Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 23

July 23

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 was reached, defaulting to keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

R.A.B.

Speculation. The only part of this article that isn't unverifiable, original research, or both is the first line: "R.A.B. is a set of initials from J.K. Rowling's book Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." —Cryptic (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOR --Allen3 ^talk 00:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even nominator states that the subject isn't unverifiable or original research and the edit history of the article suggests an interest. If there are parts of any article that fall under original research then you delete those sections, not an entire article. --TheMidnighters 00:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "XYZ is a set of initials from Book Q" is not an article unless it's expandable. This is not. —Cryptic (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well judging by the size of the article and the amount of contributors I'd say it has been expanded. The initials refer to a character that is apparently notable. There is speculation and debate in other articles (Balrog for example) but when it is supported by citations and sources from the author I think it's allowable. --TheMidnighters 00:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan. However, the number of HP related articles is already growing too large, and this article is ONLY about speculation. It could serve no other purpose. I urge anyone considering a keep vote to read WP:NOT and think about it. Friday 01:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to some proper place. DES 02:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too much crystal ballery. Although I have to say the book is quite amazing. But the article is unencyclopedic. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm guessing this information is already in about five other articles anyway. Hansamurai 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete as unverifiable fancruft speculation. Postdlf 04:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I edited it to make it more encyclopedia-like. Osu8907 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until it's actually revealed who it is (presumably in the seventh book), and then merge into the article of that character. Cyclone49 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - fancruft. --Idont Havaname 07:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Is there any good reason not to merge and redirect? Or at least merge? I think the article as it stands is decent, and as a section in the HBP book article might be good. Yes, the HBP article is getting long, but I think coverage of one of the book's most crucial mysteries is the sort of thing we do for more "classic" literature. I don't see why it would be inappropriate here. Let's preserve this reasonably well-written content, even though it is clearly not a free-standing article. Jwrosenzweig 07:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The only part of the article not already in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary is the new "R.A.B. Leading Candidates" section (which is still speculation) and the exact quote from the book (which is paraphrased). I don't think a redirect would be useful. —Cryptic (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that the full plot summary that Cryptic refers to is now part of the set of Harry Potter book notes on the Wikibooks:annotated texts bookshelf, and can be found at Wikibooks:Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood_Prince. Uncle G 11:23:33, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
• Please watch the article for VFD notice removal. --Tim Pope 09:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if redirecting then redirect to Rab Butler -or at least to the Rab dab page --Doc (?) 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of characters in the Harry Potter books or something. - ulayiti 14:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the dab page at RAB. Dunc|☺ 15:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article has been significantly reworked since initial VFD posting Presnell 18:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been improved, but this only shows that it needs to go away. There's very little in there and little hope of expansion unless we go back to lots of speculation. The only purpose I can see served by this is that people are encouraged to debate their theories on the talk page. See WP:NOT. There are forums for that sort of thing. There's even an entire HP Wiki with different rules and standards than here. Friday 19:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the note(legit. fair use) into Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince then delete the article. Superm401 | Talk 22:07, July 23, 2005 (UTC) Keep. With the changes made(some by me), I think it has enough information to be a useful article without having speculation. (vote changed by me)Superm401 | Talk 21:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- this doesn't deserve it's own link by any stretch of the imagination. Nandesuka 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- R.A.B. by itself can mean manythings and nothing in particular from an encyclopeadia point of vue. So i uggest to move this article's content to an other article with more relation with HPotter (Horcrux or the 6th HP book for example) with the mention "SPECULATION" for the "question-able" part.
  • this vote placed by 217.128.127.197 (talk · contribs)
• Merge into horcrux. R.A.B. is highly significant, perhaps more so for book 7. If it can mean many things, then it needs to be disambiguated, but as it is only this, redirecting R.A.B. there after information is merged will be fine. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Even when Harry Potter: Book Seven comes out, we won't need a whole page for R.A.B., since that could be redirected to the character's real identity.
  • this vote placed by Lovelac7 (talk · contribs)
• Keep. This is likely to be the subject of considerable interest between now and the publication of the final Harry Potter book, a significant portion of which will be reportable and encyclopædic and not uniquely relevant to any other subject. This information should not be spatchcocked into some marginally-related article, it should be kept separate in the best interests of reducing duplication. —Phil | Talk 16:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, don't merge per Phil freestylefrappe 19:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC).
• Strong Keep, don't merge yet per Rob - Let the people have this until we know which character it is!
• V.F.D. --Michael Snow 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge per above --John Hubbard 02:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into horcrux. There really is no materal left to exapnd this article that woudl nto reduce it to a discussion fourm. It seems that there is not a lot of dispute among fans as to the identy of R.A.B. anyway. There is not enough enclipedic materal on this topic at the moment for it to be anythign but a heading in Horcrux. Dalf | Talk 04:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly merge R.A.B. is likely to become a well-known and much-debated mystery figure as we wait for the seventh book, and so there should be a reference about him/her, however basic or seemingly trivial the information within the article may be. What's more, this is a definitive character whose identity will eventually be revealed, and when that happens, the R.A.B. article can then be merged appropriately. SoVerySpiffy | Talk 07:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I rather think the inverse of that is true. Until there is enough content for an article it should be merged (it is already mentioned in no fewer then 4 other articles with essentially all the information here). When (and if) it ever becomes a topic with enough for a full article then it can be split out. Dalf | Talk 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've stated many times in various places (and in different forms) that I dislike speculation and try to remove it from the Harry Potter articles. I think this article is completely clean of speculation and actually presents some good information on what is one of the larger sources of discussion. --Deathphoenix 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- This belongs on a Harry Potter message board, not on Wikipedia. Isotope23 01:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is an important article. It will most likly grow once HP7 comes out and the rest of the details can be filled in. But till then it is an important start to an important character page that will grow after the releace of HP7.--michael180 18:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to imagine a way that book 7 could make this article grow beyone confirmation of the name of the charicter in question. If it is very significat to the plot then the content belong in the pag on book 7. If it is not that significant then it adds perhaps 2 sentences to this article. This is at best a partial sub-plot of a book that is unpublished. A book that already has a large number of articles where this information belongs. Article fragmentation I into hundreds of one paragraph pages I think dammaged the Harry Potter articles in wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 01:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't want to see it deleted now and end up heatedly re-created upon the release of Harry Potter 7. --Starryboy 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, even if just as a list of links to possibilities.--TH 13:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with the above users!--bagheera_101 13:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 07:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

List of theme songs without lyrics

user:Tothebarricades.tk placed the vfd tag on this article on 9 July 2005, but was apparently confused when they came accross the previous VfD nomination for this article from January 2005. The comment left there was "urghhhh how can I renominate something for deletion? --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 09:07 (UTC)".

I am just completing the nomination, not the nominator. No vote. Thryduulf 00:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Haha. Delete. I have since figured out how to do it but forgot about this one. --Tothebarricades 01:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep survived last time, and has seen significant expansion from numerous editors since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It survived the last vote and nothing has changed since then. There is no rationale for this VfD. --malathion ^talk 02:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep What reason is there to delete? Tothebarricades voted, but gave no reason. I'm not going to think up a reason for him. CanadianCaesar 03:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My reason was that just because we can list something, doesn't mean we should. This is useless and unmaintainable. --Tothebarricades 19:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

To the closing admin, please note my Keep vote still stands. He should have given that reason to start with. CanadianCaesar 20:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 05:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - it survived its first VfD pretty strongly. --Idont Havaname 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well defined and maintainable list. Flowerparty 11:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. - ulayiti 14:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to "List of theme music without lyrics" (just because 'song without lyrics' is a contradiction). Peter Grey
• Delete Listcruft, plain and simple. No encyclopedic value. The Literate Engineer 05:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --*drew 10:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable listcruft. --KFP 10:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well-defined list, serves users interested in this type of music and attracts new contributors. Kappa 13:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Eugene Sully

not notable brenneman^(t)(c) 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Smerge and redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. I think that's the standard procedure for these guys. Or delete. Thats wouldn't bother me too much either. -R. fiend 00:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Big Brother UK series 6. JamesBurns 05:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect all of them except Derek Laud who was a known political figure before becoming a contestant and I imagine will be again afterwards. There is nothing notable about any of the rest. Mrsteviec 11:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 07:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Grease gun (tool)

Not only is it a dicdef, but it repeats contents of grease gun. -R. fiend 00:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, now that it's been expanded, I'll vote to keep as well. -R. fiend 15:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm sure this could be expanded. - SimonP 01:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keepplease see edit. The article has been expanded and is now somewhat useful. Hamster Sandwich 03:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand further. Now a good stub on common tool. Capitalistroadster 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and beyond dicdef.-LtNOWIS 09:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable tool, article meaningful. Balster neb 18:37, 23 July 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was deleting as it will automatically find Italian of the East and redirect itself (I hope). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 07:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Italian of the east

This is an exact copy from the Telugu entry, except an outside link was added. Also, there's already a page titled Italian of the East, with the only difference being the capitalization of East. Suggest this be deleted or redirected to Telugu. DNicholls 01:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirects are cheap. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 05:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Telugu. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Telugu like Italian of the East does. Thryduulf 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, Pavel Vozenilek 22:49, 23 July 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 07:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Corporate video

This is a mere dicdef, and a pretty obvious one as that, nor do I think this phrase has really gotten wide use as a apecialized term. Delete DES 01:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to training and development — Pekinensis
• Delete - a redirect would just seem a bit silly to me. - ulayiti 14:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary page. 80.42.28.76 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to be had from a redirect. -Splash 22:37, 23 July 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 njo consensus, article has been merged -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Lisa Trevor

I'm no Resident Evil buff, but this sounds like nonsense to me. It's contradictory and... weird. Garrett^Talk 01:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Character is mentioned but not linked to from the List of Resident Evil characters.--DNicholls 07:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia:Fiction suggests a merge and redirect. —RaD Man (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The article had a few grammatical errors, and needed some rearrangement, but after a little light editing, makes sense. The facts stated in the article, although strange, are in fact what happened in the Resident Evil Gamecube Game. — Chris 8:30, 29 July 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Orlando Epicenter

seems to be a web site of only local interest. No indication of general notability. 4 google hits on "Orlando Epicenter" none of which are to this site. DeleteDES 01:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DES. Hamster Sandwich 03:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Postdlf 04:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fantasy team. JamesBurns 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense (the only thing that makes any sort of sense is the first sentence). Almafeta 01:12, 24 July 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jugstaposition

121 Googles?!? Seems terribly non-notable to me, and the article reads like crap. Garrett^Talk 02:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity --malathion ^talk 02:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm tempted to label it nonsense. Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable. Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 03:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep rewritten version. – Alphax ^τεχ 02:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Deadlock (Voyager episode)

POV fancruft, not salvagable. Malathion 02:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• pending a serious serious rewrite: delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have produced a rewrite at Deadlock (Voyager episode)/Temp. But for the unsubstantiated but plausible copyright worries I would have just edited it in place. I'm still mystified as to the suggestions that the article was "irretrievable"--most keyboards I have ever used possess a delete key. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteas per Sasquatch. Hamster Sandwich 03:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm a huge Voyager fan, but honestly, walls of text are not that appealing. Hansamurai 03:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV review. Obviously all voters have been voting on the irredeemible state of the article, not the subject matter. We're better off just deleting this and starting over than trying to fix this. Postdlf 04:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a need to have a plot synopsis for every episode of every television show ever made? Hamster Sandwich 08:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Note that Louisa Maydew (talk · contribs) has made similar contributions to Investigations (Voyager episode), Meld (Voyager episode), Initiations (Voyager episode), Innocence (Voyager episode), and Death Wish (Voyager episode). I suspected a copyright violation, but could not find a source. However, the addition to Investigations (Voyager episode) contained the text "There are some episodes I have discussed in this book", indicating that all of these reviews are copyright violations of a book. Copyvio. Uncle G 05:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdif. Obviously I have no objection to having episode articles, but Wikipedia isn't an episode review service. 23skidoo 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Phasers on destroy. Episode summaries are a waste of precious electrons. Obtw in case it's not obvious, delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, neutral. I can find no reason for deletion in the deletion policy, and see no plausible reason for deletion in the above discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. We should have articles on episodes, not potential copyvio summaries like this one. Radiant_>|< 19:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against recreation as an NPOV description of the episode. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Copyvio per Uncle G. Almafeta 01:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft. Nandesuka 02:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite - the article is obviously garbage, but once it is deleted it cannot be rewritten without another vote. Pages for deletion is not the right place for this. All the energy invested on this page could have already rewritten it.Dovi 19:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. An article with substantially different content can be remade with the same title (as Tony has done). If what you say were true, we'd need a vote every time someone rewrote an article that was a copyright violation. And, since I've not seen the episode in question, I'm not qualified to rewrite the article, but I am qualified to recognize POV writing that appears to be a copyvio. android79 20:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's can be fixed with a rewrite. I've done this to other Voyager episodes, and Tony Sidaway seems to have started the process for this article. Acegikmo1 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Acegikmo1 is absolutely right. I suggest replacing the current content by Tony Sidaway's rewrite as soon as the discussion here is over.--Hillel 01:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Theodore Streleski

Um, we don't need every murder ever committed, no matter how strange the weapons or rationale. Garrett^Talk 02:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Expand Notable to enough to stay, I believe, but it should be expanded. As it is, it still provides good research material of enough length for further expansion. The article has been requested for over a year also, and is not orphaned (almost, but not quite). Volatile 02:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Volatile. Needs an edit. Hamster Sandwich 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- but really, someone needs to get on the task of writing the Karel de Leeuw article. He did do something notable other than get murdered, but he wasn't in my field so I don't really know what. --Trovatore 06:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. - ulayiti 14:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A trivial occurance that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Indrian 18:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 7 to keep, 7 to redirect, 1 to delete or redirect, 3 to delete (including the nominator) -- BD2412 ^talk 02:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ghazala Gardens hotel

Unless they have played a significant role in human affairs, hotels are not inherently notable. Denni☯ 02:37, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

• Keep this hotel was a target of a major terrorist attack recently [1]. --malathion ^talk 02:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 02:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • After reading the below, I think would like to think a redirect makes more sense now. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect, unless a significant amount of information about the hotel itself appears in the article before this VfD expires. Yes, it was the target of a terrorist attack, but so far, every notable piece of information about the hotel is already covered in that article. (Changed vote as per Ливай. 08:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)) —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Tony Hecht 03:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I now think a redirect makes more sense. If at some future date something about the hotel earns it, it can get it's own entry. --Tony Hecht 22:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The hotel itself is not notable, only the events that took place. This should be covered under the article specific to the event as per HorsePunchKid.Hamster Sandwich 03:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. Later on, if somebody can write something encyclopedic about it not pertaining to those attacks, they can replace the redirect with something else, but for now there's nothing here that would not fit in better at July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks with its proper context. — Ливай | Ⓣ 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn hotel. JamesBurns 05:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Livajo's recommendation.--DNicholls 07:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as stated above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect. GhePeU 08:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Seems a major establishment. Possibly notable. We've had worse beginning stubs before. Circeus 11:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The TWA Flight 800 and United Flight 93 articles started out as little more than stubs when they were first drafted. WP will add to it as more news develops from the recent attacks. LokiCT 12:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. per malathion--Edcolins 12:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as above. -R. fiend 15:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The hotel may have future history which will not be covered in the terrorism article. Calsicol 16:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Anything, could have a future history. -R. fiend 18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is jest a stub this page mite get beter My Cat inn 19:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. Wikipedia covers a number of hotels and this one seems more important than most. Sarge Baldy 03:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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: 9k, 2d. -Splash 03:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Moevenpick Hotel

Unless they have played a significant role in human affairs, hotels are not inherently notable. Denni☯ 02:39, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

• Keep "Movenpick Hotel" gets 641,000 google hits and it seems one of these hotels may have beet a target in the same terrorist bombing (?) --malathion ^talk 02:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We don't normally keep track of individual airplanes, but a plane like TWA FLIGHT 800, or United Airlines flight 93 achieved significance because of what occurred to and within them. Like it or not, the Movenpick Hotel in Egypt has become a newsworthy place. LokiCT 02:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The hotel has no notability in itself. The notability comes from the events that happened there, and therefore should be directed to the article specific to the event. Hamster Sandwich 03:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. Later on, if somebody can write something encyclopedic about it not pertaining to those attacks, they can replace the redirect with something else, but for now there's nothing here that would not fit in better at July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks with its proper context. — Ливай | Ⓣ 04:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite. — Ливай | Ⓣ 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn hotel. JamesBurns 05:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. —RaD Man (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Keep per rewrite.--DNicholls 07:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with LokiCT jamesgibbon 10:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Now an article about a company which based on the info given must have a turnover of several hundred million U.S. dollars, perhaps over a billion. Calsicol 16:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article on chain. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now after rewrite. Notable company. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep "Movenpick Hotel" is sexy Ammar 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hotels do have an impact on people's lives--plenty of us work for this chain: 13,000 people across the world, to be exact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotelie09 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The chain currently operates 82 hotels in 24 countries. Mövenpick also operates 8 luxury cruise ships on the Nile and Lake Nasser.[1]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 as patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 14:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

His Majesty, Richard lake, King of The Sakonta Tribe

Nonsense. Unverifiable. Royalty in oregon?-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Patent nonsense --malathion ^talk 02:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Also delete King Richard Lake which I've temporarily redirected to His Majesty, Richard lake, King of The Sakonta Tribe. Angela. 03:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. A king and queen handing out peerages from Eugene, Oregon is pretty nonsensical. Gazpacho 03:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Not speedy, but no other vote at this time. Most of the information in this article is verifiable: The Baltimore Sun, for instance, refers to the Duke of Westarctica. It's a micronation of questionable legitimacy. Pburka 03:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, but you're taking it out of context by not telling what the registration-required article really says. "Digital media often play a major role in the establishment of nascent nations. On his Web site, His Serene Majesty Grand Duke Travis of Westarctica claims all of Antarctica between 90 and 150 degrees west longitude, and that he has notified nine countries that "this area will henceforth be known as the Achaean Territory of Antarctica." The duke has graciously granted all scientific research operations within the realm four years to register their presence with his government." That's like me stating I'm the Great king of Brettland. All hail me. All countries in this hemisphere are now possesions of my empire. CEDE THEM TO ME! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't realize registration was required. Google new appears to bypass that. I'm not arguing that the article should be kept — just that it's regular nonsense and not patent nonsense. Wikipedia has lots of articles about nonsensical subjects (e.g. Creation Science). However, I believe that this particular nonsense is not notable, and should be deleted at the completion of the normal VfD process. Pburka 14:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per Angela. Hamster Sandwich 03:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• NOT DELETEMy Tribe of Sakonta is as REAL as those of Africa or Somalia! If you can feel morally right about deleting my article, well, go right ahead! [H.R.H. King Richard of The Sakonta Tribe]
• NOT DELETE, READ MY DISCUSSION PAGE. YOU'LL FINDOUT WHY YOU SHOULD NOT DELETE MY ARTICLE!! [H.R.H.King Richard of The Sakonta Tribe]
• NOT DELETE, All of the info on my article is verifiable! Just e-mail the Grand Duke yourself. his website is: westarctica.com! The Register Guard also mentioned the Grand Duke of Westarctica!
• Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 05:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete really very sad--Porturology 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Im not sure of the actual legitamacy of "Westarctica" but there does seem to be lots out there Westarctica homepage --Cloveious 06:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes It is all great fun but it does not belong in an encyclopaedia.--Porturology 07:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. A king and royal family in Eugene claiming jurisdiction over western Antartica is nonsensical. Capitalistroadster 07:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as sock-supported, or at least more than one vote by one user-supported, patent nonsense. --Idont Havaname 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - probably patent nonsense, and POV too! But info could find a home in micronation if accurate. Barnabypage 07:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Tim Arnold

Had he not discovered the body of Christa Worthington, he would have been forever obscure. Even so, still not noteworthy. Denni☯ 02:50, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

• Keep published authors are notable. Hamster Sandwich 03:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn author. JamesBurns 05:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment this entry pertains to illustrators, should be included if only to have a more complete record of those who illustrate books. Hamster Sandwich 05:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Only around 100 hits on Google (searching for "tim arnold" illustrator--"tim arnold" illustration got less). As a counterpoint, a pinball machine collector of the same name gets 600+ hits. Google searches aren't everything, but..unverified noteworthiness. --DNicholls 06:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability as an illustrator is established. I agree with Denni that this article is more about him finding a body. -R. fiend 15:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination rather gives it away. The statement "Had he not discovered the body of Christa Worthington, he would have been forever obscure" is true, but seems to be an attempt to overlook or downplay Tim Arnold's main claim to notoriety: that he was for a time a suspect in the case of the murder of Ms Worthington, a prominent fashion writer and journalist, and his former lover. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Many thousands of people have been suspects in crimes involving the slightly famous. I can't imagine they all deserve Wikipedia articles. Denni☯ 18:24, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  • Comment. I set a very low bar on notability. If someone is likely to want to read about a person, I tend to support such an article. Since I personally found the article interesting, this one sailed easily over the bar. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Christa's article. Radiant_>|< 18:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Yet again, you cannot have a redirect where there is no article. A redirect must exist as a Wikipedia page, it cannot exist without one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Tony Sidaway or, failing that, merge with Christa Worthington CanadianCaesar 22:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The bar for notability, in my view, should be "Would anyone ever look the guy up?" The answer is clearly yes. Grace Note 05:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Mmmmmm, hamster sandwich — Err, uh, I mean keep. —RaD Man (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not even remotely established. Indrian 18:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as non-notable CV in foreign language. FCYTravis 03:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

鲍仁君

Vanity. Ph.D. student with CV and interests. — Pekinensis 02:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Not Notable. Waste of electrons. Hamster Sandwich 03:51, 23 July 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. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Justice Maswanganyi

This seems to be the biographical and contact information of an aspiring preacher. It seems to be an article intended for self-promotion. Mshecket, 7/22/2005

• Delete NN and unverifiable vanity. One bloody Google hit, from the Wikipedia page for articles needing copyediting.[2] Postdlf 04:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, what is thy name? Hamster Sandwich 04:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:09, 23 July 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 as unverifiable. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 23:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Fox

Appears to be a non-encyclopedic entry. --Mysidia 03:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- JamesTeterenko 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Interesting life, but not notable. Gazpacho 03:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 03:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Move Should probably be moved to my personal page. Madon 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • As you were the creator of this page, I have copied the content to your user page. -- JamesTeterenko 14:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - is a work in progress but unlikely subject at 20yo has achieved other notability. Core information may be worth moving to medical-condition page if genuinely unusual. Barnabypage 07:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wait - it says work is in progress and I think user should get his/her chanse to say it all. Renata3 09:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No hits on any search engine for "Mark fox" "Arthrogryposis multiplex congenita". As per that, since he seems to have had no impact on the disease or its understanding, I'd say delete. Almafeta 01:15, 24 July 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 deleted as resume/vanity. FCYTravis 03:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"Alec Moody"

Delete this résumé. I'd almost speedy it as correspondence. Gazpacho 03:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete - speedy if possible
• delete --Richhil 03:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete - Agreed with speedy delete. Hansamurai 03:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as correspondence and or CV. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 23 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Battered Left Syndrome

Neologism, soapboxing. Delete. Gazpacho 03:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per Gazpacho. Inflamitory in nature and by design. Hamster Sandwich 03:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I think the solution to terrorism is to seize the assets of the wealthiest 1%, and use it to construct effective screening and surveillance equipment and procedures at national borders and sensitive infrastructure, and to invest in improving the quality of life in third world countries so that despair and resentment aren't bred generation after generation. Either that or we should just continue to draft poor minorities into the army, inspect library records, and torture random individuals, because that sure is effective and places an equitably distributed burden on society. Delete POV rant. Postdlf 04:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gazpacho.Palmiro 18:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not quite funny enough for JAODN. Stirling Newberry 19:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gazpacho. Geoff.green 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Nothing factual, entirely opinion. And neologism. Peter Grey 04:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Somebody trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Don't BJAODN it, just speedy it. Kaibabsquirrel 05:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - the speediest possible. I actually agree with this guy's outlook vis-a-vis some in the left who seem to be blind to what seems bluntly obvious to me, but the article is neologism, entirely opinion, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Besides, it could easily be argued that right-wingers like me are just as blind to things that seem bluntly obvious to left-wingers, as well. ;-) Xaa 00:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This is antagonism of liberals disguised as an encyclopedia article. -asx- 03:39, 29 July 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 to delete, article has been redirected -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

English travellers

Perhaps it has potential as a stub, but I don't think this vague, unlinked, one-sentence article will ever encompass anything that isn't in Irish Traveller. Could become a redirect, maybe. - Chatoyant 03:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Redirect to pikey. Hamster Sandwich 04:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect, as above. Good solution.--DNicholls 06:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete ("very short article providing little or no context") since there's no evidence given that the group it refers to exists (as opposed to Irish Travellers in England and Roma). Pikey is a (dictionary-like) page explaining a derogatory term in common use for Irish travellers in England. Not an appropriate home for encyclopedia content about the group in question, or any group.Palmiro 18:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I am deeply unconvinced that this terminology exists, and I'm English. It is impossible to Google (or anything else) for so, as it stands, is unverifiable. -Splash 22:48, 23 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

EFFL

Delete vanity about a 12 member fantasy football league. Whoopee. Postdlf 04:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just got a conflict on this! A fantasy football league. Need I say more? No. Garrett^Talk 04:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I had a conflict with your vote! Demolish with the devestating dynamo of deletion. humblefool® 04:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 04:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I say keep it...it seems like the greatest fantasy football league in the universe
  • Unsigned comment by 68.249.95.150, whose only other edits are to the article.
• Delete nn fantasy league. JamesBurns 05:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Looks fascinating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager640 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, absolute crap. - ulayiti (talk) 14:43, 26 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

K-Rock2

Um, it's an internet radio station, 3500 Googles (Last.FM, for example, gets 650,000). Not only that, a fragment away from a bigger one. Garrett^Talk 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn station. JamesBurns 05:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn. Of those Google hits, only 145 are unique and it is so brand new that it is not yet possible to judge notability. Unless someone from the area can show that it is a major spinoff or something. -Splash 22:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It does not hurt to have information on K-Rock2, and it deserves at least a stub. However, the article does need cleaning up.Rockafeller 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The Silent Game

Non-notable band vanity, as opposed to a useful article on the favorite game of adults and babysitters everywhere. humblefool® 04:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Humble. Hamster Sandwich 04:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a bad name for a band, though, if I do say so myself. Chatoyant 04:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager640 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 26 July 2005
• Delete. Non-notable. - ulayiti (talk) 14:42, 26 July 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 and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Canada Drugs

