteworthy but to say that every school is notable simply by virtue of being a school is patently ridiculously. Take a look at User:Soltak/Views#Schools. You might also want to take a peek at WP:CIVIL, too. Soltak | Talk 23:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both of you please be civil. Soltak sarcasm is not warranted. And Nicodemus75 please refain from personal attacks.Gateman1997 23:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody is winning these VFDs. Besides the needless acrimony that this specific sort of exchange engenders, they're going down to no consensus, time and again. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - For about a year now, some of the school-inclusionists have been putting in some serious work bringing school articles up to reasonable standards of quality. That is very helpful and a Good Thing. Factionalizing the debate and repeating stale old assertions over and over again is not helpful. Making general remarks about how all schools in general should be handled is not helpful. VfD discussions are about particular articles, and explanations of votes should address the particular article under discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is just a school, which does not automatically grant notability. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article now. The reason for nomination no longer applies. Bhoeble 01:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Excellent rewrite by Silensor and Tony Sidaway. —RaD Man (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good work on the cleanup. --Apyule 05:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Great rewrite. --rob 20:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. Most Sensible Comment award goes to Dpbsmith@16:36--encephalon | ^ζ 17:14:14, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
- As goofy as this award is ;), I must echo the sentiment. This is not a black and white debate despite what both cabals hugging the extreme edges of the issue would have us believe.Gateman1997 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we have a little less of the c-word, please? I believe exaggerated reference to broad groups of voter alignment as "cabals" has done more to polarize the debate than anything else. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school is both a historical landmark and an important part of the Dearborn community. Silensor 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 19:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:55, 2005 September 2 (UTC)
Delete if having a tractor makes it somehow notable then does farmer giles get his own page? Dunc|☺ 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. CDThieme 00:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wikipedia:importance. Kappa 01:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable school with some recognizable alumni. Amren ^(talk) 15:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this pointless, time-wasting, impositional deletionist nonsense! Keep. --Gene_poole 13:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable vanity entry that didn't even upper case the name. Jonathunder 15:29, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Excellent article now, but that can't remedy the non-notability of the subject. I'm sticking with my original delete vote. --fvw* 22:02, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't delete excellent articles. Factitious 12:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete article says a whole lot of nothing. --Kennyisinvisible 00:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice rewrite on a verifiable and encyclopedic topic. No downside to keeping this article. Factitious 12:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Sorry. Nandesuka 03:32, 8 September 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 on what to do with this article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden birthday[edit]

Neologism made up after someone asked about this subject on the reference desk. Hoaxy. Delete. Proto t c 14:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Merge into Birthday or Transwiki. This is certainly not a neologism. Real term and concept. Over 5000 Google hits. android 79 12:10, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
transwiki to Wiktionary, it's just a definition DV8 2XL 14:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move per DV8 2XL. SaltyPig 15:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with birthday or keep. Kappa 17:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per DV8 2XL. Tonywalton | Talk 18:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rewrite to forward to wiktionary and move defenition there. --Quasipalm 20:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with birthday. Definitely not a neologism, but also not worthy of an article. Beginning 21:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with birthday per Beginning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and transwiki. The content is apropriate as a line or two on the Birthday article and also apropriate on Wiktionary. Thryduulf 11:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or atleast merge with birthday. Dunc|☺

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Nufy8 20:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Shum[edit]

Nonsense, but not patent. --fvw * 14:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

delete as per nominator DV8 2XL 14:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously it makes more sense than I thought it did. Surely falls at least within nn-bio criteria for speedy? Halo 14:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "commando rolls". LOL SaltyPig 15:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — patent pending — RJH 16:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I think it should be at least saved for BJAODN --Nambio 03:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So secret that I don't want to know about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "controlled by a group known as urmom" more like it Alf ^melmac 11:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. There doesn't seem any desire to create the redirect, but anyone should feel free to do so. -Splash 01:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Clinton Chronicles[edit]

Content already exists at Jerry Falwell (although part of that might be a copyvio, too) GinaDana 14:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator DV8 2XL 14:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and Redirect --Quasipalm 20:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Jerry Falwell. - choster 21:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now. While this would make a good article, this looks like a bad start to a fork. - Hoshie | Support the Chagossians! 08:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax (Declarative Programming)[edit]

Delete. The Ajax article already exists. This is additional original research. Not notable. --Sleepyhead 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ajax article explains the Javascript approach to AJAX programming. This new article provides information on Declarative (XML tag based) programming approach to create Rich User Interface. This is a fundamental different programming approach that is worth mentioning (similar to discusion about relational database vs xml database). Both categories exist and are are worth mentioning. Thank you for your future contributions to the Declarative AJAX article. -- Jouk 31 August 2005

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete. The Ajax article exists and is active; Google shows 134 unique hits for the search term Ajax "declarative programming", and as far as I can tell, none of them have to do with the two terms combined into a single concept. This is original research, and it's by the same person who has been somewhat spammy about adding links to his company to the Ajax article, the Rich Internet Application article, and created an article about his company. Jason t c 13:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I hadn't even noticed that the article was authored by user Jouk pleiter, and openly states that the "declarative programming" model of Ajax was "introduced in a vision paper by Backbase's Jouk Pleiter." This pretty much seals the spamminess of this all for me; I've changed my vote to a strong delete. (And note that the only editor of the page other than the VfD nominator is 62.58.16.163, who acknowledges that he is Jouk Pleiter in this diff. Again, further reinforces my feelings on this article, and on his behavior.) Jason t c 14:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Policy violations DV8 2XL 14:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why Keep this Article? Of course I'm open about my identity. The programming model of Declarative AJAX is very different from JavaScripting AJAX. If you look at declarative GUI programming models like XUL (mozilla foundation), MXML (macromedia), Laszlo (OpenLaszlo) and XAML (microsoft) it is very logic to have a dedicated page on Declarative AJAX. I agree with you that it is a sub flavor of the overall AJAX trend. But I don't see the argument that sub-flavors cannot have their own article. The fact that the previous mentioned declarative GUI programming models all have their onw article, justify (in my opinion) the reason for a Declarative AJAX page. Regarding to your point that at this moment there is only one contributor: it seems to me that there are many pages on WP that have only one or two contributors. The Ajax page seem to have a limited number of contributors as well (one being yourself and sleepyhead if i'm right). If I understand it correctly any topic should have the right to be listed on WP (as long as it follows the guideliness) and it also should have the chance to allow other people to contribute. Jouk pleiter

Jouk, please only vote once. In addition, nobody's arguing that the fact that the article has only one author is an issue, but rather that the article acknowledges that that one author -- you -- is the originator of the concept of "declarative programming" in Ajax. (I point you again to WP:VANITY, the vanity guidelines, that frown upon article creation under these pretenses.) In addition, absent any discussion of who authored the page, the concept that has no notability whatsoever (see the Google search above); if it takes off and becomes something huge, then perhaps the article will resurface at that point. I just posted a note to your account user page, in the spirit of helping you understand a bit more what Wikipedia is about and what the guidelines are regarding behavior here; I am being honest in my offer to help you understand why creation of an article like this isn't the best thing to do, and likewise, why the addition of links all over Wikipedia to the company you're CEO of isn't the best thing to do. Jason t c 15:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete merge any good content into main AJAX article. --Macrakis 15:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (this delete has been introduced by a visionary paper by Quasipalm -- the greatest voter ever!) I can't stand self-promotion in wikipedia. --Quasipalm 20:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I worship at the feet of your not-vote. I'm crafting an article Quasipalms Notable Delete Votes, capitals, adjective and all. ;) Splash 23:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 23:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Will not aid accidental linking or searching if retained as a redirect. -Splash 23:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No merge needed. Quale 18:47, 2 September 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks:Cookbook. Will add to transwiki log. -Splash 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mirchi bhajji[edit]

Recipe. --fvw * 14:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to The Wikimedia Cookbook. DV8 2XL 14:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, per previous, someone clean up whether that's rye or rice, and give me a plateful. Tonywalton | Talk 18:39, 31 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. Nufy8 20:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uk8ball[edit]

Ad. --fvw * 14:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per fvw* DV8 2XL 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOT advert. — RJH 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JeremyJX 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? Do you even know what spam is?

I apologise if this page breaks the sites T's & C's. I did check before I made it and there are other pages descibing websites. Google for example. I would like to see it remain but if it must be removed then fair enough. Or maybe I could change it so it complies with your rules.