It's just an online pharmacy, nothing that really makes it notable for an encyclopedia article. Garrett^Talk 04:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The online drugs business is a huge component of pharmacutical sales here in North America. Further, the sale of drugs to Americans by Canadians and vis versa, is very much a hot button topic. There may be a need for an article that explains the minutae of the issue (generic drugs, international trade laws ect ect) and the overall importance in the distribution of perscription drugs. Hamster Sandwich 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of pharmacies. There ought to be a Internet pharmacy article somewhere too. DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per DoubleBlue. Mindmatrix 13:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sound notable. - ulayiti 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of internet-based pharmacies (well, CREATE the list with this article) 132.205.45.148 16:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing special about running an online business, millions do. This is a small part of a very big industry. Website's Alexa rank is about 43,000. No need for that other article either, since all the entries in it would be non-notable. -Splash 22:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a very big deal about both internet pharmacies and cross-border pharmacies. It continues to be a political issue on both sides of the border and a feature of the 2004 Presidential campaign. Whether this particular pharmacy is an important element or not, I don't know. The article and source website both claim it is. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. And if the article's claim that it's 'Canada's largest pharmacy providing world-wide prescription services' and 'caters to over 30,000,000 Americans who are under-insured for prescription medications' are true, then it's certainly notable and I don't see why it should be deleted. - ulayiti (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • To User:DoubleBlue: I see. You evidently have 'issues' in the US that we don't have in the UK. If the claims of size can be substiated, I'll of course reconsider. It's rather hard to google for usefully, though. -Splash 02:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of pharmacies. JamesBurns 03:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as discussed above. -GrantNeufeld 19:08, 31 July 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. Dmcdevit·t 03:27, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pope's Hitler

This appears to be fall-out from some edit war somewhere. Uncle G 04:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Uncle G. Hamster Sandwich 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. — Ливай | Ⓣ 04:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Hitler's Pope--Porturology 05:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is incomprehensible --Maustrauser 12:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Allow , pace fair use of History and relevance to WP articles , such as the Holocaust 'Dubious' (discussion) in which I exhibit the most simple error stemming from lack of historical understanding . Let me finish this job ....so you will be enabled to change your minds . The edit war concerns what I term censorship, please do not further strike against your own History or at least allow the full story and facts to emerge , finally, upon the WP . I really do assure you of my good faith and that this is no idle vandalism but the entire reverse . I would ask in fact that everyone help by going to the sources which I am not able to visit -such as the contemporary writer , like Writer John Cornwell , and several others . You will understand that this page is a true portrait of history , in the single title it contains, and that future WP articles will not diminuish , but magnify these connections of utility . That the utility is deeply suspect and particularly relates to anti-semitism and the Communist threat , makes the events portrayed by historians here, extremely contemporary and revealing of our present world -balance . I appeal to your good faiths by urging you to read it when it is finished . I am quite aware that this is not the normal form for an encyclopedic article , but suggest , in good faith , that a simple short interpretation would be considered POV by certain injured feelings and that in other words , there would be a complete failure of the WP to represent the world as it is . When there is sufficient wisdom that editors can agree as to the true nature of the facts and story, a simplified version could then be put forth . These sections could rest as the background proofs, such as are always required ,could they not? Please visit the expansion here and be patient . Even now please, each good faith editor-reverse your initial conclusions and suspend your judgements the while .Famekeeper 15:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Let me delete entire- saving it to the discussion on a new empty Pope's Hitler article which I shall write in an encyclopedic entry, twenty lines max- howzat ? Isn't that fair ?Famekeeper 15:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Incomprehensible, even given the knowledge of the book titled Hitler's Pope. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, created for POV promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: my wilting flower says cyborgs win. Jesus said don't throw scraps to the dogs(Romans) . Keep your friki Im all over and done .You missed the story and I've got better things to do than paint cyborg brains . See link to myy Rfc (kill famekeeper):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper#Response Famekeeper
• Ye gods! Delete and replace with redirect to Hitler's Pope, a legitimate article although not without problems. PatGallacher 20:24, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete as original research (as evidenced by "You shall see that ...") - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Famekeeper's last comment (and PatGallacher's last too). -Splash 22:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: "Pope's Hitler" doesn't even make sense as a title. The Nazis did receive a lot of indirect support simply because they were not the Communists; a lot of people (even the Papacy) tried to pick the lesser of two evils, and maybe picked wrong, and maybe didn't. But this article isn't about that (or about anything in particular, really). Peter Grey 05:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that what Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy is about? Uncle G 20:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Str1977 17:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be pure original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Robert McClenon 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Report facts, not name-calling. Work on the article for relevant popes, and work on the Hitler article. DON'T make an article titled with an accusation(however correct) Superm401 | Talk 16:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ann Heneghan 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Hillel 06:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sungi Cult

*delete* "...The Spiritual World God lives in a whole different world, all of which is internet..." Nuff said! --Richhil 04:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Not enough for me to know whether it actually exists. BTW, please put headings on your nominations so people can vote. Gazpacho 04:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no way to verify that it's an actual religious movement. Gazpacho 04:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 05:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cursory research avails no veracity of this article. While the pursuit of articles based on faith or belief in supernatural and preternatural occurence is valid reportage, there has to be some way to determine if the subject is valid or mearly vanity, or as is often pointed out on this page mere "tinfoil-hattery". Hamster Sandwich 05:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The second tip was that all the resources were Xanga pages.--DNicholls 06:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't know why I even bothered doing a Google search, but "Sungi Cult" turned up a grand total of... 0 hits. - Wakuseino 10:48, 23 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

For Serious

Delete slangdef. Gazpacho 05:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete as above --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 05:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 05:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gazpacho. Hamster Sandwich 05:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.--DNicholls 06:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gazpacho. Balster neb 18:26, 23 July 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Let Down

Non-notable Radiohead song from OK Computer. Also contain copyrighted lyrics. Madchester 05:39, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Changed vote after the re-write. Very informative one, at that! Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 05:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. Keep Tothebarricades rewrite. OK Computer is generally reagrded by critical polls as one of the best albums of the 1990's and this was considered as a single. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although a non-notable song from OK Computer is certainly a contradiction in terms, this is a poor article jamesgibbon 10:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect to lactation. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I expanded the article to the best of my ability and removed copyright violations. It's definitely notable, as OK Computer is one of the most well-known albums of the last decade. --Tothebarricades 20:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. While OK Computer is undoubtedly a critical sucess of the past decade, should all the tracks merit an article? Like "Exit Music (For a Film)" wasn't a single, but it was composed for the popular Romeo+Juliet film and soundtrack, and has been covered by other artists. I just don't see "Let Down" meriting any notability on its own, besides association on OK Computer. --Madchester 01:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, we have articles on all sorts of Beatles songs, for instance. I wouldn't object to merging this into the OK Computer article but I think any song off a major album by a major band is notable if we have some information on it. --Tothebarricades 19:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There is no real reason to get rid of it; it just needs to be edited.
• Radiohead is my favorite band, and this is my favorite song off of the album, but I'm gonna have to say Merge into OK Computer. Let Down was not released as a single and received no mainstream radio play (in my area, at least). I wouldn't call it a non-notable song, but it doesn't have the same sort of significance or popularity that most other songs with their own articles have. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Just needs improvement --Cruci 01:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Lactation. A song with at best only marginal notability. JamesBurns 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Observation.

• Google search: "let down" AND "lactation" -> about 15,500 results
• Google search: "let down" AND "radiohead" -> about 42,400 results
  • So at least "let down" is more notable as a radiohead song than as a whatever it has to do with lactation. --Tothebarricades 08:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The term "let down" has been historically around a lot longer than radiohead. JamesBurns 06:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and that's good. And I don't even like Radiohead at all. Punkmorten 23:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied as per CSD G7 Manning 22:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Northwest Territories general election, 1896

Page is obsolete and misleading Cloveious 06:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I created this article originally, as part of the early general elections of the Northwest Territories. There was no actual general election on this year, and it was based on some misleading sources, the election result listed was Federal in nature. The other information has been incorporated into proper articles. --Cloveious 05:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it looks like User:Gcapp1959 created it last month. Since you and he have all of the substantial edits to that page, then if he comes here and votes delete, we should just speedy delete it (WP:CSD provides for that). For now, I'm just voting delete, but that will change to speedy delete if Gcapp wants it deleted. --Idont Havaname 07:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I forgot it was a stub when I first worked on it, anyways the bottom line is, there was no Territorial election in 1886, except for a couple by elections. Please see List of Northwest Territories general elections I don't really care if its speedy or not, just as long as its cleaned up. --Cloveious 07:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Cloveious. Hamster Sandwich 06:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cloveious. DoubleBlue (Talk) 09:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cloveious. Mindmatrix 13:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gcapp1959. I created the stubs for 1897, for which I have read a historical remark many years ago, and for 1901. 1896 is unfamiliar to me. I will say that I've noticed repeated shuffling of Wikipedia articles for the years through the 1896-1905 period, and I don't know why. It just doesn't seem likely that there was more than the elections of 1897 and 1901, and since it was non-partisan before 1897, I doubt that federal authorities would have allowed elections at short intervals in such a sparsely-populated area before 1897. GBC 15:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Admin - We can now Speedy delete this article per criterion G7, since both of the authors of this page have voted to delete it (GBC is Gcapp1959). --Idont Havaname 16:40, 23 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The life and times

According to google, the blog and the author are not very notable. Vanity.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete if possible. Surely "well known blogger who has changed the world with his writing style" is not a plausible assertion of notability? Friday 06:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Delete Also, you'd imagine such a notable would have more than a handful of comments in his comment boxes, eh? Edited to reflect Cryptic's correction.--DNicholls 07:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Bmicomp and Friday. Hamster Sandwich 07:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Plain old regular slow delete, egregiously vain. "Changed the world" is an assertion of notability, and Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles states, "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." —Cryptic (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, the new criterion must not be taken in by peacock-language. See the examples at Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. -Splash 22:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn blogger vanity. JamesBurns 02:29, 26 July 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 to delete (valid votes were 13-9 in favour of deletion) -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Atheists of Silicon Valley

Social group of purely local interest. Doesn't assert notability or influence. Could maybe also fall under "Wikipedia is not a collection of links", since the number of external links attached seems almost longer than the article itself. Addendum: just so there's no confusion by any closing admin, I am voting delete. Calton | Talk 06:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note to newcomers: Please place your votes at the bottom of this listing, and "sign" your votes by placing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. But be warned: Wikipedia policy is to discount or ignore votes by brand-new editors, in order to discourage ballot-box stuffing and Astroturfing. Also, please familiarize yourselves with Wikipedia's exclusion policies at WP:NOT -- this place is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a listing or promotion service.

• Comment Holy Smokes what the HELL is going on here? Can we move all the anon and sock puppet votes to discussion or something?--Tznkai 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (no vote at this time). Many of the users with less then five edits who voted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The God Who Wasn't There also placed a vote on this page. In other words, sockpuppets ahead. I don't feel up to following this page's history and noting them individually at this point in time. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's mostly been done already by User:Calton, big ups to him. :) - ulayiti (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Calton. Hamster Sandwich 07:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete drini ☎ 16:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager640 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 26 July 2005
  • Weak keep. Gets 5,900 Google hits, so there must be something to it. However, the article should be expanded quite a lot for it to deserve a place in Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote to strong delete due to the author's strategy of using anon IP sockpuppets. If you really feel it's worthy of an article, then the least you could do is respect the VfD process to determine that, instead of that feeble attempt to cheat. - ulayiti (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Has it crossed your mind Ulayiti that maybe word of this Vfd has gotten around and supporters of the Atheists of Silicon Valley have come here to vote for it? What is up with persistent claims of "sock puppets" made without any attempt to verify if usernames are coming from the same IP or not. You will find that they are different IPs, different people. People who prove that this group is significant enought to have an article. What a perverted process. Universist 01:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually what has happend is that the word has gotten around in the Atheist community about the twin attacks on both this entry and The God Movie that was shut down twice by a false copyright violation claim. So there are a lot of enraged Atheists who are here for the first time and they don't yet have accounts. That's why only IP addresses show. But they aren't Sock Puppets because people who do sock puppets are regular users who have a number of fake identities. What you are seeing here is outrage. Wikipedia has a problem with anti-Atheist bias. that it needs to deal with. --Marcperkel 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • A perverted process indeed. Whether or not all edits are by the same person makes no difference, as it is Wikipedia policy not to count VfD votes by users with no previous contributions. And by the way, if you really think 'different IPs' means 'different people', you do have a limited knowledge of how the Internet works. - ulayiti (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn, very local-interest. We have knitting groups in my town, too, but you don't see me posting them to Wikipedia. ;-) Xaa 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the author ofthe article seems quite literal-minded, now having added a "Claim to Fame" section, in some effort to make it look notable. The only two entries are that the group gets listed in the credits of a straight-to-video documentary called The God Who Wasn't There -- a very VfD-worthy vanity article, BTW -- and that the president of the group was once on Hannity and Colmes. That's it. --Calton | Talk 05:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Its worth noting that the VfD on the The God Who Wasn't There is almost unanimous for keep. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Its worth noting that almost all those keep votes are from sockpuppets. But nice try, though. --Calton | Talk 00:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • I just counted 25 NON-anonymous KEEP votes over there. Can you please explain exactly how that is consistent with "almost all those keep votes are from sockpuppets"?
• Delete hardly the NSS. Dunc|☺ 18:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Recent edits by 68.127.10.153 establish notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep User issuing complaint has a demonstrated anti-atheist agenda, also trying to delete an entry for my documentary The God Who Wasn't There for clearly unfounded reasons. I am familiar with the Godless Geeks and this article is accurate. BrianFlemming 30 July 2005
  • has a demonstrated anti-atheist agenda Since you're making it up out of whole cloth, that's not a statement fact, that's a statement of faith.
• Keep Wikipedia has already voted to delete the Universist article, which is an international movement with thousands of members: http://universist.org/wikipedia.htm ...I'm starting to worry about the future of the Wikipedia project. It's becoming more about compounding ignorance rather than sharing information. Universist 19:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "Thousands of members"? Folks who want to check the veracity of that statement might want to check out the various votes for deletion:
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism
    • Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion/Universist Movement
    • Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Universism
    • Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Universist Movement Organization
      • --Calton | Talk 00:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
        • Calton, did you not notice that all those links are proudly provided on http://universist.org/wikipedia.htm as examples of the perversity of the decision? Did you not notice that none of those links have anything to say about the 8,000 members of the Universist Movement? You've destroyed any credibility you thought you had with your immature crusade against this article. Universist 01:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Not in my eyes he hasn't. The only 'immature crusade' I've seen is your desperate attempt to create publicity for yourselves by writing vanity articles on Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Wow not in YOUR eyes huh? What a lot that means. Articles about large freethought groups that have proven their notability are as relevant as those about any other group that Wikipedia is filled with. Universist 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
              • Sure they are. But you'd need to come up with such an article to make that argument, since it doesn't fit here. Where has your club's notability been proven? Certainly not on this page. - ulayiti (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                • Ulayiti, what the heck are you doing trying to edit even a fake encylopedia when you're too lazy to do the most basic research? The Universists have been in the New York Times, BBC, major papers across the country, on the cover of a local magazine, and are cited in US News & World Report this week, among other media such as national radio shows. Oh yeah, and you know the documentary that cites the Atheists of Silicon Valley in the credits? The Universist Movement is there too along with a promotional video on the DVD. Universist 02:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • The point of the links, guy, was so people could read the discussion of exactly how bogus are your claims of notability and how much resume-padding you've done, as well as demonstrate the extent of your insanely active self-promotion. I urge regular Wikipedians unfamiliar with the issue to at least skim before taking Universist (or whatever he's calling himself this week) seriously. --Calton | Talk 01:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
                    • I double-dare everyone to read those fascinating discussions, that's why we highlight them on our own website. And yes, the purpose of our corporation is self-promotion, it is the faithless answer to evangelism. That's why we want an article on this website everyone thinks is an encylopedia. Universist 05:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • Show me. If you create an article on an obscure topic such as this, it's your job to provide sources, not mine. And what's a 'fake encyclopaedia'? - ulayiti (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
                    • Fake encylopedia? Well, that would be an "encyclopedia" that anybody on earth can edit. That's not an encyclopedia, and it's highly unfortunate that people think it is. This site is entertainment for its participants and it's popular because people of its google rankings (which result from its constant updating and masses of information of unjudged value) and the fact that millions of internet surfers don't realize a 10 year old just edited the article on terrorism they're reading. Universist 05:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, shut up. You're being obnoxious, do you understand that? You're being unlikeable. Regardless of the merits of atheism. Furthermore, the Atheists of Silicon Valley are a non-notable local organization, and Wikipedia is not your promotional vehicle. We have plenty of atheism articles; [Category:Atheists all individual atheists do not get articles, and neither do all gatherings of atheists. Delete in full knowledge of the nonexistence of the supernatural. DS 12:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I've seen this group on television and is a very active Atheist group. This look like another attempt be Christians to suppress reality. --Marcperkel 19:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If they were on tv and in a documentary and were heard of beyond Silicon Valley, it should be kept.--BrendanRyan 20:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The unsigned (and fake signed) votes above are all from anon IPs, none of whom have contributed to Wikipedia prior to this VfD (and sometimes on one other on a related topic). This looks like a severe case of sockpuppetry, and the admin who ends this vote should note that and disregard those votes. - ulayiti (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable yet, basically a local club with a web presence, any club or organization could claim the same reach. Although organized around a belief, it could be a link on other articles but doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry at this time. DavidH 00:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• 'KeeP' Athiests need a voice too. Jlam4911 01:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - apparently a minor local group. Attempts to derail VfD by use of anonymous votes is unwelcome. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete per Carlton. Ken 03:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to American Atheists. Ken 13:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• keep despite the idiotic campaigning on this vfd. The article needs a bit of a cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Atheism by putting the link in the External links section which provides links to other atheist organizations. Not notable enough to warrant its own article. In fact, I'm going to put the link to the website there right now, so might as well Delete. --khaosworks 05:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to American Atheists. I've merged the content; that is what should have been done in the first place(although, without the "Claim to Fame" section, there really isn't much to merge). I hope(although I doubt it) that this will cut down the drama on this... JesseW 06:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• comment I really can't see notability, but if anyone establishes it verifiably, treat me as Keep, otherwise, probably a merge. That having been said, I'd prefer to run a new vote under strict control so we can cut down on the vitrol and confusion.--Tznkai 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment People have ALREADY voted, and would like their votes to count. A revote would just send the message that on Wikipedia, we vote again and again, as many times as it takes until certain people like the results. Also, a vote to merge would result in ASV being entirely deleted from Wikipedia, since the information here is superfluous elsewhere. For example, if this topic were merged into American Atheists then it would eventually be deleted from that page because it doesn't have anything to do with that organization.
  • Probably the most notable cite is from Salon[3]. Of course it was referenced humorously. But what isn't cited humorously in Salon? Another instance I remember was the City Visions Radio show when the topic was New Fundamentalism in America. Mark Thomas the ASV president and co-founder was a guest[4]. FeloniousMonk 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh for God's sake (if you'll pardon the expression), City Visions is a *local*, public-radio show on KALW in San Francisco. I like the program, but your noting that is just puffery. --Calton | Talk 02:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody's claimed it it's anything more than a local radio show. And BTW, being a regional issue/concern/group is not sufficient justification for deleting an informative article. There are plenty of articles on regional churches, schools, and groups on wikipedia, none of which are up for VFD or likely to be. Puffery, eh? LOL. FeloniousMonk 03:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • • Nobody's claimed it it's anything more than a local radio show Yeah, that's why you just dropped the name as if anyone reading it would understand what it meant. So, yes, puffery, since you explicitly used that factoid as an example of media attention to justify the alleged notability of this tiny local group -- a bit of puffery that I note that an editor has added -- desperately, in my opinion -- to the article's "Claims to Fame" section. --Calton | Talk 02:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Nobody has suggested deletion based on the fact that it is an article related to athiesm, either, if you would care to read the reasoning behind the delete votes. Also, many articles for regional churches, schools, and groups are put up for VFD, and I am relatively certain there is a decent handful right now, if one would care to look. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • In fact, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rawang churches is a VFD on not one, but 21 articles about non-notable churches. Please don't play the "censorship" card. Nobody here is voting to censor information. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. FeloniousMonk 17:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, except for on a local level. Supported by sock- and meat-puppets. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Just an observation, but that an article is supported by sock puppets is irrelevant to an article's actual value to the community. In other words, sock puppet support is not a valid justification for deleting an article. FeloniousMonk 01:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware of that, which is why it is not my primary reasoning. It still affects my vote, which is why I listed it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 01:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - I see plenty of anger here - but nothing that address the fear that this is a non-notable local debating society. --Doc (?) 22:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems notable enough to me. Maybe my perception of notability is on the inclusionist side, but I don't see how keeping this article causes any harm. LizardWizard 18:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Votes by users with less than ten edits at time of vote

• Keep because: 1) It's a stub, so expand it instead of complaining. 2) "Do not bite the newcomers" 3) Asserting notability or influence is NOT listed in "Deletion Policy". 24 July 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.10.153 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 25 July 2005 later signed Human455 02:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Who's complaining? It's just being deleted, is all.
  • 2) The policy is "Do not bite the newcomers", not "Let newcomers do whatever they damned well please."
  • 3) No, but being [s]uch a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article is. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, advertising medium, indiscriminate collection of links, indiscriminate collection of information, or webhost.

--Calton | Talk 07:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I live thousands of miles from Silicon Valley, but regularly use their website. It is one of the best (and certainly most well known) Atheist hubs on the web. msallen (User's second edit. Contribs)
• Keep JohnFitzpatrick 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC) (User's sixth edit. Contribs)
• Keep Keep it. Preceding unsigned comment by Schultkl User's second edit. (Contribs)
• Keep Just needs to be expanded. JakeGuy88 10:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (User's ninth edit. Contribs)
• Strong Keep Deleting an entry before expanding it is ridiculous. Besides that, I am sure there are more religious reasons for this article being under review than logical reasons and that is not right. Ellimist (User's third edit. Contribs)
• Keep. If a group's local-ness is fuzzy at all, I'm inclined to let it stand. Can't hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdcaton (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 August 2005 User's second edit. (Contribs)

Votes by anon

• Delete for the aforementioned reasons. IINAG 18:56, 23rd July 2005 (UTC)

• Above vote by 82.37.241.191, not by IINAG as signed

• Keep Group is legitimate and probably has a wider group influence then many of the towns and local schools that get wikipedia articles. Article can be expanded. I would not delete the article for a church that got international media attention, why is this different? Michael Kozlowicz 2:33pm central July 31 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.128.92 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 31 July 2005

Keep Same reasons already stated above (well known atheist page, most certainly as "legitimate" a group as many other Wikipedia entries). It's certainly not only of local interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.5.2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 31 July 2005

• Keep Having been featured in a documentary and appearing on television, there is obviously an interest in the group. LakeSky 31 July 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.89.28 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 31 July 2005
• Keep I also live far away from Silicon Valley (in Texas), but I have heard of this group many times and come across their website many times. It is a notable group among the atheist community. If anything, this article should be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.59.196 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 31 July 2005
• Keep. ASV has been active in several events of national significance, including the first secular memorial service for the victims of 9/11, and demonstrations about religious influence in government. 13:38 PT 31 July 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.14.210 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 31 July 2005
• Keep Has some notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.82.73 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 July 2005
• Strong Keep ASV's entry needs to be expanded, not, deleted. They are very active both on the internet and in the Bay Area. They were a strong presence at the 9th circuit court of appeals protest for Michael Newdow. Their coordinator Mark Thomas has appeared on national televison, radio and in newspapers several times, most recently he debated Oliver North on Hannity & Colmes. The party making this complaint is simply trying to squelch entries having to do with anything that offends him. It is sickening to see such a clumsy attempt at censorship for no legitimate reason. Wikipedia will lose any relevence if it fails to oppose this kind of know-nothingism and bans mention of anything that upsets fundamentalists. -David Fitzgerald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.53.204 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 31 July 2005
• Keep For the reasons Mr. Fitzgerald just stated. -Ryan Baker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.22.35 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 31 July 2005
• Keep This is obviously the Right Wing trying to surpress something that does not agree with their lines of thinking. This is nothing but an attempt at censorship. -Susan W. 31 July 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.149.229 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 July 2005
• Keep It is not of purely local interest. It is widely known and has generated national interest. -Sam Adams — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.224.244 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 31 July 2005
• Keep. Though I am not in SV I have subscribed to their newsletters and event updates. ASV is one of the biggest freethought organizations in the nation and it deserves to have a reference in wikipedia. VonRick | Talk

• Above vote by 66.25.126.10, not by VonRick as signed.