I feel I must point out that I am not the owner of the site so I am not getting any personal gain from posting it on here. The site is a useful tool for pool players not just in the United Kingdom but all over the world.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Although rewritten, two deleters reaffirmed their choices after the rewrite, so I'll not discount the pre-rewrite deletes. -Splash 01:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backbase[edit]

Ad. --fvw * 14:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per fvw* DV8 2XL 14:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: the article was created by the CEO of the company, and its first few revisions are outright press releases. If the company is notable enough, an NPOV author will come along and recreate it in an NPOV fashion. Jason t c 14:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or needs rewrite. Company is notable but current article is NPOV. --Sleepyhead 18:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Tonywalton | Talk 18:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. MCB 19:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. --Quasipalm 20:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've rewritten the article to be as neutral as possible. I took the Macromedia page as an example. I am employed by Backbase, but I'm not sure whether that will be an NPOV problem per se. I'm looking forward to suggestions for improval. Jep 22:34, 3 September 2005 (GMT)
- Much better, but still not notable I'm afraid. Sticking with my old vote. --fvw* 23:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - By the way, is the company or the article not notable? Thanks, Jep 18:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to agree; sticking with my original vote. Jason t c 00:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, so it's probably best to let the community further extend (or recreate) this article. Jep 13:02, 5 September 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. Nufy8 20:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can Kautilya's Rajarishi be Successful in Today's Corporate?[edit]

WP:NOR (see Talk:Can Kautilya's Rajarishi be Successful in Today's Corporate?). Ngb 14:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A no brainer. V. Molotov 14:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Cdyson37 14:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a genuine topic; but it's covered in more detail, and in context, at Arthashastra. Tearlach 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reference to published sources DV8 2XL 15:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Gateman1997 18:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unverifiable. MCB 19:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JeremyJX 14:15, 2 September 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. If you take out the sockpuppets, it's 7-2. Woohookitty 08:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANTs Software[edit]

Not notable; a software company with $279,000 revenue on the last 12 months. To admins: their database product deletion page, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ANTs Data Server, had five "keep" votes from sock-puppets, so please check the voters here, too bogdan | ^Talk 14:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity or spam DV8 2XL 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the proposed Wikipedia importance policy, an article should not be deleted on the basis of notability if one of the following is true:
1. there is clear proof that a reasonable number of people (eg. more than 500 people worldwide) are or were concurrently interested in the subject.
2. the subject has been peer-reviewed.
3. it is an expansion (of reasonable length, not a stub) upon an established subject.
4. discussion on the article's talk page (using this policy as a guideline) otherwise establishes its importance.
Of these, I think that there is a chance that point 1 could be true, and points 2-4 are most certainly not true. But point 1 requires "clear proof." Can anyone supply this?
There's another factor, however. The article as it stands today is uninformative but not otherwise terribly offensive. I suspect we wouldn't be having this discussion if not for the sockpuppets on both Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ANTs Data Server and the fact that some of those same sockpuppets repeatedly posted fiction to Comparison of relational database management systems while making threatening comments to people who reverted their changes in the edit summaries. The sockpuppets, the threats, the posting of fiction, and the stealing of content from other user pages are clearly wrong, but that's not what we're being asked to vote on.
I suppose the implication of this vote is that if the ANTs page goes away then ANTs could be permanently removed from Comparison of relational database management systems and thereby stop or reduce the sockpuppets posting fiction to that page. Nobody appears to want to actually do the research to make the ANTs content accurate — I certainly don't. I personally believe that it would be fine to include ANTs if someone who cared would look up the real answers to the points on the comparison chart, but until that is done it is better to have ANTs not included than to have misleading / incorrect info on the page.
At any rate, I'm not passionate about the 500 people interested limit, but I am passionate about issues of fact in article content, so I will decide my vote in the following manner: If the folks posting the ANTs content will remove the hyperbole from this article and fix the factual errors in Comparison of relational database management systems, then I will vote to keep. If the articles remain the way they are I'll vote to delete on the basis of Spam. --Craig Stuntz 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have refactored the above for readability, but have also taken the liberty of describing Wikipedia:Importance correctly, as a proposed policy. NO VOTE on this yet. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I sincerely apprecite the clarification regarding proposed policy. But I don't see how merging my paragraphs, which were a single comment and not a vote, into multiple bullet points in the list with the votes improves readability. I put the separator in the original version to make it clear that the discussion was separate from the list of votes since I don't intend to vote until the folks who submitted the ANTs material have a (second, third, whatever) chance to fix it. It's not a huge issue, but... --Craig Stuntz 18:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they actually have 500 clients. Their server has "an introductory price of just $1,995 per server per year [16]" and a revenue of just $279,000. Yhat means that they have less than 100 servers installed in the last year.
Anyway, I did a bit of a search on google groups and apparently there were a couple of posts "does anybody knows anything about this db?", but I haven't found any actual user of it. bogdan | ^Talk 19:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, lots of talking. Delete per bogdan. Sdedeo 19:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bogdan Dottore So 23:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't turn this into a personal vendetta Chachka 10:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: user has less than 20 edits and most of them are to articles related to "ANTs". bogdan | ^Talk 11:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a software company that didn't do anything special. The 500 people thing is laughably small. There are that many people in half of one of the student halls at my Uni. -Splash 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. R adiant _>|< 06:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; I was withholding judgement to see if they were willing to play fair and fix the problems, but the folks behind appear unwilling to fix the factually inaccurate and POV text they created. They've had their second chance, and third, and... --Craig Stuntz 14:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is hilarious. Check out the database page.. Bogdan got into a huge fight with this guy and then went on a rampage against all the articles they posted. Minkor 19:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote is "Minkor's" first contribution to Wikipedia.--Craig Stuntz 19:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how revenue is relevant here. Why are hundereds of companies that are losing money listed on here then? Tetratek 08:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Revenue is not profit. The revenue is the total amount of money received from selling products. One company may have billions of dollars in revenue and still be losing money. The revenue is relevant in here because it shows the number of products sold.

Also, please note that user has less than 50 edits. bogdan | ^Talk 09:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page, the company definitely has more than 500 people interested. (619,000 articles on google alone, plus most people in the RDBMS community are well aware of ANTs Manifoldmop 19:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit and already banned. Must be a record or something. (I removed the insult) Also, the 619,000 articles are about ants, i.e. the insects. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 19:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are wrong, search for ants returns 5 million pages and the point on revenue is wrong as well because there are numerous companies (research, medical, nanotech, etc) that post zero or negative revenue and yet are quite significant. Chachka 22:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are only 897 hits for "ANTS Data Server". Compare with 3,140,000 hits for "Microsoft SQL Server".

Also, from the definition of revenue results that negative revenue is simply not possible. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 09:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TroelsArvin 09:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Kapp Putsch. However, the content of this article is so strongly POV it would require a complete rewrite before we could even think about copying the text over. For now, then, I'm just going to turn it into a redirect; someone can do a 'merge' properly when they've got some NPOV material to add. Or of course, you can simply merge the existing content by looking through this article's history. -Splash 01:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarian Reaction 1920[edit]

Makes very little sense, not very relevent as a freestanding article, though some content could be moved to Kapp Putsch, possibly antisemitic Cdyson37 14:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per referer DV8 2XL 15:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect. Kapp Putsch covers this. --Lockley 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Str1977 13:47, 5 September 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. Nufy8 20:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KasparovX[edit]

The program appears to be a non-notable chess program. The description, apparently written by the author, is that this is a re-compiled version of another chess program. A google search identified 243 matches, but a quick glance showed that they appeared to be mostly BBS posts by the author himself. Notability has not been established. CHAIRBOY 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - CHAIRBOY 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN DV8 2XL 15:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. There are a couple dozen notable computer chess engines. This isn't one of them. Quale 18:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JeremyJX 14:15, 2 September 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. Nufy8 20:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Embanet/Temp[edit]

Advertising and/or copyright vio. I'm guessing this is a duplicate of already-deleted Embanet page. Bunchofgrapes 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ad policy violation DV8 2XL 15:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JeremyJX 14:15, 2 September 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. Nufy8 20:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sapienocraty[edit]

Delete - Hoax/original work - "if you are fat you do not deserve food". Probably an advert for the "luciferian"/satanist webpage. Tεx τ urε 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slop. SaltyPig 15:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i know this group there very interesting they actually have very little to do with satanism why the writher used that i have no clue but there are a few errors i should change things like explaining the govermental system better and to explain there connection with spiritual socialism also micha van den bergs higher thoughts has very little to do with sapienocraty if you want to read about it i would pick heinrich muller his book has not been printed since the seventies but they should be online but i like the fact that the writher continued the movement into the present day most english speaking people here have no idea what sapienocraty is but they are better know in germany and holland (unsigned comment from User:85.146.24.65 at 15:47, 31 August 2005 --DavidConrad 10:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete No Google hits for "Sapienocraty" prob. hoax DV8 2XL 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... only a closed mind would claim that you can write a word only one way .... Quite right. Deleet. Tonywalton | Talk 18:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had sockpuppets, then I'd also vote dilete, dilleyte, dooliiyte and pdeielletteeeet. But I don't. Tonywalton

| Talk 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in any way. Beginning 21:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Hoax verging on patent nonsense. MCB 01:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is semi-literate and of poor quality, with many misspellings including the title (-craty vs. -cracy). The only support for it here is from the same IP address as the creator of the article, and is written in the same style -- presumably the writer of the article, but he or she distances him- or herself from the "writher". Is the article then quoting some other work? Who is the "writher" of that work, and is it copyrighted? All of these problems could be resolved, but what would we be left with? An article on an unheard-of neologism that is unverifiable. The neologism does not even appear on any of the web sites given as sources. Strong delete --DavidConrad 10:12, 4 September 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. Nufy8 20:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lasersharking[edit]

neologism EdwinHJ | Talk 15:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per above. DV8 2XL 16:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Move to wiktionary --Quasipalm 20:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't take neologisms here, and neither does Wiktionary. --Carnildo 23:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Delete. BrendanAdkins 03:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC) (originator of the article)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 1 September 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 withdrawn by nominator. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Acat[edit]

Redirect to Maya mythology: a dicdef of a non-notable acronym used in the U.S. Department of Defense procurement system. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DV8 2XL 15:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not need to come to VfD. You can just do them without asking (aka being WP:BOLD) usually. -Splash 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a redirect, it's a dicdef. Russ Blau wants it to be a redirect, same as the other two nominated dicdefs. -Sean Curtin 01:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  - Someone else made the same type of comment on my User Talk page. If that's the way it works, OK, but it seems weird to me that it takes a nomination here to delete an article, but no nomination to do exactly the same thing when a redirect to an entirely unrelated subject is "left behind." --Russ Blau (talk) 15:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation page needed here. Proto t c 11:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that (a) a disambiguation page is needed because the content now on Acat should be kept; or (b) the content now on Acat should be moved to a different page so that we can then have a separate deletion nomination on it? (Same question applies to the other two articles on which you made this comment.) --Russ Blau (talk) 15:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

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 withdrawn by nominator. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

AoA[edit]

Redirect to Age of Apocalypse: a dicdef of a non-notable acronym used in the U.S. Department of Defense procurement system. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DV8 2XL 15:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not need to come to VfD. You can just do them without asking (aka being WP:BOLD) usually. -Splash 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page required. Proto t c 11:08, 1 September 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.

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 withdrawn by nominator. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:28, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ato[edit]

Redirect to List of angels in Enochian: non-notable dicdef of an acronym used in US DoD procurement policies. --Russ Blau (talk) 15:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.DV8 2XL 16:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not need to come to VfD. You can just do them without asking (aka being WP:BOLD) usually. -Splash 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page needed here. Proto t c 11:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DV8 2XL - Orioneight 00:02, 11 September 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. -Splash 02:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gosal[edit]

Delete Neoglism PhilipO 15:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete slang term DV8 2XL 16:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 1 September 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. Nufy8 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Thom[edit]

Delete Non-notable [17] PhilipO 15:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as nn-bio. Tonywalton | Talk 16:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not (yet?) notable. Aecis 16:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prob. vanity DV8 2XL 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another vanity page... IINAG 17:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Soon to be released artist (no relation - only a fan!) Koorb 20:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome to Wikipedia - I hope you have fun here. Unfortunately, sufficient notability must be established before an article can remain on Wikipedia, otherwise the site would be flooded with vanity pages. --PhilipO 20:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Can always be restored later. --TheMidnighters 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence presented as yet that she meets WP:Music. If however her single/album charts or she completes a tour of the UK or another country, then she would qualify. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. feydey 02:03, 1 September 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. Nufy8 04:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MiniDome[edit]

Delete Advertisement PhilipO 16:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Ad policy violation. DV8 2XL 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOT advertising. — RJH 16:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are ads candidates for speedies? if so then it should be deleted right away. In the meantime I've blanked the page as Wikipedia should not be providing space for oppertunistic ads in the light of Katrina. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that it's not always obvious when something is advertising. This one is a copyvio anyway: http://www.minidome.net/The_Mini_Dome.htm Kappa 17:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SamsonFro 14:30, 2 September 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. Nufy8 04:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Eckhaus[edit]

Delete Vanity. MiniDome also vfd PhilipO 16:09, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete — WP:NOT advertising. — RJH 16:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly spam. DV8 2XL 16:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SamsonFro 14:30, 2 September 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. — JIP | Talk 15:00, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Alternative Ending[edit]

Delete Band vanity [18] PhilipO 16:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Band vanity DV8 2XL 16:33, 31 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 ALL. -Splash 02:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pink dragon[edit]

Band vanity, "working on first album" does not meet WP:MUSIC. I'll add band members to this VfD in just a sec. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:20:00, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

VfD includes co-linked Pink Dragon, Maveric, Jay Little Man Toto, and Jockstrap Joeseph.

Delete Band vanity DV8 2XL 22:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete *.*, non-notable band with non-notable members. -Satori ^(talk) 16:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Punkmorten 18:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pink Dragon and all those nominated as the band does not appear to meet WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 1 September 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. Few comments, but no support for transwikim of unverifiable article. -Splash 02:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kalligrafmatidae[edit]

Exactly one google hit, which contains the exact same phrase as in the article. No hit's on scholar search. No way of telling if this is a real group of extinxt insects, a hoax, a misspelling etc. No potential (at the moment) to expand into a proper article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary; definition DV8 2XL 16:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But we would need to be able to verify it's a real word first, and if we could do that then we probably could write an encylopedia article on it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, pending some verification that this is a real, correctly spelled word. ManoaChild 21:51, 31 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. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling an andy[edit]

Neologism. Also, I can find no evidence to support the article's claims of origin. Al 16:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete No WP entry for Amos n' Andy to merge to
Amos & Andy. Gazpacho
Delete dicdef, neologism, or hoax. --TheMidnighters 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I originally redirect, but as the creator didn't seem to go in for that kind of thing, delete. --fvw * 23:49, August 31, 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. Nufy8 22:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of El Granada, California[edit]

The article is just names of random streets and are not notable. It's taking up valuable space on Wiki. UniReb 16:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to taking up valuable space, Wikipedia is not paper. However, it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information, so delete -Satori ^(talk) 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Satori DV8 2XL 17:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not directory, Wikipedia is not a grab-bag of data Pilatus 17:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Roodog2k 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne --TimPope 17:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm all for numbered roads, highways, expressways... but random lists of city streets is too much.Gateman1997 18:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gateman1997 Rhyddfrydol 20:38, 1 September 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. -Splash 02:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freaks Almighty[edit]

Not notable. No relevant google hits (not even the official website, which presumably means its a very recent invention) DJ Clayworth 16:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn DV8 2XL 17:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IINAG 17:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SamsonFro 14:31, 2 September 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. -Splash 02:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hoboken streets[edit]

This article is a list of random streets and are not notable. It's taking up valuable space on Wiki. UniReb 16:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to taking up valuable space, Wikipedia is not paper. However, it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information, so delete -Satori ^(talk) 16:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Satori DV8 2XL 17:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not directory, Wikipedia is not a grab-bag of data Pilatus 17:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The road trivia is useful tho.Roodog2k 17:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne --TimPope 17:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, go buy a map.Gateman1997 18:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list I could live without, but the information at the bottom is very at home in wikipedia. I say we should have an article called "Hoboken streets" or something and move the information there. --Quasipalm 20:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was kept after a previous vfd. --Andy M. 20:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was May 2004, more than a year ago. It was suggested to send it to Cleanup to see if it might improve. It didn't; this is the diff: [19] Pilatus 11:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Sdedeo 21:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC). There is more than a list. I suggest a merge to the Hoboken, New Jersey article. Sdedeo 21:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Hoboken, New Jersey. Brighterorange 21:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a road map! UniReb 00:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Satori. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per Satori. Zoe 06:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT. Proto t c 10:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page was already on VfD and kept. Wikipedia isn't a road map, and neither is this page -- it is more than a list 67.85.1.175