• 66.25.126.10 Apparently is Vonrick, i.e. me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.126.10 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 4 August 2005

• Keep. Religion sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.254.248 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 August 2005
• keep might help make up for all the "historical" articles about chritian religous figures, on wiki--172.156.9.20 01:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It seems that all radical christians want to do is pillage and burn; the net however is a place to find topical matter on most any subject outside of the strict confines of dogma. Given that atheists are pilloried enough as it is, groups like ASV are essential for helping people find others who may have questions about religious ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.196.59 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 August 2005
• Keep Do we want religious zealots determine what does or does not go into Wikipedia? Walter Hecker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.1.220 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Keep! I'm an atheist and I resent others trying to silence me just because my beliefs differ from theirs. [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.147.102.37 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 1 August 2005
• Strong Keep - I don't want religious fanatics controlling what I may or may not read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.174.250 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 1 August 2005

If I had a say, I would say delete. As someone who knows nothing of them, this article looks like it just describes a local society and when they meet. If it has an important web presence, shouldn't that be what is mentioned in the article? This is not a conspiracy to destroy free speech or establish a bias; as it stands, this article is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.51.165 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 2 August 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 speedy delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Centerfuse

Not a notable website, 1,530 hits for "Centerfuse". Thue | talk 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete I put it up for speedy delete. The article just looks like an ad. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above.--DNicholls 07:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Thue. Hamster Sandwich 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Please read the criteria for speedy deletion before calling for a speedy; "looks like an ad" is not one of them. —Cryptic (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment it seems that Duncharris speedied it. Advertising doesn't seem to be a reason for speedy, per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.-Poli (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dale Huffman

This is a two-sentence profile of a newspaper columnist for the Dayton Daily News. Did some googling and it looks like this individual is just another ordinary guy who does his job like everybody else. Nothing notable pops out at all (awards, etc). I vote delete. Tobycat 07:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. --DNicholls 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, probably vanity too. MH 17:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 02:30, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Faces of Korea

Google gives about 60 unique results (Harris "Faces of Korea"). Not significant. User just spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Roadmap to Korean, Hollym & Richard Harris (writer) Renata3 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. What's the proper procedure to follow when you see a VFD entry, like this one, with no title? (This is not sarcasm; I actually want to know.) I can tell that this is for Faces of Korea but it needs to be fixed. --Metropolitan90 15:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is now on a subpage, but doesn't seem to be linked from the main page. I'm confused. Trying to fix it with this edit. -- Visviva 16:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bookcruft. -- Visviva 16:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advert, link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Using my personal criterion: Amazon sales rank number < 200,000 = sufficiently notable. This book, ISBN 1565912144, has an Amazon.com Sales Rank: #568,826 in Books. For comparison: Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Revised and Updated Edition), ISBN 65051626, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #56,024 in Books. For a sense of what a rank of 568,826 probably means: I personally know of a book that has sold less than fifty copies which has a sales rank in the 700,000s. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 02:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, etc. Flowerparty ^talk 03:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Faggot house

This is a brief article about a web comic called Faggot house. The website at [5] has no alexa rank at all (not found) and Google produces only a handful of relevant results. The website for the comic has a "guestbook" page with fewer than 25 visitors leaving comments since 2004. All indicators are that this is a non-notable website. I vote Delete. Tobycat 06:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with a hex from the Webcomics Wikiproject. --DNicholls 07:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable webcomic. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Redirect to spam ~~~~ 22:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn comic. JamesBurns 02:32, 26 July 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. 7 to 4 is not a consensus. Woohookitty 20:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mathematics basic topics

It looks to me that this was meant to be a list of redlinks to be filled in. If so, the purpose of this page was fulfilled a long time ago. As such,

• Delete Oleg Alexandrov 07:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep because it was created in fall 2001 - historical reference. There are a lot more pages that are kept for archives. I inventored the whole Category:Wikipedia category and I vote for keep! --User:Renata3

Maybe one could slap a template on top saying that the page is rather unhelpful, and is here only for historic reasons. Oleg Alexandrov 16:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete drini ☎ 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Renata3.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• If it has historical value it should be moved into a museum. It is not much useful of itself. Pavel Vozenilek 22:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not in article space and has scant claim to historicality. It was useful, and it is not useful any longer. -Splash 22:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's not doing any harm. Kim Bruning 00:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no longer needed and of no use now. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not even very interesting historically. Nandesuka 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its wrong. The real deal is at Category:Mathematics linas 21:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as per User:Renata3. JamesBurns 03:13, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

TrappHouse

Not notable, only gets 14 google hits. Graham 07:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Vanity. Nonsense. And it seems as if they are trying to keep the "ghetto secrets" from the masses. Pure censorship. Hamster Sandwich 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The new CSD specifically does not apply to bands. The topic of the article must be a real person. -Splash 23:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof of compliance to WP:MUSIC is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete, in addition to only 14 Googles, there is no allmusic presence so, although two albums meets one of the WP:MUSIC criteria, they do not meet any other: there is no evidence that they are the main proponent of a particular type in their local area. They'd have more presence if they were. -Splash 23:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn rapper vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per google hits.--ThomasK 08:33, July 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 speedy deleted. – Alphax ^τεχ 02:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Marvel Versus Capcom: The Movie - Reloaded/Trinity

Nonsense article about a non-existent movie. Delete. Thatdog 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Pure unadulterated BS. Hamster Sandwich 08:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Ugh --malathion ^talk 23:31, 23 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Space intelligences

I don't see much salvagable here. Looks like OR or conspiracy theory stuff. Delete Friday 08:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Save The Best Theories are often called the Craziest until the Critics get a chance to do some THINKING, a rare HU-man event. (left unsigned by User:203.26.206.129, author of the page --DNicholls 04:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
• Delete --DNicholls 08:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I fold the tin-foil hats, you pass them 'round. Hamster Sandwich 08:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: unverifiable to say the least.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is it unverifiable, you guys really ought to check out the "Intelligences" section of Theory_of_multiple_intelligences. The section was produced entirely by the same guy, and uses... the exact same example, the example of this 'famous psychic' Ted Owens... And according to the information in the aforementioned article, forced the US to stop the Vietnam war with the help of his aliens. Does anyone else think Patent Nonsense applies? - Wakuseino 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • In retrospect, considering that it IS Patent Nonsense, I'm voting for Speedy Delete, if possible. - Wakuseino 21:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Google does turn up some stuff [6], but it doesn't look very legit. This article doesn't check its fiction, and that might be because the Google hits also present something that's like a conspiracy theory as opposed to characters from a story. Article doesn't explain it's a theory, either. Hmmmm... nn theory. CanadianCaesar 21:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vague speculation. Not even well-known pseudoscience. ManoaChild 09:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ... Cyclone49 09:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — almost certainly pure fantasy; needs substantial evidence to become encyclopedic. — RJH 17:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to SETI. JamesBurns 06:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. Do not redirect. Binadot 02:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Materialization (science fiction)

nothing useful here. borderline nonsense. Delete Friday 08:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - nonsense. - ulayiti 15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and disambiguate, as the article has been rewritten. - ulayiti (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Patent nonsense.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Speedy all the time when it materialises. Pavel Vozenilek 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, under the second definition of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. -Splash 23:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Keep the dab page. -Splash 14:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy How can something be a neologism and patent nonsense at the same time? --malathion ^talk 23:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Hark! There's that distinctive noise of a rewritten article materializing, again. Weak keep and disambiguate with materialization (parapsychology). Uncle G 00:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The disambiguation has been done. Uncle G 12:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Big time keep! Good save, folks. humblefool® 03:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with rewrite. Notable SciFi concept. JamesBurns 03:15, 26 July 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

List of EU safety codes

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A list of safety codes strikes me as hardly encyclopedic. It also has no context. Perhaps Wikisource will take it (though I'm not sure). Also, I wonder what the copyright status of this is; it must have come from somewhere. --Dmcdevit·t 08:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment With all due respect to the rules of Wikipedia, this may be one of the most imporatnt topics that can be covered here. Maybe not as it is written, but, imagine some worker some where (probably Europe) and they need to know if some work related thing is covered by safety regulations. If they're lucky they get to fire up the computer, and there it is! In bold electrons the answer they need! And Wikipedia helps someone in a very real and tangible way. Maybe even saves someones life...woah, heavy, eh? I dunno, I vote Keep with some massive editting this article could be THAT useful. Or maybe my tin-foil hat has been letting in the "space-rays" again. Hamster Sandwich 08:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, maybe make the introduction slightly longer. Many articles contains lists of information, and are still ok for wikipedia; see fx list of Presidents of the United States. Thue | talk 08:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Duplicate article with inaccurate title. This is covered in List of S-phrases. "EU safety codes" turns up no google hits other than this page so I don't think this even deserves a redirect. -Buuneko 09:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of S-phrases.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of S-phrases. Wikipedia's coverage of this area is a bit chaotic at the moment (see also Risk and Safety Statements, Directive 67/548/EEC), but keeping this article won't help in the slightest. Physchim62 16:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to List of S-phrases Richard Taylor 00:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless the EU has no other safety codes (building codes, fire codes, etc.), then I see no reason why "safety codes" should be automatically assumed to mean chemical lab codes, which means no redirect. The Literate Engineer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of S-phrases MH 17:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of S-phrases. JamesBurns 03:16, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

NetSite

Appears to be company-generated advertising Dave.Dunford 08:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ad-based Vanity."We have experience in most computer technologies" pretty much sums it up. Hamster Sandwich 08:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advertisement.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Clearly an advertisement. Balster neb 18:19, 23 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds

Not notable music group vanity. See also: Andrew Meyers & Michael Werner & "Royale with Cheese" & Mayank Puri (sorry for not putting everything nicely together) Renata3 09:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget Kenny Fuentes the drummer. --TheMidnighters 03:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Forbsey 08:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Only notable in the "Twin Cities". See also "Royale with Cheese" a record the author seems to be hawking. I vote Delete them both. Hamster Sandwich 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 08:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; I agree that it fails to meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines; it seems like self-promotion to me.IINAG
• Delete all related articles mentioned above. Harro5 23:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 03:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all nn band vanity.--TheMidnighters 03:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity, a geocities page does not notability make. Sean Black 19:55, 27 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Michael Werner

See also: Andrew Meyers & Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds & "Royale with Cheese"

• Delete Non-notable producer of non-notable band. Very little on google. Forbsey 08:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as string of Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds and "Royale with Cheese". Not Notable Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 08:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:34, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Meyers & Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds & "Royale with Cheese" & Michael Werner & Kenny Fuentes

Not notable music group vanity + spam.Renata3 08:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no compliance to WP:MUSIC is presented. Vistago (talk • contribs)--69.193.228.99 15:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia, give us a chance. Just because we're not Coldplay doesn't mean you can delete us...This isn't spam either, if i wanted to sell records I'd post that we had extremely good reviews...We've got a website too http://www.geocities.com/scrimers99/AndrewandtheAtlasShr.html so I don't know why you wouldn't find anything.

• Above vote by 69.76.0.27. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep...Live...They aren't very good besides the one song about overdosing. If these pages go, then everything wikipedia stands for will be totally debased!

• Above vote by 209.188.100.215

• Keep They be so rockin'!

• Above vote by 68.169.205.221

• Keep Alright, I think this page should stay here on the matter of principle. Even if these guys hardcore suck ass, I think it's important to let smaller bands have some medium to share their music and allow people to learn about them. Just because their name isn't in allmusic.com doesn't mean that they aren't out there playing to 2-person crowds in the Twin Cities. These bands have to get a start somewhere, and just becuase they're not as famous doesn't make them any less legit than another band.

• Above vote by 205.188.116.202
• Wikipedia is not a place for a band to get their start; it's an encyclopedia. Which means that, yes, to be on here a band has to already be somewhat famous. Bearcat 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Andy Meyers is an asshole; I hate that guy; nonetheless, I think the page is ligit.

• Above vote by 216.164.30.179

• Delete Non-notable. Absolutely no relevant google hits. Forbsey 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 08:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Kids! Stop It! Do I have to pull this car over??? Hamster Sandwich 08:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bandity. Not notable. (Unsigned vote by UncleFloyd)
• Delete; it seems like a vanity page, and does not follow the WP:MUSIC guidelines.. (Unsigned vote by It's-is-not-a-genitive)
• Delete unless proof of compliance to WP:MUSIC is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete. google search for the band results in no hits. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fight the power!!

• Above vote by 65.96.234.37.

• Delete Fight the power!! Feydey 22:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have their album. I haven't gone to their concerts, cause their kinda small yet, but give them a chance to pull in some crowds and they'll grow.

• Above vote by 24.223.221.186

• Keep They're a weird band, but a fun one. As stated in an above vote, it's the principle of it; being new and small doesn't make them any less legit than other groups.

• Above vote by 208.38.95.61

• Delete. This band does not meet Wikimusic project guidelines. Allmusic.com has not yet got an article on these guys and BluArdvark's Google search came up empty. Popular amongst sockpuppets though. Severe notability and verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster 23:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• "Delete'. Nandesuka 02:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• "Delete'. Not notable Alight 03:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. gret up and coming band.

• Delete! as they blatantly fail the WP:MUSIC guidelines. In addition, be sure to ignore the sock puppets! (Every "keep" vote is from a non-user.) - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. However, if yall want to, you could try to redirect Royale with Cheese to Pulp Fiction. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I can't wait to see these guys play my school in the fall, i love their music. So what if they're not radiohead or weezer, every artist deserves a chance to get their name out. don't shut them down just because they've only begun to grow, i know in no time they'll be big enough to generate a few more "google hits," but in the meantime let them stay!

• Above vote by 65.96.8.14.
• Wikipedia is not a place for a band to "get their name out"; it's an encyclopedia. Which means that, yes, to be on here a band has to already be somewhat famous. Bearcat 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all, nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sockpuppets rarely help causes. JamesBurns 03:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks legit to meTimmybiscool 22:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• User's first edit.

• Delete band vanity Sean Black 21:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Every band is worth a mention in wikipedia whether they do or do not Cokehabit 21:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC guidelines/vanity — Linnwood 22:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Boddah

Comment For the record, there has been some stacking going on in this VdF. It used to be that what was above my below post was a previous VdF against Boddah (or was here when I made the VdF page, anyway). These previous votes now begin with LeeHunter's and end with Geogre's, as best I can tell. Now multiple votes have been moved, making figuring out who did them more difficult, but I've listed their authors as best as I could.--DNicholls 08:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment by jab (209.221.45.145) There is no stacking, but whoever added their vote just put it on top instead of putting them on bottom.

• Keep. Boddah is a prominent channel of a very large IRC server. I'm surprised that articles such as the List of ethnic slurs containing such popular phrases as Bourneville Boulevardier (a homosexual man from Birmingham) and Kosher Klansman (a Hassidic or Orthodox Jew) are more notable and less offensive than this article. (posted w/out signing by Mr. Ables--DNicholls 08:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
• I find it hilarious that little Johnny can go to the list of ethnic slurs and ask me "Daddy, what is a potato rapist?", but THIS is up for deletion instead. Keep. (posted w/out signing by 68.108.111.141 --DNicholls 08:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
• KEEP There's much more offensive material on here (for example, the above) than on this page. It's just detailing the culture and history of the chat. CaptaintravelB
• KEEP This is a very prominent chatroom on IRC, and socially important. It remarks the social togetherness of the different races in a different method, a method that may not be widely accepted, but is very effective.(posted w/out signing by 172.158.211.21--DNicholls 08:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. It's not recreated, since it should have never been deleted. I don't see the problem. It's not like "Boddah" is a desirable wikiarticle name. We're still not done, either. (posted w/out signing by 209.221.45.145--DNicholls 08:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC))

"young, demure, and sexually charged" but unfortunately not notable. --LeeHunter 00:09, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Yeah. Kibo is "one of the internet's most famous figures." Not this guy. Delete for vanity. Inky 01:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted material. Previously as Bodah, I believe. Were it not so, it was speedy deleteable as pure hoax/prank/test page. Geogre 02:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Putting this up for deletion again. Perhaps a speedy delete? They've been at work for 3 days, and it's nifty, but not notable enough for wp. Delete--DNicholls 08:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Offensive and probably constructed as such. Hamster Sandwich 08:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inconsequential chat room. Speedy if Geogre is correct and this is a recreation of a previously deleted article. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, random noise. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this should have been speedied as a recreated article. Sockpuppet noise doesnt help. JamesBurns 03:37, 26 July 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. No such thing as speedy keep, folks. Woohookitty 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Crossover Tournament Fighting

Not notable. Psuedo-advertising.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Very Successful E-federation that has been around for 7 years. pvegeta 09:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this user is most likely a sockpuppet. The account was created within 15 minutes of this post and all its contributions are limited to voting on UCTF.
• Keep and Expand.Yeah, 7 years is tons longer than most e-feds out there. It's got come of the most creative people on the net working on it.S3
  • Note: this user is most likely a sockpuppet. Actually, this isn't a sock puppet, becuase S3 is not an actual user account on wikipedia, a anon user (66.227.137.82) just signed S3.
• Speedy Delete Unless someone proves to me the importance of this and can offer some proof other than the existence of a possibly obscure "convention" that takes place in Ohio. I find no references to this anywhere. Hamster Sandwich 09:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I would site Example 1. under heading Articles of the WP:CSD page as the qualification for the speedy delete. And I must thank Splash for his help in directing me as per his critisism of my initial vote! Thank you so much! Hamster Sandwich 04:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per above. UncleFloyd 14:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a hoax. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as Hamster Sandwich said. Balster neb 18:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and in any case non-notable. Hamster Sandwich is wrong to suggest that either being a hoax or not being notable is a candidate for speedy. The WP:CSD do not allow either of those. Please do read policy before citing what you would like it to say. -Splash 23:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If it can be confirmed as "patent nonsense" it can be speedied, however it is up to the nominator to demonstrate beyond doubt that it is patent. At the moment the claims in the article are just plain unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. 7 year running E-federation brings notable points of success including: The expansion of a close-knit community through the web, harboring a massive intake of fan-fiction creativity and juggling of many members for nearly a decade. LcwS

• Speedy Keep This does not meet the deletion critieria, it is notable in the wealth of stories that it holds and has held for its duration. Since this page is NOT meaningless content or history, with text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent. And no other deletion criteria can be associated with this I believe it should stay stay.Melvic
• Delete as per Splash. Junkyard prince 23:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 03:41, 26 July 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

List of vehicles from Grand Theft Auto

Preambulatory note: to understand why this is listed much later than 18 July, keep reading. -- Hoary 08:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

This page seems seriously unneccessary. — Cuahl 02:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. You haven't followed the "How to list pages for deletion" steps from WP:VFD, so no-one is aware of this page. I don't think it's a valid deletion proposal either, if the steps aren't followed. --TheParanoidOne 05:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have therefore followed that procedure and plonked everything where I think it belongs -- while deliberately postdating it, to give people a chance to think and vote. (Meanwhile, I am not yet voting.) -- Hoary 08:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Some people want to know about vehicles from GTA games. --SuperDude 17:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. There is need for a better list of all vehicles from at least the Playstation 2-era games. Plus there has been this Mafia Sentinel article up and well-exposed on Wikipedia's Grand Theft Auto section for months; I don't see why this gang car gets better treatment with its own article. ╫ 25 ^chatter 07:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC) ╫
  • Weak keep. Little can be explained about most of the vehicles, and it might take a lot of effort to complete the explanations and details (Note the length of the complete list that was recently added). Unless there is additional help here, I'm afraid this article may not be worth the keep. ╫ 25 ^chatter 11:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Delete Maybe merge it with the Grand Theft Auto article? UncleFloyd 14:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per 25. - ulayiti 15:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto (series). Interesting in the scope of game players, but not as an individual article. Merge to the series because the article has entries on cars from different editions of the game.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I really, really don't like most lists, and I'm not crazy about this one. But it makes more sense to keep it than to merge it, because it cross-references the appearances of a vehicle in more than one GTA game. It would be difficult to convey the same information on each individual GTA game page. Fernando Rizo 19:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that some of these cars have their own articles. Almafeta 01:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto (series). .... added at 02:30, July 24, 2005 by Nandesuka
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto (series), since that's the only place on Wikipedia where this article belongs. That is to say, it does not belong in its current location. The Literate Engineer 05:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If we have yugioh cards, we might as well have this.  Grue  16:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, too long to merge. Should be annotated to point out which vehicles are analogous to which real-world vehicles. -Sean Curtin 03:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Grand Theft Auto (series), as per User:Poli. JamesBurns 03:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is intended that the list be as complete as possible, it may be more preferable to Keep the page over merging it onto Grand Theft Auto (series), since the length of the list would overshadow the article it merges to. If the decision to Merge is made, consider summarizing the types of vehicles available, and cite a few notable examples of vehicles based off its real-life counterparts. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 05:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Keep. List which is of interest to the fans of an unfortunately popular game. Too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the barest minimum into Grand Theft Auto (series). Despite being a big huge fan of the "unfortunately"(?) popular game, I can't see keeping a list of names. But it could eventually turn into a fully-illustrated guide. What I'd rather see is a "noteworthy cars" thing at the bottom of the series (or even individual games) page(s), and then if it grows it can be split out again. Something like that. Garrett^Talk 15:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up -- The Time Killer
• Delete. I have a test I like to apply for potential gamecruft: Is it at least as notable as the individual Pokemon? GTA is certainly as important as Pokemon, but the likelihood of any but the most anal-retentive fan to take note of the vehicle names and stylings is very low. Take it to GameFAQs. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:43, 30 July 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 02:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

UCTF Anime Championship

This is in the Ultimate Crossover Tournament Fighting series of articles. The UCTF is not notable. Also, wikipedia is not a web hosting provider.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 08:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not the least bit notable. Thatdog 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Very Successful E-federation that has been around for 7 years. pvegeta 09:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: this user is most likely a sockpuppet. The account was created within 15 minutes of this post and all its contributions are limited to voting on UCTF.
    • Note: pvegeta has been with Wikipedia for months
• Delete Anime fighting championship? Like, is it cartoon characters that fight? Is the outcome known to the animator before the final bell? I'm confused. Is this encyclopedic? sorry, maybe its just me. Hamster Sandwich 09:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand.Yeah, 7 years is tons longer than most e-feds out there. It's got come of the most creative people on the net working on it.S3
  • Note: this user is most likely a sockpuppet. Actually, this isn't a sock puppet, becuase S3 is not an actual user account on wikipedia, a anon user (66.227.137.82) just signed S3.
• KEEP IT. Why delete this? there's other stuff on the internet that needs to be deleted....much worse then people role playing. Hyper This was actually annon 217.189.130.69 (talk · contribs) [7]. Hyper (talk · contribs) did not sign this, and if he/she did, they have only two edits to their name.
• Speedy Delete as per Ultimate Crossover Tournament Fighting. UncleFloyd 14:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and kick the ass of sock puppets. --malathion ^talk 21:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons in other VfD. But I do not see how the WP:CSD allow this to be speedied. -Splash 23:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This does not meet the deletion critieria, it is notable in the wealth of stories that it holds and has held for its duration. Since this page is NOT meaningless content or history, with text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent. And no other deletion criteria can be associated with this I believe it should stay stay.Melvic
• Delete. Junkyard prince 23:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable unencyclopedic animecruft. JamesBurns 03:45, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Faces of Korea

Google gives about 60 unique results (Harris "Faces of Korea"). Not significant. User just spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Roadmap to Korean, Hollym & Richard Harris (writer) Renata3 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. What's the proper procedure to follow when you see a VFD entry, like this one, with no title? (This is not sarcasm; I actually want to know.) I can tell that this is for Faces of Korea but it needs to be fixed. --Metropolitan90 15:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It is now on a subpage, but doesn't seem to be linked from the main page. I'm confused. Trying to fix it with this edit. -- Visviva 16:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, bookcruft. -- Visviva 16:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advert, link spam. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Using my personal criterion: Amazon sales rank number < 200,000 = sufficiently notable. This book, ISBN 1565912144, has an Amazon.com Sales Rank: #568,826 in Books. For comparison: Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Revised and Updated Edition), ISBN 65051626, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #56,024 in Books. For a sense of what a rank of 568,826 probably means: I personally know of a book that has sold less than fifty copies which has a sales rank in the 700,000s. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 02:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity, etc. Flowerparty ^talk 03:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Roadmap to Korean

Google gives 7 results. User spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Faces of Korea, Hollym & Richard Harris (writer)Renata3 09:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You have not added this nomination to the VfD log for July 23. Please do so. -- Visviva 16:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, although I would have expected more than 7 hits. -- Visviva 16:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And in fact a Google for the phrase "Roadmap to Korean" gives 1250 hits. But delete, anyway.-- Visviva 03:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Using my personal criterion: Amazon sales rank number < 200,000 = sufficiently notable. This book, ISBN 1565911873, has an amazon.com Sales Rank: #724,729 in Books. For comparison: Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Revised and Updated Edition), ISBN 65051626, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #56,024 in Books. For a sense of what a rank of 724,729 probably means: I personally know of a book that has sold less than fifty copies which has a sales rank in the 700,000s. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 03:46, 26 July 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hollym

they have a website at hollym.com and as you can see it's just an ordinary publisher selling few books online. Don't see any importance. The user just spams himself, his books, and his publisher. See also: Roadmap to Korean, Faces of Korea & Richard Harris (writer)

• delete --Richhil 13:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable publisher of Korea-related books, with a (small) international presence. Certainly at least as notable as many other articles in Category:Book publishers. -- Visviva 16:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am about to try my Amazon test. I am going to search for books published by this publisher on Amazon.com. If they have published any books with an Amazon sales rank number less than 200,000, then I consider them a publisher of real interest to English-speakers and will vote to keep. Here goes. 167 books listed. Sort by: bestselling. Top is: Minjung's Pocket English-Korean & Korean-English Dictioanry [sic], ISBN 0930878027, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #154,297 in Books. Next listed is: Korea: Tradition and Transformation : A History of the Korean People by Andrew C. Nahm, ISBN 0930878566, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #606,866 in Books. The fact that 167 books are listed should somehow count for something. I conclude that they pass my test and they are a "real" publisher and of legitimate interest to English-speakers with an interest in Korea. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Amazon are not a directory of books in print. Amazon are a distributor. 129.215.37.37 13:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, real publisher, real books, valid claim to being a significant publisher of English-language books about Korea. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Genuine (although small) publisher with a focus on Korea. Subject matter is esoteric by nature and thus they have only a small presence in the West Pilatus 10:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Dpsmith's Amazon test, although I am incredibly opposed to the idea that something should have to prove itself "of interest to English-speakers" in order to be included. Kappa 13:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Richard Harris (writer)

See also: Faces of Korea, Hollym & Roadmap to Korean

User just spams himself, his books, and his publisher.

• Tentative keep--article names published books and a radio show. Of course that could be inflated in a way. Everyking 07:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Arguably notable -- certainly significant in the SK expat community, though not outside of it -- but I don't see any point in encouraging this sort of article. -- Visviva 16:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've already spent more time on this VfD than the article itself is worth. -- Visviva 01:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert. We don't, and won't, have articles on most published writers. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Using my personal criterion: Amazon sales rank number < 200,000 = sufficiently notable. This book, ISBN 1565912144, has an Amazon.com Sales Rank: #568,826 in Books. For comparison: Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (Revised and Updated Edition), ISBN 65051626, Amazon.com Sales Rank: #56,024 in Books. For a sense of what a rank of 568,826 probably means: I personally know of a book that has sold less than fifty copies which has a sales rank in the 700,000s. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I live in Seoul and I know how his books are dealt with in Korean bookstores and how actively he is working with publishers and broadcasting stations here. As a reader of his, I am sure he has great potential as a writer, not only in Korea in the future.

Above posted by User:Hyoun-Kyoung Kim. This is the user's first edit. -- Visviva 10:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep-- I've worked through Roadmap.., which is due out 7/2005 in its second edition. I've done foreign language courses in a half dozen languages and what his book does for Korean is something I wish for in all other languages: sociolinguistic detail, learner "in hindsight" commentary, overall schema for approaching various parts of the language/society. About the basis for Wiki presence/absence, I can't say, but weighed in terms of significance of Roadmap to Korean for English-language native speakers taking up the Category IV language like Korean, this book is valuable.

G.P.Witteveen 19:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Above posted by User:216.157.203.65, who has no other edits. User:G.P.Witteveen does not exist. --Visviva 01:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP -Roadmap to Korean is the most complete and thorough introduction to the Korean language of its kind. It provides a unique look into the 70 million people who speak the language around the world today. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We celebrate the cultural diversity of our country. I am constantly asked by colleagues why bookstores like Indigo do not carry more books, authored by Canadians, living abroad. In the past month alone I know that this book has been requested by a British author, 4 Canadian authors from Japan (living in Canada), the University of Toronto, George Brown College, York University and McGill University.