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -Splash 02:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kao lee and yip[edit]

Just a law firm. Not notable DJ Clayworth 16:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a very good ad. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad policy violation DV8 2XL 17:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons above. IINAG 17:34, 31 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. Nufy8 22:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical list of Santa Clara, California streets[edit]

This is an article with a list of random streets and are not notable. It's taking up valuable space on Wiki. UniReb 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn (This entry left by USER:DV8 2XL Pilatus 17:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not directory, Wikipedia is not a grab-bag of data Pilatus 17:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Roodog2k 17:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete ne --TimPope 17:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you didn't include my street on that list >:| Gateman1997 18:17, 31 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 MERGE. Obviously not deleting the article. So what advice is offered for the kept article? A strong desire to merge; it being barely a sentence that seems like the right option anyway. -Splash 02:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpai[edit]

Foreign dicdef. Nowhere to merge to. Punkmorten 16:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. DV8 2XL 17:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above IINAG 17:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Common phrases in different languages#Japanese. Tonywalton | Talk 18:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Forward --Quasipalm 20:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SamsonFro 14:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki move to wiktionary or merge with Common phrases in different languages#Japanese. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 2005 September 2 (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. Nufy8 22:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Providence, Rhode Island streets[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. These are a list of random list of streets and are not notable. They are taking up valuable space on Wiki. UniReb 18:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Roodog2k 18:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not directory DV8 2XL 18:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bit much. Gateman1997 20:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, except that I do not agree with the "taking up valuable space" comment and think the nomination would be stronger without it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Providence is simply too small and NN to warrant this much detail. --Quasipalm 20:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue isn't, I don't think, the size of Providence. A simple list of street names such as this would be inappropriate for any place. Providence, as a U.S. state capital, is pretty notable. —Cleared as filed. 21:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - if you want a list of street names in any particular locale surely there are more appropriate places to look than Wikipedia. Perhaps I should do a list of streets in Tipton ..... (ok, so you've never heard of Tipton ....) Rhyddfrydol 20:41, 1 September 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 was NO CONSENSUS, THEREFORE KEEP, with a possible merge. moink 04:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conan vs. bear[edit]

This is some kind of web pheonomena that is very new (from august 2005, and that month hasn't even ended yet. The article features a prominent collection of external links. Created by two individual users whose only interest seems to be this article.

Reasons, in short: non-notable, created for visibility only. — Sverdrup 18:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This may have legs, give it a bit of time. DV8 2XL 19:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Conan ~~O'Brian~~ O'Brien Roodog2k 19:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Conan. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. After some googling, it appears to be a wide phenom. -- beyond a very small group. --Quasipalm 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Conan O'Brien. If it's still memorable (without people being prompted to recall it) in a few months, then it can have its own article. Beginning 21:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge at best. I agree with above -this is likely a flash in the pan. If not, it can warrant independent treatment once it is slightly better established. Dottore So 23:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, website promotion (Alexa rank: 981,531), most likely vanity. Martg76 04:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If an when it becomes notable, then it can be rewritten. Zoe 06:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've seen it long before mentioned date ('August 2005') and it's leading nowhere, but to vanity of the creator(s). However I'm afraid it will just keep turning up again after deletion. Marc NL 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. it's pretty pointless. Delete it.

Keep It's been mentioned on the show, and is far from just a tiny group of friends showing off their drawings. Page does need a cleanup though. --SFont 19:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say keep.

Oh dear, Conan just mentioned the 'Conan vs Bear' website in his show today. He said about it: "One of the by-products of fame are the crazy websites. And there's a bunch of strange websites devoted to you [Elijah Wood] now. [...] It's very strange when sometimes -- someone made me aware today of a website that's artists doing drawings of me fighting bears. Seriously, it's me fighting bears! ... I don't think it has anything to do with anything, but I'm looking at it and a lot of artwork is really good; it's me battling bears and you just think like this is the -- I don't think this is what the inventors of these computers and the internet had in mind. That stuff was invented but God bless them. Good stuff." --Marc NL 05:42, 10 September 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. -Splash 02:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF truck[edit]

Neologism TimPope 19:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Johntex 19:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to wiktionary --Quasipalm 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary DV8 2XL 20:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not transwiki, as a neologism. --TheMidnighters 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism... don't transwiki, nn enough Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:08, 3 September 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. -Splash 02:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mon Unit[edit]

Delete Non-notable PhilipO 19:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per PhillipO. There are more appropriate places to have and article on poker groups. Psy Guy 19:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Ground Zero | t 19:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came here expecting this as a mistake on Moon Unit, so I could get a good laugh. Sigh. Olounou 19:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn DV8 2XL 22:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moon Unit. Proto t c 11:01, 1 September 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. Nufy8 22:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbertism[edit]

This word is a neologism that is not meritous of having an article. The creator of this article did so as an attempt to push POV at Hubbert peak theory. This is a violation of WP:POINT and WP:NPOV. Johntex 19:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Silliness. The {{religion-stub}} is a bit much. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Quasipalm 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary; if it has some common usage (which I doubt)DV8 2XL 20:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's often an admirable suggestion, but do bear in mind that other Wikis are not AfD's dumping ground. If you were working on Wiktionary, would you aquiesce to keep this? -Splash 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trolling. Gazpacho 21:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silliness, bordering on joke article Wikipedia:Vandalism. I wouldn't object to a speedy. -Splash 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, and can I get some help reigning this guy in? He is currently making a mess of Hubbert peak theory. A quick perusal of the talk page will make the problem obvious. - Taxman ^Talk 18:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I didn't invent the term - i found it. But any help reigning in the (other) article is welcome - it looks like we have consensus to rename it and weed out some of the hyperbole and thinly supported pseudoscience. Benjamin Gatti
Delete - Bad faith, neologism created in violation of WP:POINT. Dalf | Talk 06:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete peak neologism. Klonimus 02:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trolling. William M. Connolley 16:48:22, 2005-09-06 (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 MERGE to Thunderball. — JIP | Talk 15:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Volpe[edit]

Delete Shouldn't have its own article PhilipO 19:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Thunderball. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above DV8 2XL 20:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Nothing to merge really. Thunderball is pretty much maxed out content-wise and I don't think there's anything in this article that isn't essentially said at Thunderball already. If merge, consider S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in the same style as SMERSH. K1Bond007 21:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per K1Bond007. 23skidoo 21:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. -- DS1953 00:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nominally merge, though in reality just replace the content with a redirect. Flower party 07:30, 6 September 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fichier initialisation[edit]

There's already an English article on this subject (Initialization file) which is more complete. — A.M. 20:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this French article appears to have been misplaced; by now, it is in the French wikipedia and both English Initialization file and French fr:Fichier initialisation are interwiki-ed. - Introvert ^talk 20:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, maybe? Grayum 20:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is in French, a copy of the existing article in the French wiki (and it is the translation of the existing English article). Please refer to the policy on speedy deletion of such articles - Introvert ^talk 21:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD A2, and so tagged. DES ^(talk) 00:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted --Henrygb 00:34, 1 September 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. -Splash 02:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Akrabu[edit]

The band does not appear to be notable, nor does it meet WP:MUSIC criteria for listing. The article does not establish the necessary points for this to remain. CHAIRBOY 20:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. - CHAIRBOY 20:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator DV8 2XL 22:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also no Allmusic. --TheMidnighters 22:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Come on, now, I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have as much as possible, shouldn't we err on the side of completeness? It's not like it's a self-promotion page or anything.