The "Faces of Korea" is especially enthralling now, as propoganda mounts around North Korea, and one is curious about why people would choose to live in Korea. User:E. McHugh, July 25,2005

Above posted by User:69.195.67.61, who has no other edits.-- 01:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 03:48, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Czech language verbs

Hey look, a list of verbs. Now all we need is a list of adjectives, and conjunctions, and nouns, and adverbs, and interjections, etc., and then we have... a dictionary. Which Wikipedia is not. Not to mention a list of all the verbs in a language is a very ambitious (i.e. impossible) undertaking. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 08:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Dmcdevit. Hamster Sandwich 09:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary if only possible Renata3 09:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Czech must be a strang language to have only 23 verbs--Porturology 13:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Only the few most common verbs are listed. Czech vocabulary is huge and its words can have even dozens of slightly different forms. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. They already have some similar articles like List of Spanish verbs.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
  • You're right, I should have transwikied it first. Now transwikied to wikt:list_of_Czech_verbs. --Dmcdevit·t 21:50, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (with possible wiktionary), unencyclopedic. The informatin in article is correct, btw. Pavel Vozenilek 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBurns 03:49, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"The Sand Wraith"

Not notable. Maybe could be merged somewhere with the game's article. Renata3 08:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I concur. IINAG
• Merge to Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, as there is already a "Characters" section in that article.-Poli (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn trivial fancruft. JamesBurns 03:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Docketing software

This article was transwikied to wiktionary in April 2005. Since then it hasn't evolved at all. It will probably never evolve into a decent wikipedia article. I vote delete. --Edcolins 10:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Three months is far too short a time for a stub to develop (typically this takes more than six months). The article also suffers from insufficient linking and cats. As a plant needs roots, so an article needs links. I am adding some suitable cats and a stub template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable subject, definitely worthy of an EnWiki article. Fernando Rizo 21:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Especially in light of recent malpractice cases involving law firms that weren't using any software[8]. That article would also be a good place to start to expand that stub. LexisOne also has a list[9].
• Keep and expand. Notable topic. JamesBurns 03:53, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Alejandro J. Fernandez

Non-notable housing activist. Google returns 16 hits for "Alex J. Fernandez" [10] and 78 for "Alejandro J. Fernandez" [11] (many seem to come from Wikipedia). Delete. Edcolins 11:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: notability not established. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 03:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. NSR (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Roulant trottoir

Created by User:Gtransit to advertise his/her website. Appears to be a sock puppet or similar of User:Hallitubes who has had multiple articles relating to "Hallitubes" deleted as adverts for conceptual products. There is a notable device called a "trottoir roulant rapide" which is being trialed in Paris, but this article title is wrong as well Bobbis 12:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to "Trottoir roulant rapide". Promotional section (last sentences) should be removed. Featured on the BBC [12]. --Edcolins 12:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with cleanup. Interesting topic but it looks like a website ad for the moment. JamesBurns 03:56, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Lidia Vianu

Created by User:Lidiavianu who copy-pasted her CV. Non-notable. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable professor. The website the article links to was apparently created by her daughter. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable professor, just a CV. Balster neb 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity MH 18:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain Radar

Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MH 12:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator, and extremely POV anyway. Company might deserve an article, now or in the future, but not like this.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete. POV article about a NN company. Fernando Rizo 20:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really POV and otherwise non-notable. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , POV propaganda. Kim Bruning 00:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Current version disparages the company? humblefool® 03:24, 24 July 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 listed as a copyvio and hence deleted as such -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Recommended Daily Intake

Huge friggin' text dump, verbatim, from some Australian government document on RDIs (although I'm not 100% sure which one). I don't see how this is salvageable, really, and it might even be copyvio.

Yes, we could use an article on the concept of RDI. This is not it. DS 13:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Recommended Dietary Allowance as it's a similar idea, or delete. Text almost certainly copyright, I'd say. [[smoddy]]
• Copyvio Typing in a random clause, "That the calcium requirement is increased after the menopause seems to be undeniable", yields precisely one google hit. Flowerparty 13:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh, well, I tried a few other clauses, which got multiple hits. DS 13:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So it's multiple copyvio? Flowerparty 14:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Either way, it seems pretty much everything (bar one or two sentences) that I type in comes up with that website, and it's all covered by this copyright. Flowerparty 14:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  I have listed it as such [13]. Flowerparty 13:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Recommended Dietary Allowance. JamesBurns 03:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Frank Tyger

No confirmable data. The sole external link[14] is to an empty newspaper page. The referenced Wikiquote article is under VfD as well. I recommend deletion unless someone provides some verifiable substance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete on "No meaningful content or history, text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent" and "Very short articles providing little or no context" criteria.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:18, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

E-Pro

Delete as spam. Thorsten1 13:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete did not find anything relevant on Google. Renata3 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Poli. Balster neb 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Guero. Notable Beck single. -- Norvy (talk) 17:03, 24 July 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 to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Free Software Replacements

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Darrien 13:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Free Software. Provides useful information about current developments in the field.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Merge, as suggested by Poli. --Joel7687 15:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Replace Outlook with a PHP-based webmail script? HA! I do not feel the Free Software article would be enhanced by the inclusion of these suggestions. Thatdog 19:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge. I can bet Free Software article has enough of work of maintenance to deal with such crap information as presented here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Thatdog that this list is not particularly useful. At best it is one user's POV on what software can replace what other software. — mendel ☎ 23:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Free software, but only the sterile listing, not the what-it-might replace stuff. -Splash 23:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GPLcruft. Almafeta 01:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful to Free software. JamesBurns 03:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Free software, under neutral article part ANALOGIES, or COMAPRISION because it's usefull and NPOV to have alternatives (as we have article Comparison of text editors under Category:Software comparison).
• Delete. The creator mixed up freeware with free software. --minghong 04:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Minghong, and I'd also note that we would not have an article proprietary software replacements so it is POV to have this one. And I say that as a very happy Gentoo user. Pakaran 04:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Doughnut Theory

Delete Silly hoax! Obviously inspired by The Bangles. UncleFloyd 14:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment "If you want to find all the cops, they're hanging out in the doughnut shop" is actually a lyric from The Bangles' song "Walk Like and Egyptian". [15] UncleFloyd 17:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete Stereotype, not encyclopedic information. --Measure 14:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• A very possible candidate for speedy deletion Renata3 16:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Had nominated for speedy delete earlier. Is a silly joke and must go. Balster neb 18:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible candidate for BJAODN. Reference to Walk Like an Egyptian by the Bangles. Capitalistroadster 18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: A joke that's really old, and insulting to law enforcement professionals. It's also technically original research. Peter Grey 05:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All the cops in the dougnut shop say: Delete-o, Delete-o! FunkyChicken! 06:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete commonbrick 18:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is a quirky Americanism. KiwiPunter 22:20, 24 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Multi-Con Systems Limited

adv/vanity. Not a notable or important company. Article text largely lifted from corporate site. Hamstersanonymous 14:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per new CSD criterion: no assertion of notability. --khaosworks 16:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The new CSD does not apply to companies. It applies specifically to real people. Please read WP:CSD again. -Splash 23:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  ... which is why I put it for vfd rather than speedy delete. Still, it's not notable. I think famous companies, big players in their field/region/country, and those that feature greatly in a country's social/cutural conciousness are okay to be featured, but wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Hamstersanonymous 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 15:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

ToxicMercury

Band vanity. A group of 14-year-olds who possess "every ingredient to become a great metal band, despite only forming in 2004." Joyous (talk) 14:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity --Measure 14:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete classic band vanity. Good luck guys, but there are lots of bands in the world. Friday 20:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 04:01, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Schly

Non-notable slang, probably not worth moving to Wiktionary. Delete. Joel7687 14:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Patent Nonsense. Worse than l337-speak.
• Delete some nonsense to me. Renata3 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Schplottch — that's slang for "delete with a sneer" ➥the Epopt 18:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn slang dicdef. JamesBurns 04:02, 26 July 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 (only one valid keep vote) -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Insert Disc Two

I believe this is a vanity or advertising page. I see very little internet presence for this internet show (thanks to func for doing a bit lot of research for me), and it was started only recently. Joyous (talk) 15:11, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that it was created by a fan doesn't mean it's not meant to promote the site.

  32.60.68.26 (talk · contribs)'s 2nd edit. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is actually well written, but this show, started in early 2005, seems to fall into the vanity category. A google on "Insert Disc Two" "Chris Dunkle" turns up 14 hits, and Alexa.com has no traffic rating for the site whatsoever. I think someone was trying to use Wikipedia to promote this site. func(talk) 15:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

insertdisctwo(talk) 11:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)

This misc. signature was added by 64.252.130.220 (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The show was actually started in mid 2004 and has a moderately small but growing following. The article was written by a fan, and not by the creators, and therefore was not created with the intent to promote the site. Google returns more hits when you don't type in the actor's name, (although they are harder to find due to the phrase being used in a lot of Easter egg and video game sites) since most mentions of the site are quotes from the show and not about the actual performers.

  Amendment: Many of the anonymous "delete" votes that have been posted here are the result of a personal vendetta waged against the show. Evidence can be found here on their forums.

  insertdisctwo(talk) 11:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)

  insertdisctwo (talk · contribs)'s 12th edit, func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  insertdisctwo appears to have made another sockpuppet vote, first as 151.205.231.202 (talk · contribs), then made alterations as himself: [16], [17], [18], func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I wrote most of this article, and I intend for it to be informative rather than advertising. Ianthegecko 20:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  This is registered user Ianthegecko (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The Wiki seems to fit no purpose other than to promote the small show's website. There is almost no information about the show itself, except for a long list of influences and brief prior experiences. Without this information, it can be considered a promotion. 14:46, 23 July 2005 (PST)

func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: the above user's entire edit history consists of either POV vandalism to the article being voted on or edits to this page.—chris.lawson (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I respectfully disagree with the idea that this page deserves deletion under either charge of vanity or advertising. No attempt is made to sway the reader to visiting the creators' website (ie. advertising) and it takes a neutral stance on the content. If the article had proclaimed: "Insert Disc Two is a hilarious, brilliant take on comedy", yes, that would be biased and grounds for deletion. But this article is not simply a commercial. In all fairness, the article briefly explains what the show is and simply tells of its history and influences. In short, it provides those curious about the show information to better understand it, which is what a good encyclopedia entry is supposed to do. arthur42(talk) 15:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)

  Arthur42 (talk · contribs)'s 1st edit. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Neutral stance? The article compares itself to friggin' Monty Python and the Holy Grail!

unsigned by 64.252.134.174 (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Except "Holy Grail" is never mentioned on the page. And it doesn't compare itself to Python, just says that the creators were influenced heavily by Python. That's like saying they got the idea to make "Men in Black" after reading "Hitchhiker's Guide", not necessarily comparing the two.

  unsigned by 67.165.217.12 (talk · contribs)

• Delete per func(talk). -Splash 23:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no need to make a Wikipedia about this site because nobody will ever look up for it out of spite, even if it is ever mentioned by their few fans it would be linked to the website anyways.

  69.208.171.243 (talk · contribs)'s 1st edit. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. You are choosing to acknowledge this article as an advertisement rather than something that is informative, that is your deal. Do you also feel that a Wiki article on Brad Pitt is an advertisement? Let ID2 stay, I say.BraveJiro(talk) 11:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)

  BraveJiro (talk · contribs)'s 1st edit. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  This user also commited vandalism: [19], and is assumed to be the same person as 68.14.189.69 (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The information from the article when it was started was literally COPIED from ID2's about page, there's no reason to keep the article on Wikipedia while you can just get it from ID2's site.

• Keep. You have no apparent reason why you want this down, other then it seems like you have nothing to do. It's not like it has offended you in anywayJohnnyLawRoutine (talk) 9:37, 23 July 2005 (CDT)

  151.205.231.202 (talk · contribs)'s only edit, THEN: changed to "JohnnyLawRoutine", who does not exist. The change was made by Insertdisctwo (talk · contribs), who has already voted. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Func. Nandesuka 02:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Saying that the votes of people with a so called "vendetta" against your site is not too terribly different than how the owners are more likely than not furiously messaging all their friends on AIM to support the entry. Like it or not, insert disc two is nothing more than a website visited by the owners and their immediate friends - the guestbook only has six entries to it since april. If the site was even remotely popular it would certainly have more than this. Additionally, I might add that my own site (the one referenced in the Amendemnt above) is FAR MORE POPULAR than Insert Disc Two (avg 500-1k visitors a day when i sit around and do nothing), but an article made totally without my knowledge was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and, well, I agree that it should have been deleted.

  64.252.130.220 (talk · contribs)'s 2nd edit. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• The comment: "Like it or not, insert disc two is nothing more than a website visited by the owners and their immediate friends" is both untrue and is spoken without any validity. The site's following includes a demographic containing Ireland, England, Texas, and Colorado, to name a few. Only one member is a personal friend of the producers. insertdisctwo(talk)

• Comment I'm assuming the commenter here does not consider people they talk to aim to be their friends :(

  unsigned by 64.252.134.174 (talk · contribs)

• Delete. This vote page has been vandalized by IPs. Advertising does not mean that you have to be going this is the best thing ever, just that the page exists is advertising. humblefool® 03:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • And insertdisktwo? Please stop shifting people's votes and signatures around. humblefool® 03:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • My apologies, I was just trying to help by formatting user names properly. Won't happen again. =)insertdisctwo(talk)

    Does that include copying the style of my signature, with the tell-tale <kbd>(talk)</kbd> formatting? func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I didn't realize that was your special code. I just copied the sig of the first person I saw and changed the relavent information. My apologies again. I promise I have not been up to any foul play, I was just trying to organize the page. My OCD I guess. I have not forged any votes, and whatever vandalism happened here, I was not involved in it. If the page is deleted, so be it, I respect the whatever decision Wikipedia makes. However please know that the site has been dealing with vandals for months and they have posted an entire thread on their forums dedicated to vandalizing our Wikipedia page. This has gotten much messier than it should have. I promise not to make any other alterations in formatting. Hopefully the voting can continue in a mature, civilized, and TRUTHFUL manner. Thank you.

• Comment "just that the page exists is advertising." Then by that logic, with all due respect, so is every other article on this website. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just having trouble seeing the argument there. Merely documenting something, ie. this show, isn't advertising. The only argument that seems to be sproating here is that because the show isn't well known, any sort of referencing of it here would be a means to increase attention, and thus its advertising. In that case, their only crime is not being well-known enough, which is no grounds for deletion in my opinion. arthur42(talk) 15:04, 23 July 2005 (CDT)

  70.188.248.108 (talk · contribs) signing as Arthur42. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Your site recently deleted an entry for another online television series, one that had a rapidly growing following. When that series originally came out, Scott Kurtz of PVP put the link on his site causing a massive increase in popularity. That series had not only Kurtz as a fan, but also a prolific Hollywood producer. In the case of that series, the creators did not make the page, nor did they modify it ever. The fact is the Internet is the new big entertainment medium. An article written by someone who has never met the creators but merely talked to them online is the same as an article written by someone who has never met a celebrity; merely had their fan mail answered. If this is advertising, any page on very minor celebrities can probably also be considered advertising.

  vote was 67.165.217.12 (talk · contribs)'s 2nd edit. func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• The people at ID2 are NOT celebrities, they have a low number of repeating visits when I checked their counter statistics

  unsigned by 69.208.187.132 (talk · contribs)

• I did not say they were celebrities. I am merely saying that an article about them written by someone who has only talked to them online is no different than an article about Austin O'Brien or someone written by someone who has only corresponded via fan mail. Maybe O'Brien is much more prolific than the folks at ID2, but it doesn't make the page his fan started any less of advertising than the page ID2's fan started.

  67.165.217.12 (talk · contribs). func(talk) 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the site is visited only by people who "talk to the creators online" is completely made up. The creators of the show have, yes, talked to people online who have visited the forums on the site. However, only ONE PERSON knew them PRIOR TO viewing the show. Commenting is fine, but please at least assure that your comments are truthful.

Also, I have not forged any votes. I noticed that one person did not sign his vote. He didn't know the format to use, so I said I could just fix it for him, and I guess I got the username he gave me (JohnnyLawRoutine) wrong. I'm sorry, I didn't realize how that would look. insertdisctwo(talk)

• Weak keep. As func said, very well-written for a so-called "vanity" article. Whether it actually is a vanity article or not, well, as someone else commented, wouldn't the mere existence of any article on Wikipedia serve to stroke the ego of its subject(s)? I don't see how it has to be a vanity article merely because the two or three different individuals who have given enough of a crap to vote here haven't heard of it. (I hadn't heard of it before I stumbled across the mention on the ViP page, but I'm not willing to delete based solely on that.)—chris.lawson (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Who will actually look up info about this anyways? Stereoface 01:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Stereoface (talk · contribs)'s first edit—chris.lawson (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Who actually looks up info about half the content on this website? Ianthegecko 03:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment You're joking, right? The entire idea of wikipedia is so people can look up and read about just about anything. That's the entire concept of the site. FlyingHat 19:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Comment Stereoface's weak argument was that "nobody will look this up, so we don't need it." Ian was simply saying there's a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that very few people care about to look up, so that shouldn't be grounds for deletion. I believe Ian's point was that Wikipedia should contain information on anything that is in the public eye, just in case people want to look it up, and the statement that "nobody cares about this" is not a strong argument. As you say, the entire idea of Wikipedia is so people can look up anything.

• Delete there seems to be some sort of war going on over this article and I want to say that I hope this doesn't effect anyone's vote. Please try to judge the facts at hand. That being said, this article does not establish notability. Therefore delete as not-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:33, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• But is is difficult, however, to consider this show "not-notable" when there is obviously a strong following supporting it. Granted, it may not be a large or widespread community, but this show obviously has a niche following which its creators received as a result of performing both live as well as online. The fact that many of the show's fans, including the one who authored the page, have come out so strongly to support this article seems to indicate that it is notable, at least in the eyes of its growing fanbase.arthur42(talk) 18:34, 25 July 2005 (CDT)

Above comment by 70.188.248.108, not by Arthur42 as signed.

To quote the meatpuppet policy "The reason behind this is, for instance, that an article on an online community should not be kept merely because all members of that community show up to vote for it." Besides, if it's that popular. How come the website only has 1905 hits? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• If the owners of the site could provide some site statistics attesting to their popularity, then I'll change my vote.

• Delete for it being non-notable, and kill all sockpuppets. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! The 2nd above comment was in fact written by me. I just realized that I forgot to sign in when writing it. Sorry for the misunderstanding. arthur42(talk) 19:22, 25 July 2005 (CDT)

• Delete nn advertising. JamesBurns 04:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I already voted, and I don't want to start a fight, and I hope what I'm saying isn't misinterpreted at all, but I don't see how votes that simply say "delete, advertising" can be considered valid when there have been many points listed as to why the entry is not advertising. If you could provide some reasoning as to why you still consider it to be advertising, that would help things make a little more sense (for me, anyway).

"Besides, if it's that popular. How come the website only has 1905 hits?" I think I should probably clarify an earlier comment of mine before it causes further confusion. I defended the show as having a "strong" following. By that, I meant "devoted," as opposed to "large" or "widely popular." My mistake. On a seperate note, perhaps a possible solution would be a compromise. That is, to have the article's author/authors edit the site so it feels more in line with Wikipedia policy and less as a vanity or advertising page, since so many people here seem to feel that it is. Just a thought. arthur42(talk) 13:04, 26 July 2005 (CDT)

I've watched some of the videos and I actually think it's quite funny. You may well have a strong cult following. BUT, I'm sorry, it (IMO) is not currently notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. Try again when ID2 has gained wider recognition.

Also, I took a look around and I can't see any votes that just say "Advertising". Some say "nn advertising" or "vanity, advertising". This doesn't mean the article is written in a POV way. It means that the voter doesn't consider the subject notable enough for an article. Thus the existence of the article itself may be considered advertising or ego-stroking.

That's all I've got to say.--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Show is very new and does not appear to have had any influence outside of its extremely limited fanbase. At the moment, the number one result for a Google search on "Insert Disc Two" ([20]) is this vote for deletion page--beating out the official website. While that is probably only the result of fans and foes of the show link-spamming to attract votes, the fact that a VFD page was able to exceed the Google ranking of the show's official website in such a short time is, in my view, a fairly clear indicator of its lack of notability. Aquillion 04:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Amico mio

Non-notable use of Italian phrase. Delete. Joel7687 15:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary if possible -Renata3 16:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; used as slang in this way it is a neologism. Ciao.
• Delete nn foreign slang dicdef. JamesBurns 04:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article itself says it's limited to a single message board. Well, we have funny slang words we use in my neighborhood, too, but I'm not postin' 'em to Wikipedia. ;-) Xaa 23:41, 28 July 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

Keep votes accepted: IJzeren Jan, malathion, Almafeta, Grace Note, arj, Phroziac,

Keep votes not accepted (and reasons why): Assdl (only 44 edits, mostly to conlang articles), Firespeaker (only 37 edits), Elemtilas (only 17 edits, all to conlang vfd debates), BenctPhilipJonsson (only 8 edits), SamuelRiv (only 4 edits, all to conlang vfd debates), one unsigned keep vote

Delete votes accepted: ishwar, mikka, MH, Wile E. Heresiarch, Angr, Prosfilaes, Mustafaa, Felix the Cassowary, The Literate Engineer, Trilobite, Sjakkalle, Indrian,

-- Francs2000 | Talk  12:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Breathanach

• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – ishwar  (speak) 15:30, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Keep - If you delete this article, please proceed and remove all the constructed languages that appear in this list. If you delete this one, but keep the others, it'll be unfair. I think this kind of articles is worth enough, and they hurt no one. Thanks. Assdl 15:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • But more edits about this particular subject than you did. --IJzeren Jan 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that if someone would like information on a conlang, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to start. -Firespeaker 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Has been here since March 30 though...
• Delete, nonnotable. MH 18:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotoable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: of all the conlang articles listed, I've never heard of it even in my time in the conlang community, and there's nothing significant about it, or anyone who's felt it important enough to translate it into other Wikipedias. --Prosfilaes 20:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other members of Category:Ill Bethisad. - Mustafaa 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Several other of the members of Category:Ill Bethisad are up for VfD, but they aren't so certain of deletion. Each of those articles is going to have to be dealt with individually. --Prosfilaes 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, Brithenig might be notable enough to survive, actually; the rest should go, though. - Mustafaa 22:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If some of these articles are certain, perhaps they can all be merged into the Ill Bethisad article to make one large, but solid, article? Almafeta 04:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable enough for me. --IJzeren Jan 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not the standard here --malathion ^talk 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Felix the Cassowary 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per CONLANG, no points of notability (#189 most popular out of top 200 on Langmaker). Almafeta 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Part of understanding Brithenig, which is notable (see its VfD page for why). Almafeta 04:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How is this the case? The Brithenig article barely mentiones Breathanach, and if the Breathanach article is necessary for the understanding of Brithenig, shouldn't they be combined? dhasenan 1734, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of having, now or ever, been a vernacular for any sized group of people. No pop culture notability, as per Klingon. No academic notability, as due to the fact that I couldn't find a reference to it after searching over a half dozen scholarly journals' online editions. Not even the bizarre quasi-notability of having spawned other misbegotten conlangs the way Brithenig claims to have. The Literate Engineer 06:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
• Keep. Harmless nonsense. Has been around for a while and is of interest to those who are interested in this stuff. Grace Note 05:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Here is a fine example of how artists inspire each other. Conlanging is a very sociable art form, whose participants love to exchange ideas and inspiration. The creation of Brethanach, inspired by Brithenig, shows this at work.
• Delete. Nonnotable conlang. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Constructed languages are not inherently notable, and notability is not estabished in this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in the context of constructed languages. arj 12:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notability is somewhat on the questionable side, 528 google hits on "Breathanach language". But, I think that's notable enough, and, vfd'ing all conlangs because "its a goofy way to spend your life" is a goofy way to spend your life. Wikipedia is not paper. --Phroziac (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet the high bar of notability for a conlang. Indrian 20:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why is there are a "high bar of notability for a conlang" as opposed to anything else, and where is this bar? --Prosfilaes 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability being subjective, this is my own personal opinion that you are free to disagree with. We all set the bar in different places. Indrian 00:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After reading through the deletion policy in its entirety, it seems clear that this article has a place here. SamuelRiv 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Brithenig

• Keep. I am not an absolutist about keeping every possible piece of knowledge on Wikipedia, but in this instance it is not clear to me how to make an objective decision about which conlangs to include and which to exclude. I mean, just look at the following three things I discovered with the randomizing function: Rohtas Fort, King of Arms, and Wellsville, Ohio (population: 4,133). Should every fort in Pakistan, every member of the hierarchy of heralds, or every city in Ohio, no matter how small, have an entry? Well, maybe. The decision is ultimately about counts as important, and nobody can predetermine what will count as important before it actually becomes so. Brithenig is a small conlang, but one developed by a number of people, and has drawn some attention in the online conlanging community; it is equivalent to a town slightly more important than Wellsville, Ohio. But Wellsville has an entry. Why not Brithenig? Trwier 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – ishwar  (speak) 15:35, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Keep - inventing fake languages might be a goofy way to spend your life, but it's certainly a worthy topic. - DavidWBrooks 15:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - inventing fake languages might be a less goofy way to spend your life than quite a few others, but that does not make every fake language a worthy topic. --Thorsten1 10:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If you delete this article, please proceed and remove all the constructed languages that appear in this list. If you delete this one, but keep the others, it'll be unfair. I think this kind of articles is worth enough, and they hurt no one. Thanks. Assdl 15:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "There is a lot of worthless crap in Wikipedia" isn't an argument for keeping this article. User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure about the notability of Brithenig in particular, but constructed languages cannot all be eligible for Wikipedia. If it is judged that this one is not, others, such as Esperanto and Languages of Middle-Earth, still are, so I disagree with Assdl about treating all conlangs the same. As regards the comments of DavidWBrooks on the worthiness of the topic in general, that is why there is a constructed language article. --Joel7687 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - pretty good article, not sure about notability, but does no harm. I could not call it vanity (as in music bands). -Renata3 16:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Brithenig is highly notable, in fact it was the first of its kind. Ishwar, have you listed every conlang on wikipedia for deletion? Whence the sudden zeal? Dewrad 16:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

hi. no, i havent listed every conlang for deletion. i have only listed a few that user Assdl brought to my attention. my covert question here is: What constraints are there for the inclusion of conlangs in an encyclopedia?. thats it. i just put these up to let the community decide about this. peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:23, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

This in my view is uncomfortably close to the behaviour of GRider in the schools deletion debate . . . Ask the question explicitly, rather than covertly. Hopefully these votes will build consensus rather than provoke antagonism, which was what happened with GRider. Slac speak up! 21:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

i dont know what you are referring to (you could explain on my talk page if you have time). i dont mean to provoke antagonism. peace – ishwar  (speak) 22:02, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

• Delete. First off, I find this very interesting, privately. However, the article itself admits that this "language" is nothing but a "thought experiment" conducted as a "hobby". We must draw a line somewhere, and I think that private thought experiments that have not gained any wider currency should not be included in Wikipedia. --Thorsten1 17:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that if someone would like information on a conlang, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to start. -Firespeaker 18:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - fairly notable as conlangs go, especially with with having spawned Ill Bethisad. -- pne 19:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Heresiarch, you are making me very angry! Where did you get the godforsaken arrogance to state these things? I have been in contact with Andrew Smith at numerous occasions, and I can testify that he is an extraordinarily gentle and modest person. I hate to see him accused of "vanity" by someone who obviously doesn't know him, doesn't know his creations and doesn't know anything about conlangs in general. For the record, he did not create the article himself, nor did he contribute anything to it. Likewise, your accusation that this is an "advert" is ridiculous! I've nothing against a little healthy polemising, but ad hominem attacks like this one, so deeply under the belt, are really out of line. By all means be ashamed of yourself! --IJzeren Jan 22:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I see your comments are all about personalities -- yours, mine, and the gentle and modest Andrew Smith. Feel free to come up with some arguments for preserving this article. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • And so are yours! Why otherwise would you be counting the edits of everybody who votes "keep" and complain about the fact that someone made a note of these VfDs at ZBB? What counts is that people are wikipedia users. There's nothing wrong with notifying other wikipedians that a VfD has been made in a field of their interest. Since you are so interested in the personal background of the voters, consider this (from Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion): You don't have to vote on every nomination; even consider not participating if: a nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant; [...]. For the record, I have no problem with the status quo. It's you who want to delete these articles, so if anybody were supposed to come up with good arguments its you! Frankly, I haven't seen any yet. All you could come up with is: non-notability (not a real criterium anyway, see here); vanity; and advertising (both evidently are complete nonsense). I must say, in related discussions in other wikis I've heard much better arguments! Now I'd love to give you a whole list of arguments in favour of all those articles that are currently under attack, but I wonder if it wouldn't be worth the effort to have all these discussions in one place. So for now I'll limit myself to this: language construction is a serious, full-fledged artform, and most of the languages that have attracted your wrath are excellent, important and representative examples of this artform. Therefore, their lemmata are warranted. For the record, I'm nót proposing that every conlang have its own entry in the wikipedia. --IJzeren Jan 07:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this one's just over the bar of notability for me. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without any irony whatsoever, I'd be interested to learn what your criteria to measure the notability of fictional languages are. What is it that sets Brithenig apart from Wenedyk, where you voted delete, IIRC? --Thorsten1 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC) actually from earlier this morning, forgot to sign
    • I think it was the fact that "Brithenig is respected among the conlang community, being the best-known example of the altlang genre. It is the first known conlang to extrapolate a real Earth language through an alternate evolution, and as such can be considered the grandfather of the genre." (emphasis mine) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep How many conlangs are widely known anyway? --malathion ^talk 21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's sooo tiring: every once in a while someone pops up who claims that all conlangs are non-notable and who want to limit the pages about it to Esperanto, Ido and Interlingua. Why can't those people accept that language construction is a form of art like any other? That the audience is smaller doesn't make it insignificant IMO. Now I agree that it is important to distinguish between notable and non-notable conlangs. But being a conlanger myself and knowing my way in conlangland, I assure you guys that Brithenig is an extremely notable language: it has been an immense source of inspiration for many other conlangs, it is the first known and most notable language of its kind (the "altlang" genre). It's a true masterpiece! --IJzeren Jan 22:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. ...someone pops up who claims that all conlangs are non-notable and who want to limit the pages about it to Esperanto, Ido and Interlingua: Sorry Jan, but I think there is a huge distance between languages seriously designed for real-life international communication, and languages that form part of some work of fiction someone pursues as a hobby without any evident audience. "Klingon" or Tolkien's invented languages are special cases as they have established a huge audience. Further, see mine and others' comments on Wenedyk's VfD. No offence, --Thorsten1 10:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • There ís such a distinction, Thorsten. Brithenig and other artlangs have not been created with the purpose of building up a community of speakers. So, you can't judge them by that criterium. That's my entire point here! As for the hobby element: yes, that is at least an argument. But if you ask me, virtually every form of art starts out as a hobby and in many cases never ceases to be one. Admittedly, the audience for artistic languages is a rather small one. But that conlanging is not the kind of artform people make a lot of money with does IMO not render it insignificant. --IJzeren Jan 11:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • NB if you insist on using the number of speakers as a criterium, we might as well delete at least two third of the auxlangs listed in International auxiliary language#Auxiliary languages. In fact, their case is even worse since they serve no other purpose than being used by "the world", while in reality they never gathered a community with more than a neglectable number of speakers. --IJzeren Jan 11:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Jan, I do not at all insist on the number of speakers, but I do agree that a significant proportion of auxiliary languages on Wikipedia probably are, at best, of borderline interest to anybody but their creators or smallish fan communities. But as I tried to explain on Wenedyk's parallel VfD, two wrongs don't make a right, and neither do two thirds of wrongs. "every form of art starts out as a hobby and in many cases never ceases to be one" - that is true enough. But for me, the decisive question is not what something starts out as, but what it ends up as - and Brithenig has yet to transcend the status of a private hobby, at least I see no evidence that it has already accomplished that. Once it has, I'll be glad to renegotiate my vote. To use a Dutch example, had Van Gogh not posthumously received the recognition he was denied during his lifetime, we would rather not have immortalised him here, either, even if the paintings were the same. "conlanging is not the kind of artform people make a lot of money with does IMO not render it insignificant". Not by itself, no. But, like it or not, the way our society is structured, making a lot of money with something usually proves that it is of significance. Of course, if something isn't making lots of money, this does not mean (yet) it is insignificant by definiton. But then there have to be other, objective signals to indicate significance. Even though I might subjectively agree with your opinion, I still fail to see what the objective indications might be in this case. --Thorsten1 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I'd disagree that Brithenig hasn't transcended the status of a private hobby. It did, after all, spawn a highly active community developing the world around it (Disclosure: I participate in Ill Bethisad, and handle Ireland and a few other small sections). It's also notable amongst conlangs as one of the prototypical examples of the altlang genre. While there's few reasons I'd add an article on a conlang to the wiki, Brithenig and Verdurian are, because of their influence upon the art and their completeness, some of those I'd deem notable enough to keep. (And Wile E., don't post up the number of edits I've made. If anybody's interested, they can find them out for themselves. It's childish and demeaning to your fellow Wikipedians. Quality of edits is far more important than quantity. The same goes for anybody on either side of the argument doing this.) --Kgaughan 16:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per CONLANG, no points of notability (#105 in Langmaker is closest to notable). Almafeta 01:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Brithenig has a code in ISO 639-3 (namely, bzt) which apparently means (according to their conlang inclusion criteria) that "The language has a literature" and "The language is designed for the purpose of human communication". —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whoever decides such things, this only proves they can make mistakes (at best) or simply cannot be trusted to tell truth from fiction (at worst).--Thorsten1 10:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Possible. But our job here is to describe things that are, not things as they ought to be. --IJzeren Jan 11:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • ...and neither things as they could have been had the Romans invaded Poland or stayed in Britain for longer. :-P. --Thorsten1 13:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  (comment - the latter criterion, of course, wouldn't serve to keep it; my main argument was the inclusion in ISO 639-3, but I got sidetracked. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 03:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC))

• Strong Keep. Per Muke Tever -- ISO codes prolly should be in CONLANG. And speaking of, heya, Muke, long time no see! Almafeta 04:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak DeleteNo indication of having, now or ever, been a vernacular for any sized group of people. No pop culture notability, as per Klingon. No academic notability, as due to the fact that I couldn't find a reference to it after searching over a half dozen scholarly journals' online editions. I suppose one could say that the fact it seems to have spawned some other conlangs nobody seems to speak and nobody who studies languages cares about could be called notability, but the first lemming off the cliff isn't encyclopedic either. The Literate Engineer 06:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• (very) Weak keep. Brithenig just creeps in over the line of notability to me (as a conlanger). It's spawned a lot of copycats as well as Ill Bethisad and members of the conlanging community generally know about it. Nothing less notable than Brithenig should be included, though, which is why I voted delete on Venedic and Breathenach. Felix the Cassowary 14:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas

Comment: User has five contributions, all of them VfD votes: [21] Slac speak up! 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC).

Response: So what? I was invited to "speak up", so I am speaking up. Elemtilas

• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
• Keep Personally, I don't understand why "notable" should even be a criterion. I can understand the "vanity" thing, but there are a lot of obscure topics in Wikipedia, and that's a good thing, IMO. Nik42 21:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as with other votes above, just over the bar of notability. Nominating multiple articles for VfD is not as productive a way to build consensus on notability as some others. . . Slac speak up! 21:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No hits in Proquest Research Library. No hits in Google Scholar. Compare: Interlingua, 12 hits in Proquest Research Library, 2400 hits in Google Scholar; Solresol, no hits in Proquest Research Library, 9 hits in Google Scholar Dpbsmith (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: and how many does Krypto get? How about Sonic the Hedgehog? Google Scholar and Proquest are not standards that you can compare the entire Wikipedia to.--Prosfilaes 21:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If a few artistic languages deserve to be in Wikipedia, Brithenig and Verdurian should be in. Chlewey 01:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can easily be combined with the Ill Bethisad page, if it's that important a part of IB; otherwise, it need not be mentioned. (Since Ill Bethisad is one of the larger collaborative conworlds, it certainly deserves mention.) However, the language's significance predicates on Ill Bethisad's significance, so it should only be mentioned as part of Ill Bethisad and in that article. (Compare The Scream, which is a significant work apart from its artist.) Dhasenan 03:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In that small, perhaps rather sad, section of the world that whiles its days away making up imaginary languages, this is one of the better-known examples of the art. Of course, that doesn't make it of note to the luminaries who spend their time so much more valuably here but if you cannot find it in Wikipedia, where can you find it? Grace Note 05:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Brithenig is a highly regarded creation in the Conlanging community - in fact, it's a conlang which has insipred other conlangers. It's one of the great works of the art.
• Keep. Brithenig is not just any old conlang! BenctPhilipJonsson 19:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not an absolutist about keeping every possible piece of knowledge on Wikipedia, but in this instance it is not clear to me how to make an objective decision about which conlangs to include and which to exclude. I mean, just look at the following three things I discovered with the randomizing function: Rohtas Fort, King of Arms, and Wellsville, Ohio (population: 4,133). Should every fort in Pakistan, every member of the hierarchy of heralds, or every city in Ohio, no matter how small, have an entry? Well, maybe. The decision is ultimately about counts as important, and nobody can predetermine what will count as important before it actually becomes so. Brithenig is a small conlang, but one developed by a number of people, and has drawn some attention in the online conlanging community; it is equivalent to a town slightly more important than Wellsville, Ohio. But Wellsville has an entry. Why not Brithenig? Incidentally, I find the argument that conlangs are ipso facto unworthy of an entry, as ishwar does, a little bizarre. Does Super Mario Brothers deserve an entry? Surely that's considerably more fatuous than conlanging (8P), but Wikipedia has devoted it a whole set of pages just to the characters in that series. (unsigned contribution by Trwier)
• Keep. The article provides valuable information about a well-known artistic language. arj 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Being a conlang is not enough reason to delete the article. This gets 9,350 hits on google, and 4,150 if i include the word language. Please consider growing up. --Phroziac (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While I am impressed that people out there can actually do stuff like this, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Indrian 20:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • For a print encyclopedia, perhaps... Almafeta 03:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After reading through the deletion policy in its entirety, it seems clear that this article has a place here. SamuelRiv 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Brithenig a notable example of the science of applied linguistics. The applicability to theoretical anthropology also makes it important. I agree that anything less notable shouldn't be included in Wiki, however. Tygertyger 17:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the best-known and most influential artlangs, with many people involved besides the creator. --Jim Henry | Talk 03:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs? Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point. Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy? --Jim Henry | Talk 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

An excellent idea, and a far better solution than shooting at random. I agree that Almafeta's page provides a good starting point for a discussion, even though I don't agree with it on every point. Where should such a discussion take place? Well, definitely not here! I'd say that either User:Almafeta/Conlang, or Talk:Constructed language. --IJzeren Jan 06:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know Talk:Constructed language is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As others have mentioned before, Brithenig is notable for being the first known conlang of its kind (an altlang). - irisheye 23:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Its seminal status puts it just over the bar for me. Hv 11:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Tally: Keep: Dewrad, Assdl, Elemtilas, Grace Note, IJzeren Jan, BenctPhilipJonsson, Phroziac, SamuelRiv. Delete: Ish ishwar, Harmil, Mikkalai, Palmiro, Wile E. Heresiarch, Angr, Cassowary, Almafeta, Mustafaa, Trilobite, JamesBurns, Indrian. Not counting users with fewer than 100 edits, there are 3 keep and 12 delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

DiLingo

• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - User:ish_ishwar 09:52, 2005 July 23
• Keep. This article is about a fairly notable conlang. I believe that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (although it could do with a lot of work) Dewrad 16:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable language, created as an admitted joke. -Harmil 17:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Joke languages, in and of themselves, are not necessarially nonnotable; see Europanto. Almafeta 05:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable, vanity. Palmiro 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: joke, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Felix the Cassowary 01:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable per CONLANG. Almafeta 01:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I feel a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic conlangs. Assdl 14:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
• Keep. Harmless. See others for more or less reasoning, depending on how reasonable you think it is. Grace Note 05:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, nonvanity. DiLingo is the representative of the humorous conlang type. For the rest: couldn't agree more with the previous speaker. --IJzeren Jan 06:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. Only 650 ghits for an Internet-based project! - Mustafaa 11:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable conlang. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.BenctPhilipJonsson 19:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn conlang. JamesBurns 04:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Border line notable. 437 google hits for "dilinguo language". Being a conlang does not immediately make everything unnotable. --Phroziac (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet the high bar of notability required for a conlang. Indrian 20:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After reading through the deletion policy in its entirety, it seems clear that this article has a place here. SamuelRiv 17:24, 27 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Logan durgen

Vanity/promotional; this guy has the smallest part in a non-notable movie, and the movie's site has an Alexa ranking of 1,422,614. Delete. Joel7687 15:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete - IMDb does not have him or the movie. Renata3 16:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete mix of non-notable vanity and nonsense. -Harmil 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Silly, non notable vanity page. Balster neb 18:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and make sure all those images got VfD'ed too. --malathion ^talk 21:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense vanity. JamesBurns 04:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Verdurian language

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Verdurian language
• Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (3rd nomination)

Verdurian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – ishwar  (speak) 15:59, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

• Wholehearted keep. Verdurian is one of the most develloped online conlang. It should also be pointed out that both Mark Rosenfelder [22] and zompist.com [23] have survived VFD. Circeus 16:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • hi. i am not suggesting that the articles, Mark Rosenfelder or zompist.com, be deleted here. peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:45, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
    • A point raised here though is what distinguishes the article on the Verdurian language from those other two, other than it concerns a conlang? Personally, given that the language is the most widely-reported feature of the Zompist.com website, this entry should take precedence over both Mark Rosenfelder and Zompist.com. Slac speak up! 23:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey Circeus, calling in your pals from the zompist.com bboard [24] is less than cool. I'm sure they're great folks, but if they are hanging out there, they don't have an interest in Wikipedia and they do have an interest in promoting conlangs. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? "Hanging Out" in one forum or another precludes an interest in Wikipedia? While I may only have been editing for a short time, I have certainly had a far longer acquaintance with and admiration for Wikipedia than the ZBB- whenever I want brief information on something I search Wikipedia first, not Google. And I would hardly refer to Circeus's stance as a "soapbox". Dewrad 00:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • So what's the word for using Wikipedia as the vehicle for the promotion of some concept, if not "soapbox" ?? Of course participating in one forum or another does not preclude participation in Wikipedia -- Circeus apparently participates in both -- the point is that you only need advertise elsewhere to get someone's attention when you know you won't find them here. For example, Warmaster, Curlyjimsam, and Dewrad. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • As we're all registered users, I think it's not fair to say that you "wouldn't find us here". And what's wrong with letting us know about a VfD going on? Were, say, Star Trek up for deletion, I'm sure word would get around Star Trek forums fairly quickly. Dewrad 00:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • So you've noticed that any special interest group can game the VFD system. This is a bug, not a feature. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
            • Since you seem to be so interested in the personal background of the people who vote here, I just noticed a few things: that the person who submitted this VfD has been pretty active gathering no-voters himself; and that your own favourite passtime seems to be reverting and deleting other people's work much rather than contributing anything substantial yourself. I haven't found the faintest suggestion that you are knowledgeable about constructed languages at all! --IJzeren Jan
              • hi. perhaps the above is a little misleading. i notified two users. one user is a linguist whose name i had seen on the deletion pages often concerning conlangs - so i invited him to vote. he has not voted delete on all candidates. the other invitee was invited because i saw this user's name on the page history where this user had previously put a VfD but then recanted with the note "too much trouble". so invited the user to participate if he was interested now. i only invited her/him to vote for this one article. i am not trying to rally support for a certain outcome. i really leave that to all of you. thank you. – ishwar  (speak) 15:51, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
                • • Correction - i have made many edits to Wikipedia thank you very much, mostly about my city and different Anime pages, but it still stands. i personally think this article should stay, and saying that 'i was dragged from the board' is a blatant lie. Warmaster

• Most certainly keep This language is far more extensive than either of Tolkien's, and i cannot think of a better 'intro' to conlanging myself than this language due to the fact the author is still adding stuff to it! Warmaster 17:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - see no harm. Why does somebody hate conslags (learned this term 5 mins ago) so much? Renata3 16:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

hi. i dont hate conlangs (or conslags - what is this?). i have no opinion except that i wish that more conlangers would be interested in learning more about endangered minority languages and make word lists of those (it would probably be beneficial). but, creating an artificial language is probably a nice, fun pastime for many people. i encourage people to enjoy life. peace – ishwar  (speak) 19:55, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

• • One would think someone who had "no opinion" about conlangs would be indifferent as to whether or not they were there, not actively propose to delete them.

Ishwar: what does that have to do with anything? It's not as if conlanging is destroying minority languages! And for the record, I know many conlangers who are learning several different languages, not all of which are the major European ones. Most conlangers aren't mindless hobbyists, but educated people enjoying language and experimenting with it-- just like many poets and writers do. In any case, I think any activity that increases interest in language and languages is well worth it, and since conlanging is of growing interest to many, I believe that they should be included in the Wikipedia. Also, I happen to agree with the person above me-- if you are indifferent, why are you actively fighting for the deletion of so many conlangs? Irisheye 17:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

hi. it doesnt have anything to do anything. i was responding to user Renate3's speculation about my feelings involving conlangs. i see no need for speculation when i can just write it here. i didnt say that conlanging was destroying minority languages. their loss is part of a very large & complex interaction between political dominant cultures and smaller local cultures. i did not mean to suggest that conlangers are learning or not learning any language of particular geographic region, or mindless and/or uneducated, or dissimilar from poets or writers. (i also dont think that uneducated people are mindless either.) and i dont think that hobbies are mindless. information about conlanging and specific conlangs is included in Wikipedia. the reason why i acted as i did is stated at the top of this page, namely the inclusion of inappropriate material in this encyclopedia. although i am indifferent to the creation of conlangs or their creators, i am not indifferent to the editorial decisions of Wikipedia authors. additionally, i disagree with your fight metaphor: i am not looking for a fight but rather an election which is what i understand this to be. i hope this addresses your concerns. peace – ishwar  (speak) 18:29, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ishwar, but for someone who issues a whole series of VfDs in a row, I find your argumentation pretty weak! You were just "responding to someone's speculation about your feelings involving conlangs"? Now come on! If I ask you about your feelings regarding Star Wars, are you going to do the same in that field too? The only legitimate reason for issuing a VfD (not just voting in it, but starting it, mind) is that you strongly feel an article múst be deleted, and you must have some pretty good reasons for that. As I can see in this case, you were just shooting at random. You mention something about editorial decisions of Wikipedia authors? Sorry, but I don't buy that! There are thousands of articles of far worse quality than the conlang articles in question. You must have had a reason for picking this field. Besides, you picked your conlangs pretty badly: there are conlang articles here that should have been deleted long ago (for example the article about Nalona, an insignificant conlang with no web presence at all: just one sentence and two broken links). Strange you didn't pick those. --IJzeren Jan 19:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

perhaps i was unclear. the response i was referring to above is my response to Renata3 @ 19:55. i was not referring to my deletion voting action & comment @ 15:59. i guess my referent was not that clear.

i felt strongly enough & i gave my reason as mentioned directly above & at the top of the page. i was not shooting at random as i have stated on other vfd pages. my choice of conlangs was in a couple of lists of user Assdl (again this i have written on other pages). if the choice of conlangs is pretty bad, it is only because Assdl's lists did not contain the conlangs you would have liked for me to act on. the reason for picking this field is because Assdl added a list of numbers from his conlang into the Numbers in various languages article. a short exchange between me & User:Mikkalai led to my vfd actions. it is not so strange, i think: i just looked at what someone put before me.

i did mention editorial decisions of authors, yes. this was & is my concern & that is what i wrote. i dont know why you question/disbelieve, but if you do, i guess i simply have no response to that. i am not trying to sell anything, so, no, you need not buy.

yes, there are thousands of articles that entered Wikipedia without any kind of editorial policy used to determine their inclusion. again, my concern here is not of the quality of an article, but rather of its appropriate inclusion. i think that my contribution to this project will be more valuable in the coverage of languages & linguistics (since not so many people seem to be interested in this) rather than in the form of regulating content. i get the impression that there are people who enjoy regulating content, voting for deletion, etc. in short, my time is better spent doing research and not decision making. this is the reason why i have not considered the coverage of Star Wars and other fields.

i didnt know my reasons for action would be so interesting to so many. peace – ishwar  (speak) 23:28, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

In fact, you were indeed a little unclear, but that's clarified now. Nobody is attacking you personally, and nobody is accusing you of dishonesty. That's not the point. The reason some people are a little touchy about these things is that there are a lot of people who carry some personal grudge against conlanging and conlangers, God knows why (remember why Tolkien spoke about "the Secret Vice"), and a VfD like this one is enough to trigger them. If some of us overreacted a bit, it's because we are tired of those unfounded attacks. If you issue a VfD just because someone shows you a few links and you have a hunch that they might be unnotable, that's a little thin for a motivation, if you ask me. But I must give you this: you díd succeed in provoking a discussion, and without your VfDs the current discussion on Wikipedia:Conlangs about the criteria for objectively establishing the notability of a conlang probably wouldn't have taken place. --IJzeren Jan 08:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - If you delete this article, please proceed and remove all the constructed languages that appear in this list. If you delete this one, but keep the others, it'll be unfair. I think this kind of articles is worth enough, and they hurt no one. Thanks. Assdl 16:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "There are other articles that should be deleted" isn't an argument for keeping this one. User has less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • And why is his argument (note: not the one you "quoted" - re-read his post) not? If the argument for deletion is "it is a conlang", and the vote passed as "delete", then all conlangs should be put up at VFD. If it was something like "I hate the Verdurian language and I don't want it here", then it would be a different thing. /Tehvata 17:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (Special:Contributions/[email protected])
• Keep Hardly non-notable, among the conlanging community. Dewrad 16:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly one of the most detailed conlangs around, and if the other pages related to Mr. Rosenfelder have survived, I can't see any precedence for getting rid of this one. Curlyjimsam 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has made less than 100 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a low number of hits on Google, but for an obscure topic, it's actually more than I would expect. Language has its own Perl Lingua module, and seems to be discussed in the conlang community a fair amount. Article is POV, and should be cleaned up, though. -Harmil 17:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Verdurian is a very notable conlangs, and quite well-known in the conlang community. The rex 18:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has made 53 edits (counting sandbox edits) at present. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable as conlangs go, partly because it is (IMO) very well-developed, not only in vocabulary. -- pne 19:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

notability is a function of well-developedness? hmm, i would not have thought so. – ishwar  (speak) 19:47, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

With respect, yes it is. A comprehensively developed conlang with learning materials etc. online is more notable than one that is not (though a legitimate discussion can take place on where exactly the boundary can be set, the point to recognise is that this particular conlang is more notable than some others). Slac speak up! 23:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In conlangs, yes it is. You can whip up a grammar and a few hundred words of vocabulary at the rate of about one language per day if you're talented, especially if you just transform Esperanto, Interlingua (like my own Idido and Faux Romantique, respectively), or some natlang; Verdurian is notable because, instead of these quickly whipped-up conlangs, it has a full and naturalistic grammer and vocabulary, which evolved from a previous mother language, which itself evolved from a 'proto-language', including sound changes over time and borrowings from distantly related languages. In conlang terms, this is the difference between a band like Savage Garden and a band like ToxicMercury (although neither can touch the Britteny Spears of Esperanto). Almafeta 02:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet another personal project looking for advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Elite in the conlang community; and what publicity would it be looking for here? krinnen 19:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit.
• Merge with Mark Rosenfelder. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notability is not a standard for this kind of thing. --malathion ^talk 21:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not very notable, but just about passes. - Mustafaa 21:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As I indicated on the article's talk page, I think there are arguments for both sides and I'm not too fussed either way. Unfortunately, however, Ishwar hasn't put out anything in the way of notability criteria as applies to conlangs (something that would be useful, imho). I respectfully disagree with Wile's assesment that this is a "personal project looking for advertising". As far as I'm aware, Rosenfelder himself hasn't had anything to do with the article. While honestly I'm annoyed at Circeus' response to immediately run to the bulletin board, the points raised by some of the members posted here do have validity. Slac speak up! 23:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I though it was worthy of mention there. I think I did mention the previous vfd for MArk there too. Circeus 00:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Users may be interested in the VFD regarding the Talossan language some time back.
  • Other case in point: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Toki Pona. Frankly, wouldn't it be possible to settle the issue once and for all, so that we won't need to go through the same discussion over and over again? --IJzeren Jan 11:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable per CONLANG (been mistaken for a real language, 50 speakers, top 100 most popular conlangs). Almafeta 01:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable conlang pollution. (unsigned vote by Nandesuka)
• Paper-Thin Margin Of Keep Looks like it managed to infect enough speakers to qualify as an actual language and not just the vanity/original research/unverifiable blithering of a crack-smoking parrot I expected it to be and kind of wish it were. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. --IJzeren Jan 07:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Concerning this vote, the trollish gaming of the VfD system by some Verdurian-supporters is regrettable... but then so is the trollish posting of notable content on VfD. -- Visviva 12:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I feel a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic conlangs. Assdl 15:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
  • Comment: User has 5 contributions, all of them VfD votes - [25] Slac speak up! 21:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: So what? Elemtilas
• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages. Elemtilas
• Keep: Notable language. And perhaps we can get some WikiLove around here, instead of describing things as the "unverifiable blithering of a crack-smoking parrot"?--Prosfilaes 22:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If a few artistic languages deserve to be in Wikipedia, Brithenig and Verdurian should be in. Chlewey 01:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another pointless vendetta, whose aim is to diminish the coverage of Wikipedia rather than actually improve it. Sad. Grace Note 05:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Diminished coverage, in many cases, is improved coverage. The Literate Engineer 14:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: And war is peace and freedom slavery. --Prosfilaes 20:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Oh come on, Verdurian is one of the biggest conlangs. I think it's complexity is similar to Tolkien's Elvish. Just look at the long big fat notes just about the language! (unsigned by User:201.133.187.62)