4th edit by user 67.164.100.198 (who is also the author of the Akrabu page. - CHAIRBOY 03:50, 1 September 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. — JIP | Talk 15:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fdi flow[edit]

Delete meaningless, out-of-context snippet from a document with no explanation of significance. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nonsence DV8 2XL 22:27, 31 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. -Splash 02:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Periods processing[edit]

Delete meaningless, non-notable, out-of-context snippet that doesn't even rise to the level of a dicdef. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator DV8 2XL 22:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 22:39, 31 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. I tried to find ways to make it a delete. :) Not going to happen. 17-12 from my count. Woohookitty 08:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations[edit]

Non notable, non encyclopaedic. Woodstone 20:36:17, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

Delete - No content and no point to this. - Tεx τ urε 20:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silliness. Johntex 20:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, this exists for the same reason that List of all two-letter combinations does. If this is deleted, then so should that list, and TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ, TLAs from IAA to LZZ, TLAs from MAA to PZZ, TLAs from QAA to TZZ, TLAs from UAA to XZZ, TLAs from YAA to ZZZ, List of TLA-Dabs, the categories Category:Lists of two-letter combinations and Category:Lists of two-letter combinations... (like various articles contained in the categories) 132.205.3.20 21:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would just make sense to delete those all. −Woodstone 21:31:01, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

COMMENT, This list is the result of a TfD vote to consolidate a template into a list article. 132.205.3.20
- Do you mean this? There is a heavy vote to delete but no interest in what you are doing. There is no support for your action. Stop adding links to all the number articles (0-9) - Tεxτurε 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears there needs to be a split to create 0 (character)... articles then, to match up with A..Z, as 0..9 are used in writing, not just for numerical concerns. The letter pages all have links to similar lists (which are mostly on this day's AfD page) 132.205.3.20 19:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What possible purpose could this serve? If someone's interested in this nonsense then they can sit down and think up some combinations themselves. The list has absolutely no encyclopedic value. Soltak | Talk 21:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. DV8 2XL 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI see no point to this kind of article. I agree with 132.205.3.20 so I am trying to put the above list on VFD as well. Psy Guy 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic. I fear the consequences of keeping this. How about a List of all 10-letter-20-digit combinations? Or am I violating WP:BEANS, again? -Splash 23:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT. --Carnildo 23:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
clear Delete. I agree with Woodstone. These pointless lists should be purged. Dottore So 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others above. DES ^(talk) 23:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...The Quick Index pointed out by User:Titoxd renders this page obsolete and redundant. ~~Keep~~. I am the creator of this particular page, and I appreciate the input from folks who wish to delete it as well as those who wish to keep it. This and related pages serve two purposes. First, a technical purpose: to assist in keeping disambiguation pages from showing up at Orphaned pages, which therefore means it assists in the goals of the pages related to Wikipedia:Links_to_disambiguating_pages. Second, a content purpose: considering Wikipedia's role as both a comprehensive encyclopedia as well as a repository of almanac-like content, pages of this kind assist in determining the extent of coverage and point toward gaps in article coverage, particularly with regard to disambiguation and acronym-based redirects. I would suggest that if there is a consensus to delete, which I doubt will emerge in the end, that rather than being deleted outright these various pages be transwiki'd to Wiktionary as appendices (similar to the appendices Names, Types of companies and Concordances). Another option that is actually more consistent with the two points I made above is to move these into the Wikipedia-namespace, where they would serve their technical and QC/administrative purposes outside the main article space; this change would be accomplished by a simple move-action, an action that I would consider taking if a delete consensus is reached. Considering these alternatives, I would appreciate your not acting to "terminate with extreme prejudice" this and related pages. Courtland 00:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC) I made a modification that conflicted with the edit/comment below ... it doesn't impinge on the interpretation of the edit below[reply]
- I'm sure quite an effort did go into the making of these pages and I can appreciate that; I just don't think it was worth it. Soltak | Talk 00:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful to some, does not harm by being in Wikipedia. - SimonP 00:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Silly trivia, but it's only a page long and the fact that most of the links actually exist gives it some redeeming social importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the lists of TLAs are also deleted. -Sean Curtin 01:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Sean, I'd like to ask you to reconsider this vote. If we start using quid pro quo as our guiding principle here, we can only go downhill. Do you think this should be deleted, just like TLA? Then I ask you to vote delete. 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete this list provides absolutely no information for readers of Wikipedia. Maybe move to creator's User: space? CDC (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this suggests that it belongs in the wikipedia namespace, not stuffed into my backyard (my user namespace) as the creator; after all, this particular page (VFD) provides asolutely no information for readers of Wikipedia either, CDC, and guess where it is ... the wikipedia namespace. Courtland 08:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful and doesn't violate any policies. --Apyule 05:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people are making a WP:POINT in a bid to get the TLA lists deleted. They should stay; this should go. Proto t c 10:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- What SimonP said. Atlant 11:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I am unconvinced that this is of any value. Peeper 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is useful to have articles on all possible words (to start with the articles that are discussed here). The distinction between a dictionnary/glossary and an ambitious encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not that obvious. Or maybe there should be - like the Wiktionary - a separate Wiki webpage/project called Wikiglossary (including Glossaries on Wikipedia (Category:Glossaries)), with links to Wikipedia. Brz7
Keep. Excellent. They're all there, F1, Q6, K2. All my favorites. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You sank my battleship! --DavidConrad 09:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic pointcruft. Nandesuka 21:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. -- DS1953 00:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Move to wikipedia namespace. As a reader I find it useless. As an editor it may be useful to keep. Nabla 01:11:43, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is getting too silly. R adiant _>|< 08:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's about as useful as the TLA lists. Just remove it from your watchlist if you don't want to see it. -- User:Docu
Keep and move to Wikipedia namespace. -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no point in these pages, we already have the Quick Index! Titoxd 07:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks! I had no idea this page existed, or that the indices set of pages were there. I'm changing my opinion from "Keep" to "Delete" based on this new information. The technical issue around appearance of pages on Orphaned Pages remains, but that could be dealt with by another means, such as altering the mechanics of Orphaned Page detectection, such as excluding articles with titles of 1, 2, or 3 characters (just a thought). Courtland 11:52, 7 September 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. Nufy8 22:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hansen[edit]

Sounds like a cute band, but it's still not notable. (See WP:MUSIC.) Google search barely returns anything. Acutally, a Dr. Adolf Hansen looks more popular than this band. Yay for random band vanity pages. Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 21:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete bandity. Actually, there is some turn-of-the-century composer named Adolf Hansen, according to AMG [20], but I doubt he is notable enough for an article. Brighterorange 21:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity DV8 2XL 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nnbv. --TheMidnighters 22:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I almost wish we had a speedy delete for the really obvious band vanity pages... *shrugs* Oh well. It's not like it's really slow or inconveniencing (I think I made up a new spelling) this way. Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 22:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn band vanity. We don't have a speedy delete for this but we need one. Dottore So 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:Music. Actually, there is a composer of German band music and a university Administrator with a Who's Who article so it could be a disambiguation. Capitalistroadster 00:48, 1 September 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. -Splash 02:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calistean[edit]

Part of a trio of articles based on a non-notable language and original-research fictional history. Not published, no web presence outside Wiki mirrors, according to the talk page has been deleted before! Ziggurat 21:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

delete conlang vanity. Brighterorange 21:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete original research, nn DV8 2XL 22:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article claims this was invented in a student reserch context. Can citations be provided to the use of this invented langauge in student research? was that research publsihed anywhere? such citations might give this Wikipedia:verifiability which it now lacks. DES ^(talk) 23:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Ziggurat. --IJzeren Jan 06:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ziggurat Transwiki to the Conlang Wikicity. -- Unless perhaps sources are provided as suggested by DES. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late, I already did that! :) --IJzeren Jan 19:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article claims that this was invented for research. I would thus have felt more comfortable with deletion if a request for references had been made on the article's talk page at least a week before the page was listed for VFD. -- Creidieki 03:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this should be Deleted. Unless widely spoken, it's undeserving of anything more than a mention in an article about any discoveries made through its use. Which the article doesn't assert the students have had any of. The Literate Engineer 04:27, 8 September 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. -Splash 02:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlesean_Timeline[edit]

Part of a trio of articles based on a non-notable fictional language and original-research fictional history. Not published, no web presence outside Wiki mirrors. Ziggurat 21:20, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

delete vanity. Brighterorange 21:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete original research, nn DV8 2XL 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Ziggurat. --IJzeren Jan 06:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Conlang Wikicity, then delete here, per Ziggurat. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:34, 1 September 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. -Splash 02:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bjorn_Bakker[edit]