• Keep. If the author is worthy of inclusion, the author's well-known works are. (Of course that doesn't mean it needs its own article; I would also support a merge with Mark Rosenfelder.) —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 01:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The original reason for deletion is because it was a 'conlang'. This isn't a valid reason for deletion. Also, it is one of the most popular amateur conlangs, and is very well-known through out the constructed language community. I would also support a Merge with Mark Rosenfelder if it came down to that. Antley 03:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 04:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you have cite for that? There is no evidence that of the dozen people who edited the Verdurian language article, that any of them are Mark Rosenfelder. --Prosfilaes 06:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It's obvious: people like this simply go on autopilot with this kind of arguments once they encounter something they are ignorant about and therefore dislike. In another VfD I got angry about a similar unwarranted accusation at the address of Andrew Smith. By now I've understood that it's simply background music here. In all honesty: the atmosphere in the Dutch wiki is a hell of a lot nicer, folks! --IJzeren Jan 07:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe you should stick to the Dutch wiki then instead of making aspersions on the voters motives. JamesBurns 06:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • What are your reasons for calling it "self promotion"? You still haven't answered that question.--Prosfilaes 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Indeed. "Self promotion" is an insult both to Mark Rosenfelder and to the person who wrote the article. Instead of making wild assertions regarding their motives and blindly voting "delete", you should at least read the article and take a look at the list of people who worked on it before doing so. --IJzeren Jan 21:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a conlanger. Ishwar, what have conlangs done to you that justify you going on a vendetta against all articles about them? I don't see a good reason for not having someone go to all conlang VFDs and voting keep if you basically did the same thing with the same VFD reason for most conlang articles out there. I'll agree that not all conlangs need an article (mine most certainly doesn't), but Mark Rosenfelder is a big name on the online conlang scene, as is Almea and Verdurian, his most developed conlang. Also, I question whoever said that conlangs are "a goofy way to spend your life" about the "goofiness" of knowing so much about a videogame. Cctoide 15:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • hi Cctoide. i am not a conlanger, but i am a langer (& also a linger). conlangs have not done anything harmful to me, i dont think. i do not have a vendetta against articles about every conlang, but i do question the inclusion of the articles that i have acted on. the main source of my actions here is results from a conlanger's question about the inclusion of certain conlangs. the articles that i have acted upon are those that appear in this conlanger's list. i additionally, voted on another conlang because i happened to see it in that day's viewing of the deletion pages. i have not acted on any other conlangs and i dont anticipate any further action (because i want to work on Wikipedia's documentation of American languages). i see a good reason for not acting as you suggest: i carefully considered each article and acted accordingly, i (gently) encourage us all to do the same. if my evaluation of the article is uninformed and in bad perspective, hopefully this will be remedied by wiser voters. i also wish that "goofy"-ness was not mentioned as this could perhaps be viewed as negative by some readers. peace – ishwar  (speak) 00:09, 2005 July 27 (UTC)

• Keep -- Verdurian is a big name in the conlang scene. I don't buy the whole not notable thing, as long as it's reasonably notable, and verifiable, it's notable enough for wikipedia. --Phroziac (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Besides the official site, there seem to be several fan sites by people other than Mr. Rosenfelder, so it's clearly not a one-man/vanity project. It's fairly well-known and influential as a thoroughly-developed conlang. If it really has 50 speakers, it's certainly notable, and I would argue that, as a naturalistic artlang (not designed for easiness like an auxlang), it probably would be notable enough with considerably fewer fluent speakers than that. --Jim Henry | Talk 03:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs? Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point. Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy? --Jim Henry | Talk 04:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, you find out how to start such a policy discussion, you find an impartial admin who would be willing to administrate the discussion and the resultant voting, and I'd support it. You could use my suggested criteria as a starting point. Almafeta 05:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan suggested starting the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy your conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I conlang myself, and I generally feel that only clearly notable conlangs should be included on Wikipedia (the trouble, of course, is how one definres "clearly notable"). In any event, Verdurian is certainly one of the most famous languages in the conlang community. Keep. I was at one time a member of the ZBB, by the way, although I've gradually stopped posting there; but as I've been on Wikipedia for months I don't think this fact should be particularly relevant, but just so I'm not hiding anything, there it is. --Whimemsz 08:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Wa hey, this vote hasn't been closed yet, almost two weeks later. Is an admin going to close it, or is a certain someone waiting for an influx of delete votes so he can delete the article based on the 'obvious concensus'? Almafeta 09:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The vote was 16 for keep and 14 for delete. Woohookitty 02:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wenedyk

• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

  Unsigned comment by Ish ishwar (talk · contribs) at 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC) – ABCD✉ 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  Could Ish Ishwar please make it clear what the criteria of notability are? --IJzeren Jan 22:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

hi. i dont have any criteria and i dont see criteria proposed anywhere else. as i understand this, one person initiates a vote for an article and others simply vote delete or keep. because there is no criteria, i am asking the interested to think about such things. my question is: What constraints are there for the inclusion of conlangs in an encyclopedia?. a related question is: Are all conlangs eligible in for inclusion?.

so, my answer is a question. whatever answer there may be will a community-based answer. peace – ishwar  (speak) 01:25, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

With all due respect, but you use two arguments in your VfD. First that the article is about a conlang (as if that proves its irrelevance), and secondly, that you believe it is not notable. And now you don't seem to have any idea about what could make a language notable. Personally I'd only issue a VfD when I am véry seriously convinced that there is no place for a lemma in the wiki, not merely because I have some hunch. But anyway, I do not think all conlangs are eligible for inclusion, and yes, I've voted "delete" at multiple occasions. I believe IALs can be judged by their success (number of actual users, now or in the past), while artlangs by the acclaim or appreciation they receive. --IJzeren Jan 18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

the first sentence is not an argument, but an indication of the content of the article.

i believed then and i believe now that the article is not notable. i have a hunch and i seriously believe that this is so.

my idea of what is notable is primarily based on my expectations of the content of similar encyclopedic materal. if there was an article on Wenedyk in some similar encyclopedia-type book/media, i would feel that the editors were not making wise editorial decisions. – ishwar  (speak) 20:09, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

• Delete. According to the article, the language in question was created by fellow Wikipedian User:IJzeren_Jan as a pastime. As interesting as I find his speculations, this is certainly not an eligible topic for a serious encyclopedia. All private fictional (corrected, Thorsten1 18:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)) constructed languages in Category:Artistic_languages, except those that feature in well-known works of fiction and have developed a cult following (Klingon language) or are otherwise notable (Newspeak), should also be deleted. --Thorsten1 16:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If you delete this article, please proceed and remove all the constructed languages that appear in this list. If you delete this one, but keep the others, it'll be unfair. I think this kind of articles is worth enough, and they hurt no one. Thanks. Assdl 16:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  I glanced at that list. The very first item on the list was advocated as an international language by Winston Churchill in a speach at Harvard. Are you seriously comparing Wenedyk to Basic English? Now, I'm all for removing non-notable languages on that list, but let's not get silly here. -Harmil 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  Assdl (talk · contribs) has 25 edits – ABCD✉ 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  This is because I usually write in the Spanish Wikipedia. Quality is more important than Quantity. I do feel offended about ABCD's comments and a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic languages. Assdl 15:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  "There are a lot of useless conlang articles" isn't an argument for keeping this one. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - see no harm. Renata3 16:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Renata, I'm sorry - the "no harm" argument is cropping up again and again, but IMHO it's totally wrong. I suggest to redefine the criterion under which articles are kept or deleted, from "harm" to "use". In other words, rather than keeping everything unless it's explicitly proven to be harmful, let's simply delete everything that is of no apparent use. --Thorsten1 18:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite frankly, information of "no apparent use" is what constitutes about half of all the space in any encyclopedia. Elemtilas
• Delete - non notable constructed language -Harmil 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as far as I know User:IJzeren_Jan did not create the article himself. In addition, it's not the least notable of conlangs out there Dewrad 16:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

  No, I didn't. IJzeren Jan 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  Dewrad, neither of the points that you cite are under contention. Other low-notability conlangs are certainly worthy of deletion too. -Harmil 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  Dewrad (talk · contribs) has 48 edits – ABCD✉ 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well noted. I would ask how this is relevant in the current context as I assume that you did not spring Athena-like from Zeus' forehead with 200+ edits. My relative quietness does not invalidate my opinion, no make it of any less worth than another's. Dewrad 00:03, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I think that if someone would like information on a conlang, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to start. -Firespeaker 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a good starting point at Artistic language. Elemtilas
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What an utterly pointless way of dealing with people who do not vote the way you'd like them too. What does the amount of edits matter? Apparently Firespeaker ís a registered wikipedia user and contributor who knows something about the subject. Personally I'd rather trust somebody on his specialism(s) than on his number of edits. --IJzeren Jan 23:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made more than fifty edits before creating an account; so have others. Accusing people of being inexperienced is pointless; it's against the principles of Wikipedia. dhasenan 14:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Observation Though it may not be the case here, my understanding is that when an edit count is noted in VFD, it's often as an implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. The Literate Engineer 19:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, and this is the case in Spanish wikipedia where I am more active, a minimun of proven contributions is required in order to be elegible to vote (and the vote to be counted). This should rule out sockpuppetry or, as I see here, calling for votes outside regular wikipedia community. Personally I thing other criteria should be used... when I see these VdD I had 38 edits using my registred user in English wikipedia... however I would have near 50 with unregistered editions including a few before March (when I registered), and I am much more active in w:es:. It was anyhow too easy to get the 50 edits before I voted... and I do not mean idle edits but edits intended to improve Wikipedia. — Carlos Th (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me clear this up. WP:GVFD says that it is "sufficient" to mark the edits of very new users accordingly, rather than to accuse them of sockpuppetry, so that allegation is not being made. It is a common practise in VfD and other places so to mark new user's votes/comments; it just makes the closing admin's life a bit easier. However, I personally would not usually mark someone with 50 edits; I reserve that for a handful of edits with a clear agenda. Just because your vote may have been marked does not mean it will be discounted. That is for the closing admin to judge. Generally speaking however, if a new (or fairly new) user comes along to a VfD and clearly pushes an agenda, their vote will be discounted. I'm not making any judgement of whether that is happening here, just clarifying usual procedure. -Splash 22:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - notability not established. mikka (t) 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - at least semi-notable as conlangs go. -- pne 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it seems at least semi-notable, especially given the number of cross-language links to other Wikipedias. --Prosfilaes 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not a standard here --malathion ^talk 21:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What is a basis here? -Splash 23:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. - Mustafaa 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For the record, I am the creator of this language, and I have no claims regarding its notability. Therefore, I feel pretty much like abstaining in this discussion, and it feels rather odd to vote in favour of keeping it after all. I am doing so not because I want to defend my creation, but because this seems to be a rather massive attack on constructed languages (especially those created for artistic purposes) in general. --IJzeren Jan 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is an attack on a neglected area. Precisely because of their nonnotability they were hanging around for quite some time. And as a wikipedia editor you should know better not to vote in the way you did: not by the article merit, but by judging someone's intentions. mikka (t) 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am fully prepared to discuss the notability issue with you and with anybody else. Sorry for my reaction. I'm a bit tired of these discussions, since the same thing is currently going on in the German wiki. We've had it on the Dutch wikipedia too (for the record, it easily survived the VfD there). It's not my intention to advert myself or my creation, but I stand up in defence of all conlangs that I and well-informed others consider notable. Including my own. --IJzeren Jan 23:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • • Comment. Jan, as I said above, personally I think your idea is interesting and intellectually intriguing for anyone interested in Indoeuropean languages and history, I really admire the effort you put into this, and the last thing I want is to offend you. However, if you are honest with yourself, you will have to agree that this is essentially a private hobby of yours and very few others, with no relevance to the "real world". I assume that the number of people who learned about Wenedyk from Wikipedia in the first place (like me) is infinitely higher than the number of people who have heard about it somewhere else and then turn to Wikipedia to learn more. In the end, this just isn't what an encyclopedia is about, paper or no paper. The language belongs to a fictional universe Ill Bethisad - entertained, according to the article, by some 30 people. We have got our hands full with writing an encyclopedia on the non-fictional universe - we really should stick to that, rather than absorbing the minutiae of fictional ones. "Ill Bethisad" already has its own, very nice Wikipedia counterpart - why not maintain this division of labour? --Thorsten1 00:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I must disagree móst strongly in part: conlanging is not so much a "private hobby" as it is an artistic form. While poets take existing words from an existing language (usally) to create something of artistic beauty and even if no one understands what they mean by it; conlangers simply take of the foundational material of Language itself to create something of artistic beauty. Even if no one understands what they mean by it. As for "relevance to the real world", I can easily name two dozen artists who wasted their time on things that were not at all "relevant to the real world". We can start with JS Bach, work our way through Michaelangelo and end up near Zamfir. Art ìs irrelevant to the "real world" -- you can't eat it, can't sleep under it, it won't keep you warm in Winter (usually) and won't alleviate your arthritis. That doesn't mean art is without its own merit. That said, while I will later vote for the article's deletion, it should be noted that Wenedyk has as much relation to the "real world" as any other work of art. Elemtilas
          • Answer - Thanks for your kind words, Thorsten, I take no offense whatsoever from what you wrote. And I understand your point, too. Even better, I agree with you that we (wikipedians) should not be absorbing the minutiae of fictional worlds or of any other works of art. For that purpose I maintain a website, which contains all there is to know about Wenedyk. But we are not talking minutiae here, we are talking about an encyclopedic (or perhaps rather, wikipedic) entry. And this entry should nót contain a descriptive grammar of any kind, only something along the line of: Wenedyk is a language constructed by ... for purpose of ... with ... as its distinguishing characteristics ... and its significance is .... The same goes for Ill Bethisad: the details are in the IB wiki (with currently more than 1,200 articles), a number of websites and a mailing list; while the wikipedia entry consists of nothing but a short encyclopedic description of what IB is. From this point of view, I think the articles in question are far more justified than biographies of individual Star Trek characters and the like. But if lemmata on Star Trek and Babylon 5 are acceptable, I don't see why a lemma on Ill Bethisad wouldn't be.
          • Furthermore, I'd like to note that I have learnt about a lot of things through Wikipedia, things I'd never have known about without it. That's what I like about Wikipedia in the first place. But FWIW: most reactions I got about Wenedyk were not from people who knew it through Wikipedia, but from people who had read an article about it in a Polish magazine. Regards, IJzeren Jan 09:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Wikipedia is not about the non-fictional universe; it's about the human universe, including things like Botchan and Superman. A language that was created and used by humans in the real world should not be dismissed on those grounds anymore than the above two articles should. --Prosfilaes 06:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment, mainly to Jan and Splash. - "it's about the human universe, including things like Botchan and Superman". Nobody disputed that the world of fiction has a place in Wikipedia. Fiction is a part of the human world. But that does not make any peace of fiction eligible for its own article. To use your examples, according to the article Botchan is "one of the most popular novels in Japan" which "[m]ost Japanese read [...] during their childhood"; and Superman "became one of the most popular and well-known comic book icons of all time.". I do not think quite the same can be said about "Ill Bethisad".

"From this point of view, I think the articles in question are far more justified than biographies of individual Star Trek characters and the like." I couldn't possibly agree more; but two wrongs don't make a right, and one can only deal with deletion candidates one at a time. Also, it would be very difficult to convince trekkies that they should learn to live without an article on the x-language spoken by the y-species in the z-galaxy - although its "existence" may have been brought to the attention of millions of square-eyed couch potatoes - when at the same time we decide to keep hobbyhorses like these.

"if lemmata on Star Trek and Babylon 5 are acceptable, I don't see why a lemma on Ill Bethisad". Frankly, if I had the choice between watching an episode of Star Trek or Babylon 5, or reading a spin-off book, and reading a book about or watching an episode of Ill Bethisad (in that universe's languages with subtitles...) I would almost definitely go for the latter. The fact remains, though, I simply do not have that choice. And since you mention it, the Ill Bethisad article is already borderline for me. The best case that can be made for is that it's one example of the intellectual standard an internet-based counter-culture to mainstream entertainment can achieve, so I'd vote a weak keep. If so, the article should naturally give due mention to Wenedyk and the other languages contained within the universe. But to outhouse its countries, their languages etc. - that is what I meant by "minutiae" - to separate articles is definitely over the top for me. By the way, in spite of what you said about the division of labour between Wikipedia and the IB Wiki, the fact is that Wenedyk contains way more (although not the same) information than Wenedyk does.

On a final note, it is hardly surprising that the idea of Wenedyk appeals more to Polish speakers with a knowledge of Romance languages (or vice versa) than to others; but this does not really disprove my point. --Thorsten1 11:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

If, um, "millions of square-eyed couch potatoes" are aware of it, I don't see any reason not to have an article on it. We have articles on Cherokee, Oklahoma; I fail to see why something of cultural significance to millions of anyone, no matter how much contempt some people have for them, would be unimportant. --Prosfilaes 21:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonotable, and no established basis. -Splash 23:19, 23 July 2005

(UTC)

• Delete I'm an artlanger myself but I don't think articles on the individual artlangs are encyclopedic. Sorry Jan. Felix the Cassowary 00:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Only one point of notability per CONLANG (top 100 on Langmaker), two are needed. Almafeta 01:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Part of understanding Brithenig article, which is considered notable (see its VfD page for why). Almafeta 04:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm finding Thorsten1's argument the most convincing. Unless used as a vernacular in some community, or at least having a sizable pool of people who are conversant in it even if they don't actually use it, I think a conlang doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 06:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think those requirements are overkill. There's articles on poems that no one knows by heart; the question is not is it in use, but is it something that someone might be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. And Wikipedia has (rightly) never been very restrictive about what people might want to look up. --Prosfilaes 07:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • the question is not is it in use, but is it something that someone might be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. -- that sounds good to me. -- pne 11:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable phenomenon. -- Visviva 12:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep Waerth 19:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
• Keep. It would be a harm to Wikipedia were there no article on a subject a reader might look up, and none is done if there is. Why people want to delete perfectly acceptable minority-interest articles is their own business but they are not working towards an encyclopaedia that includes the sum of all human knowledge but rather an online Britannica. Hey! There already is one of those, isn't there? With fewer mistakes! Grace Note 05:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable conlang. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • May I ask what the point of this editcounting is? As far as I am concerned, a user is either entitled to vote or not. This user was already a registered user before the vote started, and so he is entitled to vote; the number of his edits is not a criterion. But, since you are so interested in counting people's number of edits, why do you only count the edits of those who voted for keeping? --IJzeren Jan 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Doesn't WP Not A Soapbox mean that WP is not an Art Gallery? The Literate Engineer 19:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Therefore we should delete the page on the Mona Lisa? Dewrad 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No, therefore an article about an artlang must be able to present equivalents of Mona Lisa's sections "Role in popular culture and avant-garde art", or "Identity of the model". That is to say, it must be a encyclopedia article, meeting such criteria as verifiability and compliance with No Original Research, that is about the language, rather than just a showcase for the language. The Literate Engineer 20:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as it's really necessary to point out: the existence of Wenedyk ís verifiable, and the article is nót original research. As the creator of the language, I can guarantee you that! --IJzeren Jan 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why Wikipedia not being a soap box means that Wikipedia is not an art gallery. An encyclopeida certainly doesn't need to go on about the identity of the model and its role in popular culture; it would fine to have an article that was an extended version of "One of Twain's minor works involving Tom Sawyer, Tom Sawyer meets King Arthur was originally written in 1889 but not published until 2006." --Prosfilaes 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment Notability isn't a criterion of VfD. Dewrad 06:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

While "notability" is not part of the policy-as-written, it is a de facto criterium for deletion, see Radiants comments on this issue. JamesBurns 06:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability is not established. Those who think it is not a criterion for VfD need to learn some basic textual analysis skills. Indrian 20:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Those on the other hand who do believe notability is a criterion for VfD would do well to review Wikipedia's policy on the matter. Dewrad 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I note with concern that a single user has originated all the current VfD's concerning conlangs. He seems to be on a one-man campaign to remove all articles about particular works of a given artform. I would like to request him to cease and desist.
• Keep. While I do not condone notability as a criterion for inclusion (Wikipedia is not paper), it appears to me that this article sufficiently establishes notability in the context of artistic languages, since few of them ever acquire a vocabulary of Wenedyk's size. arj 14:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Only 875 Google hits, and most of the top 50 are Wikipedia mirrors or pages within a handful of conlang-specialized sites (the Wenedyk official site, Langmaker, FrathWiki and the CONLANG-L archives). If someone can point out more evidence of influence on other conlangers, etc., I may consider changing my vote. (Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs, rather than arguing about what constitutes notability every time...? Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point. Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy?) --Jim Henry | Talk 04:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep suitably noteable for a constructed language. Eclipsed 22:36, 28 July 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 transwiki and delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Milka Mesic

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Physchim62 16:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Transferred posting:

Serbo-Croat. Found this linked as Stjepan Mesić's wife. --Naddy 7 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

• Transwiki to hr:Milka Mesić -Harmil 16:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. Has been listed on PNT for two weeks. No reason to keep it here longer. Sietse 10:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:15, 26 July 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 transwiki and delete, however on translation the content turned out to be nonsense so it hasn't been transwikied -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Muhammet Ali Dede

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Physchim62 16:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Transferred posting:

• Looks like Turkish. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 8 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. Has been on Pages needing translation for over two weeks and has not been translated. No reason to keep it here. Sietse 16:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Sietse to [[tr:Muhammet Ali Dede]] -Harmil 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No harm in waiting for someone to come along and work out what it's about. Two weeks is a very brief time to await a Turkish translator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: How long do you want us to keep them for? Surely not forever? There is nothing to stop you listing the transwikied article on WP:TIE if you think it is important that it be translated. Physchim62 11:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote but this is not even a joke, just some nonsense perversion test page)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Kelli Carpenter

Not notable by herself. Should be merged with Rosie O'Donnell.Mandel 16:32, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The two of them together and as individuals are notable because of the case and its importance in California and the U.S. -Harmil 16:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • There're some 3000 couples who got married then. So what makes Kelli Carpenter more "notable" than the others save for the fact that she's married to O'Donnell? If she's only noted for that alone, doesn't it prove that she isn't notable? It also means that this 'stub' will be a stub forever. Mandel 16:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the nominator's opinion is that the article should be merged with Rosie O'Donnell, then he can do so without a VfD discussion. The original article could then be turned into a redirect. Easy and far less time consuming than VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Um...so redirects can do without VfD? Mandel 06:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:48, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Rosie O'Donnell. Yes, this should never have seen VfD, but now that it has, let's deal with it. -- Norvy (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Please note, someone MOVED this article during the VfD. The new name is Kelli Carpenter-O'Donnell.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Pierre Thomé de Souza

• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. SpiceMan 06:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, in my opinion. Sietse 15:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

God complex

A POV essay which even admits "There are few academic works specifically addressing God complexes..." Theoretically a worthwhile article on "God complex" could exist, one that limited itself to an NPOV assessment of what little academic work there is on the subject. This article is not it; this is POV essayage about "arrogant individuals prone to stupid actions" and how this has something to do with how "wealth and power is consolidated into the hands of individuals", quotes from Forrest Gump, and external links to Lyndon LaRouche publications. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - but delete incoherent section on 'man-made disasters' (I've since done this). This seems like a genuine psychological subject - and although the article suffers from pop-psychology - it is not beyond cleaning up by someone knowledgeable. --Doc (?) 18:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep When the Beltway Sniper was in the news, it was widely speculated he had a God complex. I think the term deserves an explanation. CanadianCaesar 19:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This subject is worthy of an article -- but this is not it. It is inappropriate and vauge.
  • Last unsigned vote by 86.129.100.225 CanadianCaesar 20:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - If the article's bad, then fix it. Deleting won't help anything--the subject itself is, after all, totally encyclopedic. Kurt Weber 20:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, is it, though? I mean, I didn't major in psychology in either my undergraduate or my graduate work, so maybe the concept of a "God complex" has a specific defined meaning in actual psychology and I don't know about it -- but this is pure pop-psychology, as hinted by the inappropriate linking of "groupthink" (another real term widely co-opted and robbed of its original meaning by pop psychology). Even if there is theoretically an article to be written about the real thing, is keeping this POV essay around a step towards the real thing? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per CanadianCaesar, but hope the expansion tag works. -Splash 23:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this has the makings for a good article and the complex is widely thought of, if not widely researched. Just needs expansion ArrowmanCoder 00:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with the stipulation that it should be later Redirected to an article on an "official" (APA or otherwise) version of this complex. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/cleanup as necessary. Would tie or maybe merge well with narcissism, but the term itself has merit. Cwolfsheep 06:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "God complex" is not a psychological term; it is a slang expression. Unlike (say) fuck, it is not a linguistically notable slang expression. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is likely to mislead readers into believing that "God complex" is a psychological term, or refers to some actual mental process that has been studied. Therefore, it doesn't belong here. --FOo 15:48, 27 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus as a Leader of Nonviolent Resistance,

This seems like original research. Alarm 17:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as original research, unreferenced, and highly unlikely --Doc (?) 18:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Despite its appearance, this article is actually based on scholarly research. An article on Jesus as a Nonviolence Leader -- an assertion accredited by the academic communities both on the history of religion and on the history of nonviolence movements -- is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. This article needs some serious help, but it's worth having. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 04:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant with information on the Jesus page. It's not even a main article redirect from the Jesus page, just a "see also" link. The page title is also mucked up. Finally, he's already linked from the List of nonviolence scholars and leaders page. — RJH 16:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not only is it original research, it is based mostly on a non-sequitur claim that the description by Josephus (a Jew), of non-violent resistance, had anything to do with Jesus, who Josephus only mentions once, if at all, ever, anywhere (see Josephus on Jesus). ~~~~ 22:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original research. JamesBurns 04:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite, and rename in keeping with sentence case in article titles. Legitimate area of contemporary biblical scholarship, not only based on Josephus reference, and I volunteer to help rewrite. --goethean ॐ 20:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

ENews.tk

I get one (1) relevant non-Wikipedia Google hit on the name of this "online newspaper relying fully on RSS feeds, currently from the BBC and The New York Times". Advertising for a rather useless and non-notable web site. Alarm 17:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, probably vanity. --Tothebarricades 20:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 04:19, 26 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Note see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WaterEffect (2005 movie) for the previous discussion.

WaterEffect (2005 movie), Doce14 (2005 movie), Franco Poltronieri

These were kept during the last VfD, which is nothing more than an affront to the whole process. A month later, and these films stil get minimal google hits. IF these were ever shown on Brazilian television, then it would be the equivalent of public-access, since as far as I'm aware Brazil does in fact have internet access, so a film of any note would scrape more than a few google hits. The actor also gets just 18 google hits.

It should be noted that WaterEffect is nothing more than a ripoff of Love Hina, and I very much doubt Ken Akamatsu wrote the script. A related page, Grazielle Corapi, was already speedied. —Xezbeth 17:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for my reasons why, see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Grazielle_Corapi (which, btw, was deleted, not speedied). HollyAm 02:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, notability not established. JamesBurns 04:21, 26 July 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 03:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Rebecca Kasner

Due to "various accounts of spontaneous human combustion occurring in her vicinity" I might regret listing this article here, but I'll take my chances. An article about a witch-princess, who seems to have taken to using Wikipedia at the age of 203 (since the author has the same text on her user page). Notable for her proficiency at weaving offal into gold, and for working as a part-time celestial spy and full-time in abecedarian espionage. However, I'm afraid all this might be unverifiable. Alarm 18:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I will remove the spontaneous human combustion portion of my bio, as I can see how in today's political climate it might be construed the wrong way. I can assure you though that, like the bio itself, it was written in fun, and was meant to reflect my whimsical nature. I certainly meant no harm by it. Undream 18:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy to User: Undream's page. You could certainly keep it there. Users are free to put what they want on their userpages within reason. Capitalistroadster 18:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an article. She should be welcome to copy it to her user page. ➥the Epopt 18:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity MH 18:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as a fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:13, 23 July 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, so Keep - 4 delete votes, 5 keep or keep and cleanup votes, last 2 delete and keep votes discounted because from same anon IP.

Elaine Wan Chan

Delete, nn, possibly high school student/teacher vanity. Her name gets 3 hits on Google, all from this site. See also Chan win hon and his VfD. --Idont Havaname 18:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. MH 18:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, she is the music director and composer for several theatre productions with commercial success --Vsion 01:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup to remove minor POV language and Keep; unlike Chan win hon, she has notable achievements outside of the school - her current position is incidental. --khaosworks 01:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It appears her notability is from her work outside school, and is hardly because she is a "high school teacher".--Huaiwei 06:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup - artistic and commercial profile extends beyond her work as a music teacher --Hamstersanonymous 08:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --*drew 10:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup as per khaosworks and Huaiwei. --Tony Hecht 22:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, little accomplishments, not famous. Not very talented either. This year's national day song is inferior to all the previous ones. (unsigned vote by 203.123.21.170 (talk · contribs))
• Keep - She is prominent in Singapore commercially, and is not just a 'high school teacher'. Many notable productions too. (unsigned vote by 203.123.21.170 (talk · contribs)).

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

Keep votes accepted: Almafeta, IJzeren Jan, Badlydrawnjeff, Sonjaaa, Grace Note, Prosfilaes, arj

Keep votes not accepted and reasons why: Assdl (only 44 edits, mostly to conlang articles), Elemtilas (only 17 edits, all to conlang vfd debates), 24.71.223.140 (not logged in), BenctPhilipJonsson (only 8 edits)

Delete votes accepted: mikka, Wile E. Heresiarch, ishwar, Angr, Jon Harald Søby, DNicholls, Capitalistroadster, Felix the Cassowary, Uppland, Trilobite, Indrian, drini, Joolz, Jim Henry

-- Francs2000 | Talk 13:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Fyksland

Fyksland was nominated for deletion on 2004-04-07. The result of the discussion was no consensus. It was nominated again on 2004-05-03. The result of the discussion was again no consensus. For the prior VFD discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fyksland/Archive.

Fyksian was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-08. The result of the discussion was to merge into Fyksland. For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fyksian.

del. Nonnotable constructed language. mikka (t) 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Destroy all micronations and their conlangs. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• delete. i dont think it is notable either. – ishwar  (speak) 19:17, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the website about it is totaly fiction, having "news articles" stating that "President Bush declares his deep regret about the Fyksian soldiers killed in Afghanistan" and so on. Just fiction. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 20:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that all fiction should be deleted? Then we might as well start with Shakespeare, Goethe and Tolkien! --IJzeren Jan 07:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I'm saying that all fiction presented as reality should be deleted. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 19:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What's your point? Most fiction take place in real world setting, with world events and famous people as backdrop. How is alternative history any less worthy than other works of fiction? --24.71.223.140 00:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Presenting it as truth is the problem. Even when noting that it's a made up state and all, it leads to easy confusion. Besides, there are still the issues of notability and verifiability. --DNicholls 02:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is the worst argument I've seen in these discussions. If the article might suggest the Fyksland and its language are really existing entities, that should obviously be fixed. But that does not warrant deletion. If the website of Fyksland suggests it is a really existing thing, that's an entirely different matter; most works of fiction do. --IJzeren Jan 07:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm crushed. But I was arguing less against this specific article there and more against alt.history=any fiction. In this context, it's probably out of line, and I should have let it slide. Either way, there's still notability and verifiability, both of which do pertain to this article, and seem to stack against it. 500 Google hits and a curiosity article do not an encyclopedic entry make. --DNicholls 07:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad you admit to your error. Regarding verifiability: isn't even a single google hit sufficient, provided that it directs you to the right place? Regarding notability: it has long been established that this is too subjective to be useful as a criterion. To a person interested in the field (and unless I'm mistaken, WP is there for people interested in all kind of fields), this is definitely an interesting article. --IJzeren Jan 07:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

No, a single Google hit is not enough to verify anything. Low verifiability is a serious problem, as is low notability, and risks turning WP into both an indiscriminate and incorrect collection of personal web pages.--DNicholls 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Unless I am very mistaken about the meaning of the word "verifiable" in English (it's not my L1, not even my L2), it means that proof can be found that something actually exists. If one link directs you to a description, a grammar and a dictionary, that makes the language verifiable enough for me. Same goes for the Fyksian conculture. Notability, like I said elsewhere, is an entirely different can of worms. --IJzeren Jan 21:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a note on my earlier argument. The article should not be placed in Category:Microstates, which lists microstates in the real world. Placing Fyksland in that category would be like putting Hary Potter in the category British people, if you see what I mean. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 13:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete.--DNicholls 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and some of it is patent nonsense namely claims to membership of the EU and UN. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Felix the Cassowary 01:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Already survived VfDs. Almafeta 01:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How many VfDs are really necessary before an item is finally safe? --IJzeren Jan 07:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Uppland 14:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I feel a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic conlangs. Assdl 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated.

Regarding fictional news articles, etc. -- Ill Bethisad uses those too to describe the present history of the constructed world. Such things réally have no part in Wikipedia. I'm sure there's an article about fictional worlds or even micronations from which the Fyskland webpage can be linked. Elemtilas

• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas

• Keep, given the multiple VfD survivals. --Badlydrawnjeff 21:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep! :) --Sonjaaa 22:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How many more VFD's does it need? I don't mind an article merge for the time being but this is getting ridiculous. Look at the edit history, there are certainly interest out there for this article. --24.71.223.140 01:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• If it has already passed VfD, there's no reason not to keep it.Grace Note 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: it's survived three VfD's; surely there's better things to be doing than putting the same article up for VfD over and over. The decision has been made; move on.--Prosfilaes 21:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Just look at the article. How has this sat around for so long in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? — Trilobite (Talk) 11:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Provides valuable, factual information. arj 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter rubbish that can destroy the reputation of an encyclopedia if left unchecked. Indrian 20:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete it's all one man fuction. If it survived three vfds isbecause of no consensus (not for deleting BUT alo not either for keeping). drini ☎ 22:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

How many VfDs are necessary before an article can finally be considered "safe"? You find it non-notable? Fine, then don't read it and keep watching your own stuff! Evidently, there are enough other Wikipedians who dó find it notable, and I can't think of a single reason why they should be denied the possibility of having it. Why can't you just accept that? --IJzeren Jan 06:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strongest delete vote I can possibly give - forget the other VfDs, it may have survived them but I'm only interested in this one. This is an unnotable, unverifiable micronation/conlang/figment of somebody's imagination, it has no place on wikipedia. I can see absolutely no evidence that Fyksland has acheived any prominence, noteworthiness, or anything. -- Joolz 22:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

All nonsense, Joolz, and you know it. Before you start shooting at an article, take at least the effort to read it first! For the list time: Fyksland is nót a micronation; it ís verifiable; and at least to some it dóes have noteworthiness! And what's wrong with something being the project of somebody's imagination? Are you also going to delete the Brandenburg concertos, Mona Lisa and Star Trek, Joolz? --IJzeren Jan 06:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. Fyskland might be ideosyncratic and all that, but it's certainly no worse (not to mention much more sensible) than the heaps of scrap metal they call "modern art"! Elemtilas

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was an actual micronation! All of those examples there are notable (aren't aren't just figments of imagination, the Mona Lisa is a real painting), whereas Fyksland is not. A google search reveals very little and it shows no sign that it's notable, it's had no coverage in any media or notable sources. -- Joolz 14:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia just a figment of the imagination? It, like Fyksland, is just a website. Would it help if someone printed the website out?--Prosfilaes 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nearly all of the Google hits seem to be (1) Wikipedia mirrors, (2) pages on the official Fyksland site, (3) brief mentions of and links to said site, or (4) mailing list messages from the creator of Fyksland. If someone presents evidence that Fyksland and/or Fyskian have been influential on other conworlds and conlangs I may consider changing my vote. I wouldn't mind seeing a sentence or two about them in constructed world or artistic language, however. --Jim Henry | Talk 03:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs? Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point. Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy? --Jim Henry | Talk 04:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on at Wikipedia:Conlangs. --Jim Henry | Talk 21:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Witchhead

unencyclopedic fictional micro-stub with no possiblity for growth ➥the Epopt 18:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 20:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• No reason not to Merge and redirect to Systems Commonwealth CanadianCaesar 22:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Systems Commonwealth. JamesBurns 04:23, 26 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Gold Mine

I don't believe a whole page should be dedicated to a single scene in almost any movie, let alone Alone in the Dark. Am I the only person who considers this a worthless article? ZombieBite June 28, 2005 18:14 (UTC)

• Delete ➥the Epopt 18:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday 20:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Christian Slater-cruft. Fernando Rizo 20:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft. JamesBurns 04:24, 26 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Inu

Dictionary definition. —Tokek 19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Along similar lines, the following articles are much like those that may be found at Wiktionary instead.

• Getsu (kanji)
• Nichi (kanji)
• Hoku (kanji)
• Kuro (kanji)
• Man (kanji)
• Nan (kanji)
• Nen (kanji)
• San (kanji)
• En (kanji)
• To (kanji)
• Yo (kanji)

The articles themselves have external links that point to corresponding wiktionary entries. If the above list of articles go, redirects to them should also go:

• Inu (kanji) → Inu
• Kanji Reference:Getsu → Getsu (kanji)
• KanjiReference:Getsu → Getsu (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Nichi → Nichi (kanji)
• KanjiReference:Nichi → Nichi (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Hoku → Hoku (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Kuro → Kuro (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Inu → Inu
• Kanji Reference:Man → Man (kanji)
• KanjiReference:Man → Man (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Nan → Nan (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Nen → Nen (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:San → San (kanji)
• KanjiReference:San → San (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:En → En (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:To → To (kanji)
• Kanji Reference:Yo → Yo (kanji)

—Tokek 04:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all, not encyclopedic.  Grue  17:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, foreign dicdefs, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:25, 26 July 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Alyssa & Lauren Libby

A baby in a soap opera - what could be less notable? Renata3 19:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at the soap articles, there are plenty other baby in a soap opera articles. Delete this one and all other babies from soap operas. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Actresses in a major soap opera are notable. Grace Note 05:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Did you even read this article? It's a baby who hasn't played on the soap in four years, and has done nothing of note since. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Days of Our Lives unless there's a character page for the show; in that case this article should be Merged with that page instead. This is notable as TV history, but there's not enough info for a separate article. Tygertyger 17:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, might as well be an article about an extra. If they do something later, sure. But not now. Timmybiscool

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

National anarchism

Neologism, oxymoron, non-notable. Its only advocates are a few trolls who seem to spend most of their time trying to tick off the various anarchists on wikipedia. It was already nominated for deletion with a consensus to delete, but I don't know what happened there. Do not be fooled by the apparent fullness of the article - the "movement" is confined to a few individuals and websites and the existence of this page adds nothing but ammunition for the trolls. --Tothebarricades 19:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note: It appears that the previous vote to delete this article (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/National_anarchism) was never properly closed. It appears to have simply fallen through the cracks and been forgotten. Perhaps this page should be merged with that one, and it be re-promulgated? - Nat Krause 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I did some more checking and made some sense of the situation. There was apparently an earlier version of this article created in 2004 which was deleted. Then, on April 29 of this year, a new version of the page was created. If that recreated page was more-or-less identical to the deleted one, then it should have been speedy-deleted at that time. In any event, it has now been edited to the point where it is very unlikely to be the same, so it should be treated as a different article and reconsidered for deletion. The deletion pages should not be merged. - Nat Krause 10:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how anyone could consider "national anarchists" anarchists, and it makes about as much sense to file this under anarchism as it does to file national socialism under socialism. I tried to place this article under the fascism template, but one of the national anarchists deleted the template.... I say, don't delete it, file it under fascism. Humanitarian

Note: this was the 10th edit by this user name. - Nat Krause 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Fascism isn't just a term to beat people over the head with, and not every group of racist jerks is fascist. The definition of fascism involves totalitarianism and a hand-in-glove relationship between the state and capital; the people who call themselves national anarchists don't seem to advocate either of those things. You're incorrect when you say that "one of the national anarchists deleted the template." I deleted it, and I'm not a national anarchist.--Bcrowell 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep This deletion attempt is a POV attempt to keep certain anarchist philosophies out of the Anarchism article. The so-called "traditional" anarchists have been trying to censor out anything that's not in keeping with their communist version of anarchism. They're now resorting to try to certify this movement as non-notable (when in fact it is notable), as a desperate attempt to keep national anarchism of the Anarchism article. Also, they have been claiming that since it's for racial seperatism it's not anarchism, which is faulty reasoning. Regardless, nowhere do I see national anarchists advocate "exterminating" the Jews, as Proudhon does, and nowhere do I see them calling Jews an "collective organic parasite" as Bakunin does, yet those individuals are presented as anarchists in the Anarchism article. This picking and choosing of who is or who isn't an "official" anarchist, and censoring or ostracizing them, is not only inconsistent with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, it's downright Archist. RJII 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. RJ has been running around creating anarchism articles for any two words he can slap together, regardless of the presence or lack of evidence to found the movement. There is no evidence at all that this phenomena exists anywhere outside of the internet, and there are only 3 identifiable individuals associated with it, all of whom reject the claims of the others and call their own version the only one. This is just a series of webpages designed to make the white supremacists look like they have ideological links to movements which they clearly do not. It is also interesting to note that though Proudhon was in fact an anti-semite, RJ have been completely unable to dig up a single primary source indicating him as such, yet another indication of his tendency to create articles and fill them out based on heresay rather than actual facts. Kev 09:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: This individual's prime focus on Wikipedia is RJII --to follow him around Wikipedia, harrass and nitpick, for personal reasons (scary huh?). Please disregard his irrelevant comments about RJII and focus on the issue at hand. RJII 16:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: Kev has been on wikipedia longer than RJII. You were the one who choose to edit war on the articles that Kev was already editing; get over yourself. millerc 19:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep although "national anarchism" seems like an oxymoron, and doesn't read like anarchism, from a google search it does appear to exist as a real, albeit small, movement. Salsb 15:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep So called Left anarchists need to look to their roots. "Bakunin started as a pan-slavist, and remained an anti-semite after he became an anarchist (calling the Jews an "organic collective parasite"). Kropotkin took a reactionary stance supporting the Czarist state in the First World War. Proudhon was a gallic nationalist and anti-semite, and indeed the Cercle Proudhon was a right wing group prominent in the development of french fascism." There are many other links between Nationalism/fascism and anarchism, not the least of which is Gabriele D'Annunzio, anarcho-fascist ideologue, and of course modern third positionism. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 16:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • The fact that most classical anarchists were unsavory charcters, something I assure you we all realize, does not alter the fact that "national anarchism" is a non-notable neologism. --Tothebarricades 19:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

National anarchism is notable. RJII 19:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE This article is misplaced, I would sugget moving it but if the authors want it listed in wikipedia they should be wise enough to place it in the proper location. That is no where in the vicinity of anarchism. (unsigned comment by IP: 67.164.35.179)

Delete Non-notable (and frankly bizarre) racist ideology. Gets about 1 800 nonunique hits on google (compared to 660 000 hits for "anarchism", 43 000 for "anarcho-capitalism", and 2 million for "marxism"). An An 04:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

1800 hits sure sounds notable to me. But your wording leads one to believe that your motivations for wanting it deleted is that it's "racist." But, I could be wrong. Hopefully, it's not, because even racist ideologies should be described on Wikipedia. This is a storehouse of knowledge. RJII 04:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

1800 non-unique hits. But your wording leads me to believe you're trolling for a skirmish. Not here, dear. An An 07:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's bizarre and racist, but I'm not convinced it's non-notable. A quick survey of Google hits shows the following for some of the varieties of anarchism listed in the anarchism template:

Christian anarchism, 5700

green anarchism, 5100

anarcho-primitivism, 4100

national anarchism, 1900

IMO, all four of these are probably too inconsequential to be listed in the anarchism template, but I don't see any evidence that national anarchism is a complete fraud compared to the others. (And Christian anarchism strikes me as being every bit as much of a bizarre combo as national anarchism -- yeesh, Emma Goldman must be rolling over in her grave :-)--Bcrowell 04:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Christian Anarchism is a bit more sensible than some of the others. I've seen lots of xtian socialists around and they seem to really take the humanist aspects of Christ and ignore lots of the authoritarian aspects of God. An An 01:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete Fifelfoo 04:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

RJII has persuaded me. Delete, recreate as blank, and protect the page to prevent any content from being added. ➥the Epopt 04:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's a real phenomenon and probably encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. Keep the article patrolled to make sure it's NPOV and not a promo piece, that's all. Kaibabsquirrel 04:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

keep. Agree with Kaibabsquirrel. It's not an oxymoron unless you buy into the anarchist ideology that racism and nationalism will automatically dry up and blow away once state coercion is gone; national identity is not the same as the nation-state. It's unfortunate, however, that RJII has been trying to inflate these articles' appearance of significance by adding spammish links from unrelated articles like Ku Klux Klan, and has used redundant external links from the articles to do the same thing. Another issue is that people have been adding links to National anarchism in templates such as Fascism, which is clearly inappropriate, both because the national anarchists don't seem to consider themselves fascists, and because they're not important enough to be included in the template. The "what links here" for national anarchism includes tons of articles which, AFAICT, no longer actually link to it, but may have in the recent past because of templates. (E.g., I just deleted national anarchism from the fascism template, but Nazism still shows up in national anachism's "what links here" page.)--Bcrowell 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Salsb. If this were a paper encyclopaedia, I wouldn't see the point of keeping it, but we are under no such constraints here. I'm not arguing that it merits a prominent mention, perhaps not any mention at all, in articles like anarchism, I just don't see any reason to delete it. - Nat Krause 07:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

delete - low hits on google, if wikipedia keeps article it will give it future notability that it ain't got yet. Its basically a one man enterprise with a couple of self-promotional websites. It should get mentioned within Neofascism OR Troy Southgate articles -max rspct 15:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • This flies in the face of the facts. It's obviously not one guy. National anarchism is active in more than one country as well. RJII 14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. It can always edited to include reference to objections , cross-references to contradictory articles, and/or URLs to anti-"National-Anarchist" sites, but it should not be censored or deleted because some people disagree with the POV and don't like the label. Censorship is as foreign to my understanding and practice of anarchism as skin-color politics, by the way. Thedavid 20:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep - >1000 Google hits seems notable enough. And if it wasn't for the racist nature of the subject (which shouldn't even enter the discussion) and the objectionable use of the term anarchist (again shouldn't enter into it) this article wouldn't be up for VfD. 66.94.94.154 19:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (Opps, that's me Saswann 19:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC))

KEEP! The argument for deletion is blantly POV and sectarian in nature and smacks of censorship. (Which this move entirely hypocritical coming from so-called anarchists, but I've seen worse similar hypocrisy coming out of that movement before.) It is simply an attempt by Toothebarricades to delete an article based entirely on the fact that he does not like national anarchists calling themselves anarchists. Whether or not "national anarchists" is a valid as an exponent of anarchism (and I happen to agree that it isn't good anarchism) is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be an article on this topic here on Wikipedia. The argument that the argument is too non-notable to warrant a Wikipedia article is entirely false - the long list of links on this page, the large number of websites (both pro- and anti-NA) resulting from a Google search for "national anarchist" or "national anarchism", the obvious influence it has in the neofolk music milieu, plus the very active National Anarchist Yahoo Group are all evidence that this is a topic of interest and criticism for many people and therefore well-deserving of a Wikipedia page to introduce interested people to the topic. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist tendencies that are far more obscure. --Peter G Werner 18:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. Technically, any guy with enough money to build a website could start his own "ideology" on the internet, and if his website gets enough visitors, other sites might start discussing the pros and cons of his ideas. That is not enough to represent notability. National anarchism is utterly, and I mean utterly, insignificant. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment any guy can start his own "ideology," web or not, and if enough people talk about it, it becomes notable. see Emperor Norton Saswann 00:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

KEEP! The article is being developed. I think we should not dismiss what Southgate is doing, eg: his recent organisation of a meeting between Aleksandr Dugin a delegate from the cultural wing of the BNP, and someone from teh Englis Orthodox Church. I think maybe it should be developed in parallel to arevision of the NatuionalBolshevik page - particulalrly in relation to the deletion of the reference to Karl Popper. (It is perhaps also relevant to link this with the complete take over of Japanese univeristy departments in Scientific method by popperians following the occupation of Japan after the Second World War. Harry Potter

Keep. The term has enough circulation to warrant an article. People seeking to understand its meaning should be able to find neutral information on Wikipedia. —Morning star 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep the article, but delete much of its present content The article Peter Lamborn Wilson identifies Gabrielle D'Annunzio as a "proto-nationalist anarchist", linking here. Whether or not Hakim Bey's interpretations of D'Annunizio are accurate, D'Annunzio as presented by Bey is indeed a kind of "proto-nationalist anarchist", adopting an intermediate position between anarchism and Italian proto-fascism. However, in Bey's account (and I must say I believe in real life as well), his views are not primarily racist. What I mean is this. The real D'Annunzio, and/or the Wilsonian D'Annunzio, may or may not have been racists, but racism was not the focus of their philosophy. They were nationalists, yes, but they did not view nationalism in such a biological sense as more explicitly racist philosophies (Nazism, white supremacy) do. And indeed, this article from its very beginning identifies "nationalist anarchism" with 'white nationalism', i.e. white supremacy. I have never ever heard of anarchist white supremacists. But some of the work of Hakim Bey, explores (without adopting) some ideas of "nationalist anarchism", without being racist (although Bey at other places certaintly seems to endorse "racialism", i.e. blacks are superior; white people are all inferior; but any white person we like isn't really a "white" person, they're actually a celt or persian, which makes them a "black" person, and hence superior... go figure...) In any case, I think the article should be maintained, but its contents modified to remove (or at least de-emphasise) the white supremacy, but discuss Wilson's interpretations of D'Annunzio. -- SamuelKatinsky

• There seems to be enough momentum to keep the article and I would agree it needs to be developed. The remarks about Peter Lambourn Wilson aka Hakim Bey are interesting. I think it might also be worth bringing in Rudolf Rocker into the discussion, particularly in relation to his Nationalism and Culture, but perhaps this should be discussed on a talk page! Harrypotter 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. No votes other than nom to delete, with consensus to keep rather than merge. -Splash 03:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Black anarchism

Neologism. Certainly there are black anarchists, but this really isn't a separate school of thought. When the term is used, and google says it rarely is, black is merely an adjective rather than part of a compound noun. The same caveats about trolls from the national anarchism nomination apply here. --Tothebarricades 19:15, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Black anarchism deserves a space on here. It's a self-titled label, just as "Anarcha-feminism." Just because blacks are a minority they shouldn't be represented here? Black anarchism is its own unique form of anarchism. I believe this vote for deletion is racially motivated. RJII 19:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there's one of your trolls, calling me a racist no less. --Tothebarricades 19:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not calling you a racist, but it does appear to me that some kind of racial bias is going on here. RJII 21:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Black anarchism: [26] RJII 20:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • From an essay called "The Fate of Black Anarchism": "We now call ourselves Anarchists. We say we want the end of all chains and the extermination of all oppression. Yet, in the Anarchist "movement", black folk and other folks of color are still in the senzala. We are still having to disguise ourselves, call whitey "Massa" and chain ourselves to the wall. No, don't talk about racism unless is in that very abstract sense of we-are-all-equal-let's-sing-kumbayas-and-pretend-the-color-of-our-skin-does-not-matter" racism. While there might be nobody yelling "die, nigger, die!", you can hear a very clear “shut the fuck up, nigger, just shut the fuck up." .....Do not censor this movement. RJII 20:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Women are not a minority. Be careful who you label, RJII. An An 04:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, in this context he is calling women a 'minority' in the sense that they aren't the "dominant group". People have varying definitions of "minority".
• Keep. Though I must sanction RJII for calling the nominator "racist", "Black Anarchism" does seem to be a distinct idea, strongly connected to Ashanti Alston.--Pharos 21:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Pharos. CanadianCaesar 21:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As in most things, the adjective "black" renders this phenomenon something different from white anarchism in history, motivation, philosophy and actors. And that makes it worthy of examination/treatment. deeceevoice 23:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ehm, but shouldn't the anarchism article then be renamed white anarchism? Of course that's silly, but I'm just wondering ... :) DirkvdM 10:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because the color of the skin of the proponents of most other kinds of anarchism isn't an element of their philosophy --they just happen to be white. Blacks have been oppressed because of the color of their skin, so naturally that's going to be an issue --fighting white supremacy is naturally an essential element included in the opposition of all external authority. But, as far as something like "white anarchism" the closest thing to that might be national anarchism. RJII 02:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with APOC as per User:Millerc, below . Nandesuka 11:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with [APOC]. From all evidence I can find black anarchism does not exist as a movement separate from APOC and the people involved. The website linked to from this page is almost entirely blank, nearly every section is empty, and the only evidence describing "black anarchism" also refers to is as "panther anarchism" and a movement of the "anarchist people of color" interchangably. APOC is notable, more recognizable, and from what I can tell the statements made in each and every one of the pages brought up by RJ's google both refer directly to APOC and indicate that the two philosophies are identical in methods and goals. Kev 09:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Faulty reasoning. Anarchist People of Color is just one movement within black anarchism. RJII 16:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the above article, which appears to have a narrower focus— that of a particular "movement"— should be incorporated into Black anarchism, which, it seems to me, is very likely the broader, related subject. Just saw the above comment. Concur. deeceevoice 20:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It is far more exclusive than the term APOC, and it is far less refered to APOC or prominent than APOC. Many people of APOC do not refer to themselves as black anarchists, but as anarchist people of color. Black is one color, anarchist people of color denotes many colors. Kev 01:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • What a load of B.S. LOL! RJII 02:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I realized after I clicked "submit" that "people of color" means something broader than is my common frame of reference as an African American. However, your argument still doesn't hold water. APOC is a specific movement; whereas, this article addresses anarchism as a philosophy among black people, generally, regardless of their involvement, if any, in a particular movement. deeceevoice 09:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. If the term is in use by some people (let's say more than 1000 people - you wouldn't remove an article on a village just because it's too small, right?) then it deserves an article or at least a redirect. Which of those two depends largely on how much information is in the article which is separate from the article it is to be merged with. And that seems enough (although I haven't really studied it), so ultimately I'd say keep. DirkvdM 10:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep from a google search it appears to be a real term for a small but real movement Salsb 15:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a movement notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Kaibabsquirrel 04:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Judging from its web presence, it really does seem to exist. It may be miniscule, but it seems clear that it's not just a neologism invented by the same person who created the article.--Bcrowell 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - okay, fair enough. But - and this was my main concern, anyway - would everyone agree that this is not a "school of thought" on par with say, anarcho-syndicalism? And that it shouldn't be listed on the template? The problem is that RJII does anything he can to defame other users, so he'll add these marginal movements to the template and then call us racists or fascists when we remove them for being not quite notable enough for template attention. --Tothebarricades 19:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I never called you a racist. I am saying that the attempt to delete this is racially motivated. It appears to me that you think that since blacks are a minority that they shouldn't be represented ..they're not notable ..which is B.S. Just because black anarchism less google hits than a philosophy proposed by a majority race means nothing. By, the way, you were the first to bring the dispute between you and me to a personal level in another article. Reap what you sow, buddy. If you want personal, I can get personal. RJII 19:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge The information is relevent, but would better be placed in articles like APOC (as Kev has already mentioned) or in articles about the various people refered to in the article. I think the fact that the Anarchist Black Cross was listed as a black anarchist group [27] shows how little some of the editors around here really care about getting factual information correct in their POV pushing. millerc 22:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's absolutely absurd. Not all black anarchism is part of APOC. RJII 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well that may be true, but that's not what I said. I said merge the relevent info into the relevent articles. The APOC is not just black anarchists as you seem to contend. millerc 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh really? Who is with the APOC that isn't black? RJII 00:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not affiliated with the group (I doubt you are either), so I can't say who their most active or most outspoken members are, but a cursory look at their websites show just as many latino and hispanic contributers as black ([28],[29],[30]). And from what I can tell, their membership is open to all people of color; the only exclusion is white people. All evidence I see is that the term "black anarchism" is associated with the people listed on that wikipedia page. Since they are the ones using the term, it makes more sense that the respective articles on those anarchists can contain all relevent info. I don't think any good info. should be deleted; I just think there's a better place for it. Maybe if you give some evidence for its wider usage, rather than just ranting, I would be willing to change my mind. millerc 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't see what you're seeing. I looked at [31] ..there is a Gustavo González, but that's a reporter from a newswire who has nothing to do with APOC. I look at your [[32] and don't see anything there ..i see a Passos Salazar but that's just the name of a graphic artist. Then I look at your last [[33] and all I see is a picture of some Palestinians standing by the wall. RJII 04:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree with User:Millerc; even a cursory reading of the links he provided supports his contention that APOC is a group that not only has a significant non-black membership, but views latino, palestinian -- basically, in their own words, "non-white" -- oppressed as their natural "constituency". Nandesuka 11:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Distinct from APOC. Should not be merged. Nihila 02:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per User:Millerc. JamesBurns 05:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IMHO I don't think the reason for VfD is valid Saswann 19:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article is reasonably well written and pretty close to NPOV given it's highly contentious subject matter. I also agree with RJII in that it's a self-titled label, just as Anarcha-feminism, and Black Anarchism certainly qualifies as a separate Anarchist movement with identifiably unique goals (though I would strongly disagree with the article's author, who appears to be asserting that the goals are relatively peaceful and egalitarian). I don't think the VfD was necessary. Xaa 01:06, 29 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mafia Sentinel