Non-notable author of a non-notable fictional language and original-research fictional history also vfd'd. Not published, no web presence outside Wiki mirrors. Ziggurat 21:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

delete vanity. Brighterorange 21:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete original research, nn DV8 2XL 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per Ziggurat. --IJzeren Jan 06:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ziggurat. --Jim Henry | Talk 14:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ziggurat. -- DS1953 00:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Calistean if that article is not deleted in its current VFD cycle. Otherwise, Delete. The notability of this person depends on the notability of Calistean, and I feel that the proper place to determine that is on that article's VFD page, not this one's. -- Creidieki 03:52, 2 September 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. Nufy8 22:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Batley[edit]

massive POV, vanity article NeilN 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteV. Molotov 21:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a candidate for speedy deletion to me. Google's never heard of him [21] Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete policy violation DV8 2XL 22:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a violation. More that it could be deleted in compliance with the speedy deletion policy. -Splash 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline speedy per A7. It's semi-nonsensical ramblings. -Splash 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. arguably the comments that professional clubs couldn't afford this player ar a claim of notability, albiet a marginal one. So don't speedy under A7. DES ^(talk) 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think the criterion need be taken in by such preposterous claims! -Splash 18:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation of an article which was already deleted at 20:49 on August 31, 2005. Hall Monitor 18:35, 1 September 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. Nufy8 22:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Savvy Content Manager[edit]

Delete. advertising --IByte 21:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 21:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete policy violation DV8 2XL 22:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD does not include advertising. -Splash 23:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. Splash is correct, there is no CSD covering ads. Maybe there should be, but that is another debate for another page. DES ^(talk) 23:46, 31 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. Nufy8 22:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WhereToLive.com[edit]

NN company, POV NeilN 21:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This page reads like it's the company's promotion leaflet (→delete as advertising). --IByte 21:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete policy violation DV8 2XL 22:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert Psy Guy 22:39, 31 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. No support for the redirect, but that can of course be created by someone whenever they like anyway. -Splash 02:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamwalk[edit]

Delete Seems like non-notable nonsense to me PhilipO 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense. After deletion, redirect to Sleepwalking. --Blackcap | talk
delete as rubbish, no redirect DV8 2XL 22:40, 31 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. — JIP | Talk 05:41, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Von Helson Sisters[edit]

Non-notable. Neutrality^talk 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn forumcruft. I've also VfD'd Johnny Gambino and Gino Gambino, two related articles to which this article links. --Idont Havaname 22:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; This may be of interest more to Gaia fans than anyone else, but not so much that I'd class it as cruft. There are over 2 million registered members on Gaia - Even assuming that only 100 or 200 thousand are active, that's still enough to definitely qualify this as notable. (Edit: I should state, I do have an interest in the article, as I am the author.) Trisk 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not encyclopedia material, cruft DV8 2XL 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is just fanfic by another name. Redirect to Gaia Online and add a mention there. This comment may not be interpreted as a desire to retain the content. -Splash 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Proto t c 10:55, 1 September 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. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gambino[edit]

Delete. Forumcruft; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Helson Sisters. --Idont Havaname 22:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; This may be of interest more to Gaia fans than anyone else, but not so much that I'd class it as cruft. There are over 2 million registered members on Gaia - Even assuming that only 100 or 200 thousand are active, that's still enough to definitely qualify this as notable. (Edit: I should state, I do have an interest in the article, as I am the author.) Trisk 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure cruft DV8 2XL 22:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is just fanfic by another name. Redirect to Gaia Online and add a mention there. This comment may not be interpreted as a desire to retain the content. -Splash 23:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)~~ Actually, on re-visiting this, just delete it. We'd only be piling the cruft up in a different place. -Splash 01:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. No redirect. Proto t c 10:54, 1 September 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. — JIP | Talk 05:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Gambino[edit]

Delete; nn forumcruft. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Gambino and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Von Helson Sisters. --Idont Havaname 22:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; This may be of interest more to Gaia fans than anyone else, but not so much that I'd class it as cruft. There are over 2 million registered members on Gaia - Even assuming that only 100 or 200 thousand are active, that's still enough to definitely qualify this as notable. (Edit: I should state, I do have an interest in the article, as I am the author.) Trisk 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure cruft DV8 2XL 22:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is just fanfic by another name. Redirect to Gaia Online and add a mention there. This comment may not be interpreted as a desire to retain the content. -Splash 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)~~Actually, on re-visiting this, just delete it. We'd only be piling the cruft up in a different place. -Splash 01:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Forumcruft. --Carnildo 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Proto t c 10:54, 1 September 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. Nufy8 22:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JYCO[edit]

Advert. Alr 22:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ad. Bubamara 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad policy violation DV8 2XL 22:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. DES ^(talk) 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad spam. -- DS1953 00:40, September 2, 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 08:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formulaic[edit]

Dicdef, bordeline nonsense. Alr 22:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary - word is existant and in use in literary criticism DV8 2XL 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as patent nonsense of the second kind: "irredemably confused". Do not transwiki, as Wiktionary wouldn't want tripe like this, and other Wiki's are not AfD's dumping ground. -Splash 23:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewite and transwiki. This is not nonsense -- I have no problem following the imagery here, and if this appeard in a critical essay I might even praise the writing. (it is saying that a fomulaic movie or book is like a meal created strictly by recipie, w/no originality, and i agree.) The writing is a bit too poetic for wikipedia, and as it stands it is nothing but a defiination, if not precisely a dicdef. Could possibly be merged into an article on Literary creativity or List of terms in literary criticism (if either existed) or some such topic, but not a proper wikipedia article as it stands, and article titles are not usually adjectives. DES ^(talk) 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth the effort to transwiki. --Carnildo 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to formula. -Sean Curtin 01:40, September 1, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The the clucking clucking trout trout[edit]

Band vanity or possible hoax--I couldn't find any google hits for the band or their albums, and allmusic has nothing. Meelar (talk) 23:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nonsence DV8 2XL 23:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. feydey 23:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot think of a "biting, surreal observation", so I shall have simply to say delete. -Splash 23:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity of some kid. Cyclopia 23:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. FreplySpang (talk) 23:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Exhaust leak[edit]

-Not notable, not even an article.

V. Molotov 23:03, 31 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. Woohookitty 08:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnoticus and Hypnoticus Spectre[edit]

No content worth merging to The Eternal City, so Delete. Alr 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nominator DV8 2XL 23:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My instinct was to merge however. But we don't have a merge target since The Eternal City is a disambiguation page, and we don't have the article about the game. If that's written during the VfD, then these can both be merged there. -Splash 23:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If someone wants to merge the content to a proper articel on the game I wouldn't object. DES ^(talk) 23:34, 31 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 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). Nufy8 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Dregg[edit]

As far as I can see, there's no content here worth merging. Alr 23:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nominator DV8 2XL 23:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to go ahead and redirect it to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) just for the hell of redirecting. Olounou 00:00, 1 September 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. 3 delete votes and 3 keep votes (counting "move to clean-up" as "keep but put a cleanup tag on it"). — JIP | Talk 08:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

L.O.C.K.D.O.W.N.[edit]

-Not encyclopedic?

V. Molotov

23:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Apparently this is an episode of Codename:_Kids_Next_Door on Cartoon Network. Could use some serious clean-up, but *maybe* keep. Nae'blis 23:13:58, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
keep clean and link DV8 2XL 23:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --PhilipO 23:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and start again unless someone wants to merge it somewhere. -Splash 23:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , I fully agree with comments of Splash. Cyclopia 23:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to cleanup. Guan aco 00:48, 1 September 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. Nufy8 04:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Source (forum)[edit]

The Source is a game-related forum that broke away from another forum because the first forum was too heavily moderated. The site itself says there are fewer than 500 members. The Alexa ranking is 2,968,906. I don't think this has much impact beyond its core usergroup. Joyous (talk) 23:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. per above DV8 2XL 23:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joyous. This article is just a roster of some of their cabal. -Splash 23:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has certainly been speedied before - and I am almost certain it has been VfD'd as well, but I can't find the discussion. The talk page rather bears this out. If I'm right then speedy and protect, in any case delete --Doc (?) 13:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page for mods and ~~rockers~~ admins. Alf ^melmac 12:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the admin of the forum in question, and I agree that this article shouldn't exist. However, I take offence to the previous user's comments. Most of that was written by users, not by staff. --The Computer Mutt 04:52, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if you take my mention of vanity article by whichever editors to be out of order. I merely meant it as per Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, nothing more. "vanity page for"... does not imply what you take offence at. Alf ^melmac 09:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to which I note User:The Computer Mutt's edit of the article here, which you added a link to you own User page in the article, whereas I have no objection to that, my initial statement stands. Alf ^melmac 10:21, 5 September 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. I suppose there's no harm in the redirect, so I'll create it (after deletion) especially as it had full support once it was suggested. -Splash 02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Llandrew[edit]

Delete Doesn't warrant own article - and I am a Star Trek fan PhilipO 23:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Keep harmless DV8 2XL 23:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fancruft and POV to boot. Soltak | Talk 23:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misspelling of "Landru", see The Return of the Archons Zeimusu | Talk page 23:38, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
Delete, and leave a redirect to The Return of the Archons. Proto t c 10:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 'baddy' that Jim talks to death, how original. And redirect per Zeimusu and Proto. Alf ^melmac 12:18, 4 September 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. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalick[edit]

Wikipedia is not a geneology project. No evidence of notability. Unfortunately, WP:CSD A7 does not, as I read it, apply to articles about families, any more than it does to bands or ohter groups of non-notable people. Delete. DES ^(talk) 23:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above DV8 2XL 00:03, 1 September 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. Nufy8 04:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Phone[edit]

I found this blanked in Special:Shortpages. It looks like nonsense. Guan aco 23:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. Anon's sole creation Fornadan (t) 23:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost patent nonsense and possible vanity. ManoaChild 23:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Patent nonsense
Delete per ManoaChild, plus WP:NOT a crystal ball. Tonywalton | Talk 00:09, 1 September 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. 19 keep votes vs. 9 delete votes and 2 move votes. — JIP | Talk 05:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ, TLAs from IAA to LZZ, TLAs from MAA to PZZ, TLAs from QAA to TZZ, TLAs from UAA to XZZ[edit]

Non notable, non-encyclopaedic, meaningless collection Psy Guy 23:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is missing from the list: TLAs from YAA to ZZZ 132.205.3.20 19:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep only because I've used it from time to time. -- Reinyday, 23:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep: see prior VFD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/TLAs_from_AAA_to_DZZ. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: hardly a facinating read but enough people find them useful. Zeimusu | Talk page 23:51, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
Keep - see note below.
delete what is this list doing that a search with a three letter argument wouldn't do better and faster? DV8 2XL 00:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these pages have cleared VfD on more than one occassion and are quite useful. - SimonP 00:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep! Totally useful for browsing through TLAs, and someone put in a lot of effort here. I actually find this kinda interesting. --Quasipalm 00:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Guan aco 00:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful for finding pages that need disambiguation. -Sean Curtin 01:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful. Proto t c 10:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikipedia namespace. As a reader I find it useless. As an editor it is useful, from time to time I pick a red link and turn it into a live one, that's how I found this VfD. Nabla 14:07:10, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
COMMENT please note deletion notices for Two-Letter-Abbreviations at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all two-letter combinations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations 132.205.3.20 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move out of article namespace. I can see this possibly being useful for an editor, but as a reader I'd wonder why this existed. Carbonite | Talk 19:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT, As I recall, these lists emerged from a CfD on a TLA category. 132.205.3.20 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't keep articles just because they survived a previous VfD, or because someone knows how to write a nested loop. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's cute and all but not actually useful. Nandesuka 00:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. -- DS1953 00:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This sort of thing is very useful to editors. I've also used to make glossaries at my work Mjchonoles 06:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them, they are useful for seeing which TLAs have articles and which don't. — JIP | Talk 06:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delist. Frivolous nomination. —RaD Man (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several people support deletion and a few more (including me) support moving it out of the article namespace. Please don't throw around the term "frivolous nomination"; often the nominator will take it personally. Carbonite | Talk 10:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep them all. If you move your scroll wheel really fast, you can make PURPLE!, yeee haa. Alfredo the sane. 11:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely useless and unencyclopaedic, just blindly generated lists −Woodstone 16:27:22, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
Delete. Of no real value, and creates many redirects. McPhail 21:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This causes the only redirect for Southern Utah University. Grrr! --fpo 22:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've created a couple of these redirect pages. It;s useful for editors and fun for readers to see how many we've done. --Rayc 00:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Wikipedia namespace. How many more times is this going to be nominated for deletion? -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tεx τ urε 17:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like them, and they can't use much disk space. If it creates redirects, they should probably be there anyway. ~~ N (t/c) 18:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete en masse, we already have the Quick Index. Tito xd 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For most of the reasons listed above, and it's harmless. It gives the reader a visual picture of how many 3-letter combinations there are. Nonenmac 23:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and move to namespace) Simple and useful, mostly for editors. --Allstar86 02:43, 9 September 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. Nufy8 04:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up Versus down "Peg" Spectrum[edit]

I don't understand how this article has merit nor how it is encyclopedic. It seems to be someone's personal theory. -- Reinyday, 23:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. POV essay. ManoaChild 23:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV and original research. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And based on Talk:Political_spectrum#laissez-fairerepublic.com_material_cut_from_article this article may be a copy-vio too. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV issues
Delete, and see Political compass for a better explanation of this topic. --maclean25 01:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV and original research. It's not a copyvio, however, as explained on the talk page. KeithD (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, original research. -Demogorgon's Soup-taster 08:51, 1 September 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 01:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth R. Timmerman[edit]

There is no need for this page, smacks of vanity 67.23.136.196 23:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of notable books on Amazon [22]. (All of which look like GOP BS -- but that's POV.) --Quasipalm 00:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand as it stands it isn't of much value
Keep and expand. Written on Middle East issues. Gale's Contemporary Authors Online has an article on him. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded page further. No change of vote from Keep.Capitalistroadster 01:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Invalid nomination by anonymous editor. —RaD Man (talk) 07:08, 2 September 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. -Splash 02:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods that are verbs[edit]

Delete. Just a list with no cats, it has no articles linking to it, seems somewhat unmaintainable, and a lot of it is slang. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please. Tonywalton | Talk 00:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-encyclopedic DV8 2XL 00:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic. It does not embody any kind of concept or principle. It is not a recognized piece of useful information. It is not helpful in the solution of any standard kind of word puzzle. Maybe it's worthy of BJAODN. It certainly is better than most listcruft, because a) you can determine fairly objectively whether a word belongs in the list or not, and b) the total number of such words is neither ridiculously small or ridiculously larger. I confess to actually liking this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be for e-raisin' that ;) --Doc (?) 13:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Egg. Uh, sorry, I mean Delete. Definitely a candidate for BJAODN, though. It may be unencyclopaedic inconsequential gibberish, but it's wonderful unencyclopaedic inconsequential gibberish. Peeper 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
batter 'til wafer thin, oil and crisp in oven until deleted. Alf 11:08, 3 September 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. The nominator has changed to allow a keep (there being no other support for a merge). Also, the TIME article appears to have only been pointed out after the first two deletes. Thus, the suggestion of nonsense doesn't hold and the question of national secrecy is answered (but wouldn't be a reason anyway — meeting WP:V means it can't possibly be secret). Finally, the first nn vote was cast before the TIME link provided and seems not to have been revisited. -Splash 01:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Carpenter[edit]

Non-notable, information cannot be verified. Rschen7754 00:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn DV8 2XL 00:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either nn/nonsense or a very important intelligence agent whose cover could be blown by retaining this article. -Demogorgon's Soup-taster 08:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can be verified in the same TIME article cited in Titan Rain that your browser apparently can't view. [23] Was notable enough for a full article in TIME; probably notable enough for Wikipedia. --Fastfission 19:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fastfission. Crypticfirefly 05:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... maybe this VFD was bad too... my apologies. I'd say either merge with Titan Rain or keep it as is... --Rschen7754 05:42, September 4, 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 that the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. Rschen7754 21:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Titan Rain[edit]

~~Information cannot be verified. I can't check the Time article since my browser is dumb but other edits by this user have been questionable.~~ Rschen7754 00:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is valid topic but needs to be expanded past a simple definition DV8 2XL 00:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the external link works for me, and a quick google returns thousands of hits. --TheMidnighters 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per DV8 2XL. --Apyule 05:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The TIME article is all about this. Title is "The Invasion of the Chinese Cyberspies (And the Man Who Tried to Stop Them); An exclusive look at how the hackers called TITAN RAIN are stealing U.S. secrets". --Fastfission 19:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- DS1953 00:47, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep time after time. —RaD Man (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... I made a huge mistake. How do I get rid of the VFD? --Rschen7754 05:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to know what edits I have made that are 'questionable'? --Cm205
- Someone else (an IP address) edited this page that made some other questionable edits... that is why this page was VFDed. My apologies. --Rschen7754 21:44, September 4, 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. -Splash 02:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic potato[edit]

Hoax. Google has NO hits. GinaDana 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, like the author said it's a very recent field.
delete hoax. Brighterorange 21:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It was recently developed at Columbia. See http://www.math.columbia.edu/~ums/ .
Sounds like a joke by a maths undergrad to me. Delete. --IByte 21:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. Gazpacho 21:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Undergraduates. Should be wheeled out & shot. --Tagishsimon (talk)
- Is that a personal belief that you are willing to enforce, or was it supposed to be in some way funny?
  - Foliate their holomorphic sections into a sheaf of germs, that's what I say.
Delete that was funny Psy Guy 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Article is backed up by two universities (Columbia: http://math.columbia.edu/~ums, UW: http://www.math.washington.edu/~arthur) Keep. Undergraduates do research too (see Archive page under UMS)
- Personal web pages that happen to be hosted by a university domain does not equal "backed up by two universities." (Yes, yes, I know the disk drives on which the web pages reside are probably "backed up" by the University IT department, let's not go there...) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - UMS is the website of the Undergraduate Math Society, a seminar for undergraduates to present their research, and is acknowledged on the seminars page of Columbia University's Mathematics Department: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~lrb/weeklyseminars.html (linked from the main page http://math.columbia.edu/ as Weekly Seminars)
Patent nonsense, <eta>belongs to BJAODN.</eta> Delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete patent nonsense. DV8 2XL 00:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joke nonsense. --Fastfission 00:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax or joke, certainly as original research, unless good verifiable references are provided prior to expiration of VfD period. If the theory hasn't even been published we can't have an article about it, even if it were true. The following material, from http://www.math.washington.edu/~arthur , tends to reinforce the impression that it's a joke: Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Using Nakapoopoo's lemma, it is clear that this value must be positive, unless it's negative or zero. Next consider primes in an arithmetic sequence and correlate them with the lattice polygons and their associated toric varieties. You may be saying, how does this relate to algebraic potato? Well, the mirror partner to the given toric variety is exactly the potato in question. The proof is long and complex but very enlightening.

As the advertisements used to say, "The answer lies in the seaweed, son." Grutness...wha? 01:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pursuing due diligence, I've made email queries to [email protected] and [email protected], the math departments at Columbia and University of Washington, asking whether there is any such theory as "algebraic potato." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sweet! Can you post a copy of your email and the response you receive please!
  - Comment What a wonderful idea! <g> If this is exposed as a fraud, perhaps they'll be forced to take those student pages down. GinaDana 03:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This is very serious fraud. Dpbsmith, thank you for writing an email to Morgan. You are very important! And I believe - as most of us - that the undergraduate evil-doers should be severely punished. Taking down the pages is not enough. Let's waste more time from Columbia professors and make sure they identify these underlings and turn them in, to the Wikicourt, where these overpriviledged ivy-leaguers will have to explain their malignant summer activities. Let's hope they get sentenced to three months of Wiki article deleting. We will show 'em. We are important! Esprungo 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Shrug) When I don't know about something, I ask. My experience is that most professors are pretty amiable and willing to help out. I was always willing to "waste" professors' time by asking questions when I was in college, and I'm willing to do it now. Professor Morgan lists himself as the contact for the department, and I think it's perfectly appropriate to contact people who have indicated a willingness to be contacted.

I don't think the students should be "forced to take those student pages down," since those pages don't make any claim of being endorsed by the institutions hosting the pages.

I don't think the University of Washington, while a fine institution (with a very nice marine laboratory in the San Juan Islands) is, in the strictest and most literal sense, a member of the Ivy League.

I fancy the correct spelling of "overpriviledged" has no "'d."'

But I really don't care about those last three points. But I do care about Wikipedia containing accurate information. I happen to think that is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As "Google hits" seem to be the standard measuring tool used here, a search for "priviledge" turns out around 224,000 results.

The same Google search finds Did you mean: privilege --IByte 02:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol at shrugging people. lol at people who want to pick a fight. (Check out how the fight starts on the Nanking Massacre discussion page). But Dpbsmith's pics are nice! Esprungo 02:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, I'm sure Morgan chuckled, no undergrads were harmed in the making of the email. -eitan

bhargav said morgan likes us undergrads more than the grad students :P wanna audit his first geometry class? Esprungo

My email, trimmed: Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article was recently contributed to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, entitled "Algebraic potato." Most of us think the article is patently a joke or hoax. Wikipedia gets these all the time and doesn't regard them as a serious matter. But, as a matter of due diligence I'd appreciate it if you would comment as to whether or not there is any such theory as "algebraic potato."

The entire content of the article submitted to Wikipedia is: [text...]

In the discussion, an (anonymous) discussant, arguing against deleting the article, wrote: "Article is backed up by two universities Columbia: http://math.columbia.edu/~ums , UW: http://www.math.washington.edu/~arthur ). The second of the two links reads: [Nakapoopoo's lemma, etc....]

I have received this reply from John Morgan <[email protected]>, the listed contact for the Columbia math department, shown as a professor on their roster. Time-stamped 2005/09/01 Thu AM 08:42:02 CDT:

"This is complete nonsense, probably a joke. The second link strings together true mathematical concepts but not in any coherent fashion." --John Morgan

Delete Total nonsense and hoax.
I can't believe you all think this is a hoax. The eyes (i's) of the potato, when planted on the complex plain, grow monotonically in a nondecreasing arithmetic series into complex carbohydrates, while the saddle-shaped crisps approximate a Riemann Sour Cream Manifold (Dr. Pringle, personal communication) that is both non-Euclidian and tasty. Betcha can't delete just one! --DavidConrad 04:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL @ DavidConrad
BJAODN. Tonywalton | Talk 13:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice joke. Delete the page, BJAODN, and possibly candidate authors for a P(otato)h.D. --Raistlin 17:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (And User:DavidConrad needs to learn how to spell Euclidean.) Michael Hardy 01:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Not worthy of BJAODN, maybe it's funny to mathematicians and math students, but unlikely to general readership. MCB 02:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "here we just want stupid people to read"

BJAODN
Delete The witty comments above are better reading than the article in question. Alf 10:57, 3 September 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.

August 31[edit]

Sui thor[edit]

Lawrence High School Red Scare Marching Band[edit]

Jumper![edit]

KPBA[edit]

KPBA-FM[edit]

Ofiend.tk[edit]

Stolen Artifacts from Asia found in Japan[edit]

Gwat.tk[edit]

Amonity.com[edit]

Gnade[edit]

The_Nerd_Who_Ate_St.Louis[edit]

1900 Summer Olympics mixed team[edit]

Sectarianism in Gilgit, Baltistan[edit]

A future loss[edit]

Comment[edit]

Davien Crow[edit]

Mind Pollution[edit]

Sin Star[edit]

Harvey Jackson (now Hardy Jackson)[edit]

Interpretations of consensus[edit]

Oil Thigh[edit]

Edward Tudor[edit]

Zach Abramson[edit]

Fujinomosist[edit]

Manila Internet Exchange[edit]

CYBORIS[edit]

E.W. Blake[edit]

List of all two-letter combinations[edit]

Mark Truax[edit]

Index to tables of contents of National Geographic[edit]

Marile Soft[edit]

Paper Jam (Band)[edit]

House of Ten[edit]

MarileSoft[edit]

Sushi Done Right[edit]

Index to tables of contents of Reader's Digest[edit]

Homa Sayar[edit]

List of indexes to tables of contents[edit]

Narancsos Bukta[edit]

Ann L. Kim[edit]

Atlanta lies[edit]

Banjo threeie[edit]

Manual of Style (foreign words and names) (draft)[edit]

Compdudes LLC[edit]

Cameron Wilson[edit]

Jerry Fish and the Mudbug Club[edit]

Remixography of Mariah Carey[edit]

Townsville Primary School and Townsville_Primary_School/Temp[edit]

Admiration[edit]

Ham and cheese sandwich[edit]

Facts_News[edit]

Value delivery network[edit]

3XC[edit]

Satire Bubble[edit]

ZGMF-X901S Fortune Gundam[edit]

Jews Against Circumcision[edit]

ISOP[edit]

Eric Devendorf[edit]

Fordson high school[edit]

Golden birthday[edit]

Louis Shum[edit]

The Clinton Chronicles[edit]

Ajax (Declarative Programming)[edit]

Mirchi bhajji[edit]

Uk8ball[edit]

Backbase[edit]

Can Kautilya's Rajarishi be Successful in Today's Corporate?[edit]

ANTs Software[edit]

Bavarian Reaction 1920[edit]

KasparovX[edit]

Embanet/Temp[edit]

Sapienocraty[edit]

Lasersharking[edit]

Acat[edit]

AoA[edit]

Ato[edit]

Gosal[edit]

Sandi Thom[edit]

MiniDome[edit]