As far as I can tell, this is the only vehicle from the Grand Theft Auto video game series with its own article. There are literally hundreds of vehicles in the GTA series of games, and for each one to have its own article is ludicrous. The vehicle is not notable on its own. Fernando Rizo 19:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Crash a Mr. Whoopee into this and Delete. -- Norvy (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic on its own. Consider merge with List of vehicles from Grand Theft Auto. K1Bond007 06:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge contents to List of vehicles from Grand Theft Auto, if the article stays. Otherwise, Delete. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 09:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge a condensed version and redirect per 25. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

New York Percussion Trio

Non-notable group, 26 matches on Google, all of them tiny notations in databases. Chairboy 19:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see conversation in progress in the discussion page

• delete does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. —Tokek 23:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on this point in discussion

keep - the article certainly does meet WP:MUSIC criteria (keep in mind, however, that an article on a musical artist or group must meet at least one criterion, not criteria). The reasons are summarized here: Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/New York Percussion Trio Badagnani 20:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

JamesBurns, Wikipedia operates by regulation, not opinion (particularly as regards serious matters such as attempting to have others' pages removed). I have, on the discussion page, shown how this group meets at least one of the "notability" criteria; if you have a dispute with this please state such on the discussion page. Badagnani 19:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

keep - The author makes strong points on the discussion page. The accomplishments of this group are many and the members of the group were, and are, active in major performance organizations. The group commissioned works from many innovative composers. Since I was an undergrauate music student I have seen their name on the scores of works which they commissioned. I don't understand how this entry could possibly be deleted. The group is important, their innovations paved the way for others (both performers and composers), and they worked closely with many great composers of the 20th century. Keep this article!

24.144.12.91 01:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Blake Tyson, DMA (Doctor of Musical Arts) in percussion and literature from Eastman School of Music, currently on the faculty of the University of Central Arkansas.

• Keep this one; this group was quite notable in the contemporary music scene forty years ago. Antandrus (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Tagged and listed for expansion. -Splash 03:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing Dollar Paradox

This is something that people would forward in emails to friends who are deadly bored in their cubicles. It sounds scientific, but it's not, thus there is no hope for expansion. Renata3 19:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'd keep and expand this. It's actually a notable lateral thinking problem, almost on par with today's featured article (the Monty Hall problem). -- Grev -- Talk 20:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Lateral thinking as an example (or delete - don't keep)- there are hundreds of these things around - they are not individually encyclopaedic. --Doc (?) 20:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - this is an annoying puzzle that I've seen in far too many places. A good centralized explanation to people of how it works would be useful. Not sure that this is the best name for it, though.DS 13:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand -- like the Monty Hall problem which was recently a featured article of the day, this is a well-known "paradox" (falsely so-called) which can be used to elucidate related subjects. --FOo 15:51, 27 July 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.

Wikipedia has a long winded rambling explanation . It just math. Simple math. Instead of adding the Bellhop's 2 bucks to the 27 paid by 3 guests, just add it to the clerk's 25 bucks. then the equation balances. Or subtract it from the guests 27 bucks - do not add it.

ie the motel has 25, the bellhop has 2 and the guests are out 27. there are 3 deep pockets - not two.

Just a word puzzle. So helps to restate the events. Or remove the Bellhop. So it is the clerk that keeps the 2 bucks. and gives the bellhop 3 bucks to refund to 3 guests. Bellhops are not too bright?

For a real life puzzle:

Pretend the Guests are TDY and filing a government voucher and get a kick back. Or they stay in same room but claim 3 rooms. Get fake bills from the motel. What happened to the Taxpayer's money?

Other puzzle is why they stay in a 5 star hotel when a 3 star motel is their standard normally. Pretend the 3 travelers are government contractors instead of government workers? haha. and triple the cost to pay for political bribes and donations to campaigns.

Again, what happens to the Taxpayers money? Palm60 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was userfy and delete redirect. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Deppeler

Vanity page, non-notable. User that created it is named Deppeler. Chairboy 19:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• do not delete: Well, I just created the page and obviously disagree. It's not vanity page since it's not about myself. The name is spread among a couple of continents and can be tracked to a small village in Tegerfelden. I don't think it should be held against the page that it's a Deppeler who created it.

deppeler 22:13, 23 July 2005 (MEST).

• Delete Non-notable. Totally willing to change my vote if notability can be established. 67.116.212.168 20:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC) oops, logged out by accident. Fernando Rizo 20:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• do not delete: Notability is indeed arguable, as it is with many pages ... please do consider that the surname is unique, has tracable origins, and has been inquired for its roots by Deppelers in South America, Australia and the United States many times in the past couple of decades. deppeler 22:43, 23 July 2005 (MEST).

• Above user has already voted

• • Every surname is unique. I'm sure mine could be traced to Italy, Spain, Cuba, Greece and the United States, but there's no article for it on Wikipedia, nor should there be. The family name is not notable. Contrast with Kennedy. Fernando Rizo 20:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You are completely right. However, this surname can be traced to a tiny village in Switzerland. Try that with Kennedy or most others. deppeler 22:59, 23 July 2005 (MEST).

• Userfy if the author wishes, otherwise, delete, --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy? - ok, I *am* a newbie. How do you userfy this article? (Sorry if this is a FAQ) - "Encyclopedias can be general, containing articles on topics in many different fields".deppeler 22:54, 23 July 2005 (MEST)

• "Userfy" means to move the article from Deppeler to User:Deppeler, your user page. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll do the move now. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 22:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for advising. I believe the content in my user page is actually content that belongs to my home page ...". But that's different from the content I wanted to add here. "Wikipedia's goal is to create a free, reliable encyclopedia—indeed, the largest encyclopedia in history, in terms of both breadth and depth." I am more interested to add content to the Deppeler page as it has been entered say, ... to the Smith (surname) site. deppeler 00:13, 24 July 2005 (MEST).

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 19:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sekom

This article is an ad. The article gives no hint why this company would be notable or important (Also: an earlier version of this article was an exact copy of its creator's user page: User:Sekom). Csobankai Aladar 20:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC) (modified: 15:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC))

• Delete unless some notability can be shown. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 20:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Confused keep. I get 29,000 Googles, but they seem to refer to many different companies in languages I can't speak. Is there anynone out there who can make a useful disambig out of it? -Splash 23:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this offering is evidently not the place to start this article. (Vote changed from above.) -Splash 03:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Er... I didn't know about that when I nominated the article, but it seems obvious to me that the Electrical (Electrotechnical) Commission of Sweden (Svenska Elektriska Kommissionen) or slavic words like šekom have nothing to do with this company. If one would like to create a disambig. page for them later, they can do it regardless of this current article is kept or deleted. I also noticed that the GoogleRank of this particular company's homepage is a bit higher than I expected but that may well be due to manipulation (inserting its link wherever they can). Csobankai Aladar 15:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of gay porn stars

According to "What Wikipedia is not," Wikipedia is not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons," unless the entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to a topic. This list is just an indiscriminate listing of gay porn actors. The vast majority of them did very few films and do not meet this criteria, and better and more relevant lists are found elsewhere. Many of these stage names are not associated with gay porn and wouldn't be readily recognized, and most did not contribute anything significant to the industry. They do not meet the standard for fame set by Wikipedia, and most industry experts would agree.

Lastly, much of the information in the listing is incorrect and incomplete, specifically that information regarding the actors' real names. Having reported on that industry, I can tell you that many of the "real names" listed have no factual link to the actor and the information is obviously not verified. I will submit this article for verifyability, but considering that there are people in the world who coincidentally possess these incorrect real names, I thought I should mention it here as well. This article should be deleted, and if not, the information verified. 24.11.99.60 20:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Its a large list with many notable names. Looks legitimate, as stated below. CindyAbout/T/P/C/ 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, we certainly have more absurd lists, this is perfectly legitimate. Remove any ones that are non-notable. --Tothebarricades 20:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note. Sorry about not logging in. I thought I was. The nomination for deletion above is mine. Poiboi25 20:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Poiboi25.

I looked at the history for this article. It looks as if it was started by just grabbing names off the internet. Some of the information apparently is only verified through Google. I started editing for non-notable names but there are just so many. There aren't nearly as many porn stars who had a real impact on the industry or are associated with it as are listed here. For comparison, Jenna Jameson would obviously have a place on a straight porn star list, but Random Porn Actress #5 does not. Many of these people are just random gay porn actors in that same vein. And again, from what I understand, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be lists of random people, but those who are notable. I think the article should be deleted. It's just a random list and it isn't a legitimate list of any thing but names. Poiboi25 22:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Poiboi25

So let's blank the current article and start it over with notable gay porn stars. --Tothebarricades 23:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Alternatively, Delete And Replace With Category and let the category be named something that appropriately conveys the information "Gay Porn Star". Thus there's still a way people who want it can get a list of gay porn stars, but it's limited to ones important enough to get articles. The Literate Engineer 06:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Both ideas sound fair to me. Whether its blanking or deleting, I don't think the current list can be saved, though. Someone would have to cut it down, and there are just so many names thrown on. It would probably be easier to start over with new guidelines. I think its important that whatever replaces it stresses notability. I like the guideline that Wikipedia sets up: the name is strongly associated with the field itself, or the person contributed significantly to the field. With that guideline, it keeps the information relevant, I believe. Poiboi25 09:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC) PoiBoi25

• Delete as per nominator. CalJW 14:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep "gay porn stars" is far from "loosely associated topic".  Grue  17:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Tothebarricades. --Tony Hecht 00:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per User:Tothebarricades.tk. JamesBurns 05:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a useful list. It can probably be amended, as time goes on. Rather than delete actors, I would add them as new films are produced.

• Keep as per JDC. --User:JDC 06:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is this not a section in 'List of porn stars'. I don't see a good reason that gay porn stars should be sequestered into their own separate place. There are good reasons to treat porn stars in a single, connected article/list, with daughter articles/lists of subcategories. Tony 12:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep "gay porn stars" - like it or not gay porn (and straight and bi-, etc.) is an important part of our ('Western'/US in particular) culture and has probably helped save many a life at the height of the AIDS crisis and has also been a way for men (and women) to explore their sexuality safely, especially in a society that amazingly still considers loving and/or being intimate with a member of the same sex as taboo.[User:RichM]

• Keep. Exploding Boy 01:48, August 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 --Allen3 ^talk 19:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Jim Currier

nn journalist (although I'm happy to be proved wrong) --Doc (?) 20:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. He is, in fact a journalist for the Bryan County News. A brief google search for the newsletter turned that up.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair do - but my question was notability not verifiability - whether being a hack on a local US newspaper is notable, I'll leave for those on that side of the Atlantic. --Doc (?) 20:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. I really should wear my glasses when on the computer. I read it as "no journalist". (sheepish look). --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unless notability is established. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probably vanity, given that he's been a journalist on an article-less a local rag for only 3 years. Dunc|☺ 20:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, likely vanity as above and nn in any case. -Splash 23:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Already mentioned at target. -Splash 03:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Celestina Warbeck

In six Harry Potter books, Celestina Warbeck, "the singing sorceress" has only been mentioned in passing, so as to flesh out the wizarding world a bit more by giving it its own entertainers. Beyond her profession, nothing else is known about this bit character, and I doubt there will ever be. Just a mention in a list of characters is more than enough. Sinistro 20:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books, per RJFJR. Seems the better option.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Harry Potter. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 20:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books RJFJR 21:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per RJFJR. — RJH 16:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 19:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Helen & Robert Adler Scholarship

Non-notable college scholarship. 3 Google hits. humblefool® 20:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think it qualifies for speedy as commercial. Renata3 21:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 19:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Crystal Flower Avengers

(nomination completed 21:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC))

Vanity. The blurb's "Crystal Flower Avengers is a movie in the making by Cara Chapman and Francesca Haines. The actual studio is so far unknown." says it all. --Wetman 7 July 2005 08:10 (UTC)

When I went to nominate this for VFD I discovered there was already a page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Crystal Flower Avengers (this page) but it doesn't appear the VFD tag had been placed on the page or listed at WP:VFD.

This article gets 4 distinct googles. Most of which seem to be discussion that this may be a fan movie proposed but a script may not even have been written. Since the movie hasn't been made it cab deleted under the crystalball rule. RJFJR 21:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per all above. feydey 01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —PrologFan {Talk} 18:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ral315 07:16, July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Cvan65rxeng1970, RxEng, and Crew Members

An attempt to list members of the USS enterprise's crews. If nothing else they will need to be moved to normal titles. humblefool® 21:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I have nearly 500 former USS Enterprise members to be added to the roles.
This page is only an hour old!
This page is also going to be linked to the Uss Enterprise page ...
I could use some help/advise in doing so if you have that expertise to offer.
Have you anything constructive to offer?-ts- 21:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory - Thatdog 21:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, above reason by Thatdog. Note: RxEng and Crew Members articles seem to be similar in nature. —Tokek 22:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Just saw those too. Adding to this VfD. humblefool® 23:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

BEFORE we dash out there and delete this page we should resolve the issue that got it placed here in the first place; otherwise, we are going to create bad feelings here. Admittedly, listing every member of the crew of the enterprise may be a little outlandish, but listing members who serve aboard in the form of companies or battlions or something of that nature could have encyclopedic value. Additionally, if he wishes to list them by department that should be permisable, after all we do allow lists of military units and there members. By allowing military pages to list members but not navy pages aren't we setting a double standard?TomStar81 23:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I have nearly 500 former members of the Reactor and Engineering Dept who are interested in the already existing USS Enterprise (CVN-65) Wikipedia page. All we are interested in doing is adding some more information ... ie ... those of us *people* who actually made it possible for this ship to operate. I have people from the 60's up to the present who have served in this capacity and who have a great deal of information to share, including many pictures and first-hand accounts of the fire in 1969 that took the lives of many of our shipmates.
All we are attempting to do here is put a human face on this. I thought how wonderful if we could do this as an example of what could be done with all of the other ships you currently have featured in the pages of Wikipedia. We only wish to compliment all of the information you already have.
Ex-servicemen are always interested in locating one another ... and what better place to do so than here on these wonderful pages that have already been established here on Wikipedia?

Sorry lads ... but these ships wouldn't have done a thing without the crews who manned them.
I just think you are missing out on an opportunity to actually tap into information that only we who actually worked and sailed abord these vessels have to offer.
But if we aren't welcome here ... that's fine.
We will do it elsewhere.
-ts- 23:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• PLEASE do not go!! Each and every one of you have the unique ability to added to Enterprise and other pages here because you have actually served aboard her. The wealth of knowlage you represent to wikipedia is unmeasuable, I know this from experience beacause it was User:Bschorr who contributed about 9/10ths of the content currently visable on the Iowa class battleship page and on the USS Missouri (BB-63) page. Even if the only warm welcome you recieve here is from me then.. for my sake.. please don't go. TomStar81 23:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Tom ... I don't think i have much to say about it.

If it's a question of how to link the pages ... or of catagories ... fine ... that is why I wrote to you asking for some assistance in doing it the Wikipedia Way. ;)

All I want to do is use the existing USS Enterprise (CVN-65) page to link to The Crew. And then into subcatagories such as the Rx and Engineering Dept ... where I hope to convince nearly 500 former Reactor and steam plant operators to get interested in how Wiki's work so they can contribute!

I was hoping to come up with a Template of sorts ... that other crews could use with many of the other ships here. I'd like to put a bit of a human face on the pages ... rather than just facts and figures, dates and stats.

Ah well ... I'm afraid I have wasted a lot of time today ... and had only begun to list the people I know who are already in touch with me. It's been quite something to have found many shipmates from more then 30 years ago ... and it was the Enterprise that brought us back together.

But I guess that unless one was actually part of such a crew ... it doens't hold much importance.

So it goes.

I've notified many of them of the *welcome* we have received here ...

so we may be getting up steam getting underway to defend ourselves once more.

manning the rails to repel borders. ;) lol

Thanks for the support ...

we will see. -ts- 00:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete for obvious reasons - a couple other decades have been speedy-deleted. Note that -ts- on his/her talk page says he/she has given up. - DavidWBrooks 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

yes. sorry to have bothered you all. -ts- 03:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 19:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mayank Puri

Non-notable music band vanity. See also Andrew Meyers, Michael Werner, "Royale with Cheese", & Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds. Athf1234 21:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity, and NN.Feydey 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mayank Puri is perhaps the second most notable bassist in the world, behind Sting

• Above vote by 216.164.30.179

• Delete. More notable than Paul McCartney then. I don't think so. More to the point, Allmusic.com has never heard of him. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds.Hamster Sandwich 13:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 2 to keep and 2 to delete (counting the nominator) -- BD2412 ^talk 02:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of Greek military bases

There exists Category:Greek military bases. It is easier to maintain, hence makes this article reduntant.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project2501a (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 July 2005
• Delete per nomination. The Literate Engineer 06:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless these are the only 5 bases in Greece. One advantage to lists is that they can contain red links, although this one currently does not. -- Visviva 12:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I would argue that it is the category should be deleted (or at least renamed to "Cities containing Greek military bases"), since none of these bases yet has its own article.

• Keep Lists and categories are complementary. The list can (and ideally should) have redlinks for the bases that are missing from the category - which is presumably many. CalJW 13:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

List of airports

• delete: List of Airports duplicates the coverage of Category:Airports, which is much more complete (and automatically updated) -- there are tens of thousands of airports in the world, and it is impractical to try to list them all by hand. Also, the distinction between "commercial" and "non-commercial" airports is confused, since nearly all public airports are commercial (even a crop duster flying off a grass strip is a commercial operation). Note also that nearly all links to the page are due to an old version of the air infobox. David 18:15, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
  • Keep: discussion on the vfd for List of Airports in Canada clearly shows that people want to maintain the lists manually, and it doesn't make sense to have national lists without an international list, so I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I would like to include a pointer to Category:Airports at the top of the page (i.e. not as a see-also at the bottom). David 16:42, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
• Delete. Though I initially wanted to keep the page at first glance, I do have to admit the Category does a better job of handling things. While I also understand that "commercial airport" is a euphemism for "industrial and/or commercial use (only) airport", I do agree with David that the term is misleading. Don't know about the infobox, but admittedly, this page has served its purpose and is ready for retirement.--Mitsukai 14:18, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: normally, in a situation like this we'd want to redirect rather than delete; unfortunately, redirecting from a regular page to a category does not seem to work properly. Another solution might be to blank the page and then include some text pointing the user to the category. David 13:29, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • There are very few "commercial use only" airports. Even the busiest airports usually allow general aviation operations (although often requiring heavy fees). Indeed the only airports that usually don't allow G.A. operations are, AFAIK, military fields. The commercial/noncommercial distinction is definitely flawed and should be removed even if this page stays. The closest you could get is "airports with air carrier operations" vs. not, but even that can be a gray area, and besides, it changes all the time. Danorris 30 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)
• Keep, if only because it provides a list by IATA codes. This is someting I have never found elswhere on the internet (thoguh there are searchable databases), and as such is extremely useful. Tompw 22:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What about [[34]]? It's alphabetical by city name instead of by code letters, but... Danorris 30 June 2005 15:01 (UTC)
    • Exactly - that site is by city name, not IATA code. Tompw 10:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just because I believe "List of Airports" does better job than the Categories. Categories normally provides references for various things related to a certain thing, however in this case airports in the world are all airports; theoretically "Lists" should exist rather than "Categories" handling this type of the lists. --Buckstars 07:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree as far as short, thematic lists go, but in this case we're talking about creating manual lists containing tens or hundreds of thousands of entries, and then trying to keep them current. David 16:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
    • I disagree with the part about "trying to keep them current". Once an airport is on the list with its IATA code, then nothing more ever needs to be done to the list as far as that airport is concerned. You add an aiport, and that's it. It's not like it includes any information on an airport which could change. Tompw 17:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems very useful and has its advantages over categories. --Allstar86 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was creating an article for the Zhob airport in Pakistan, and this is the first place I went looking for the IATA and ICAO codes. This article only needs expanding. --Unfocused 04:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concur with Unfocused's comment, except the airport I was looking for is King Khalid in Riyadh. -- Eagle^amn 18:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Strongly keep. Airports are a sometimes unseen but VERY VITAL part in each country or cities' economical survival. Whoever put this on delete must also think banks and hospitals are not important either! Antonio Dont Worry, Ill explain my personality later Martin 20:00 Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Dudtz-Keep

• Delete Actually, no, let's merge it into list of places because what Wikipedia needs is more giantly bloated masses of information, can't be written about in any meaningful way. We're writing an encyclopedia, not The Infinite Rehashing Of Trivial Representations Of Information Better Kept In Other Forms. The Literate Engineer 06:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • We're writing a great reference guide to the world. I'm sorry for you if you can't see the value of that.
• Keep. --*drew 10:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Categories do not replace lists. CalJW 13:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Yes - categories do not replace lists -- they only show completed articles, not potential redlinks. --mervyn 16:14, 27 July 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. --Haham hanuka 13:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Naughty Nati & Allie Sin

Good Lord... whether this porn star merits an article is questionable enough, but I count nine (almost certainly copyrighted) photos tacked on here. -- Scott e^iπ 22:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Note duplicate article at Allie Sin. -- Scott e^iπ 22:03, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as a relative amount of notability has been established. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 11:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as non-notable (Even though my male senses tell me she certainly is HOT....) --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Richhil 22:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Allie Sin (dupe). —Tokek 22:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Allie Sin. BTW at least one of the pics appears to be a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. And jeez, with all those photos you'd think they could at least have found some hardcore ones to share. JUST KIDDING. Nandesuka 02:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Are you insane, if anything Wikipedia needs more of these sort of articles! This should be nominated for featured article status!Rainbowwarrior1977 03:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Tokek. As for notability, according to Google the word "Allie Sin" turns up 19,100 hits whereas "Naughty Nati" turns up 64,300 hits. Food for thought. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Amending: Delete. She is not notable. Pretty much a glorified amateur porn star with some stripping experience. She may be worth keeping an eye on in the future, though. Or she may burn out. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 00:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The article as it currently stands tells us that she has already given up "her adult career". Uncle G 02:08:51, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
• Delete. Naughty Nati is Non Notable. I made Naughty Nati redirect to Allie Sin; that isn't something that requires a vote. I suspect some of the "redirect" votes above were confused by the duplication; do Tokek et al really want to keep the article? dbenbenn | talk 04:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since something is very wrong here. The VfD on the Allie Sin article redirect here so I'm not sure anyone who voted can fiure out what they voted for. Maybe the VfD should be closed because of this and if someone wants to renominate let them do that. Vegaswikian 03:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, it is noted that Naughty Nati was a dupliacte of Allie Sin. Although I would not be adverse to allow Allie Sin a renomination for VfD. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: They are both identical articles, which is why I linked to them to the identical VFD. You can still vote accordingly.--Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Allie Sin and Naughty Nati, non-notables, Thuresson 06:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since this is not a vanity page, how is Allie Sin any less notable than some of the other porn stars listed, like: Aurora Snow, Taylor Rain or Jenna Haze? Since it cannot be argued that Allie Sin is less notable, she should stay. It's all too subjective IMO. Since Naughty Nati is a duplicate page, just keep it linked to the Allie Sin page. Necromancing 12:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Too subjective? Not really. For instance, Jenna Jameson is notable for being the woman who put a face to pornography, per se. Linda Lovelace is notable for starring in a movie that made pornography more socially acceptable and made herself a figure of the anti-pornography, pro-feminist movement. Danni Ashe is a woman who made herself successful and was one of the first women to bring pornography successfully to the Internet. Right now, Allie Sin is only a pornographic has-been (and I'm using that term very, very loosely for lack of a better term) who has only had a one-year stint in the industry -- outside of that, she's done nothing of notability. She's only starred in 18 movies and is, therefore, only a glorified amateur. And as for Aurora, Taylor and Jenna... they have more under their belts, per se, than Allie Sin/Naughty Nati. Please see item number 6 -- Genealogical entries -- on "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 20:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: has-been as defined on Wikipedia also includes "one hit wonders". Take for example the listings for Right Said Fred and Flock of Seagulls. Again, it is too subjective a choice to delete the Allie Sin entry. She is known in the porn industry and has been in several films (okay, not as many as Jenna Haze, Aurora Snow or Taylor Rain) but like all young porn starlets, she's bound to make a comeback once she starts to fall on hard times (look at Belladonna (erotic actress) for an example). Necromancing 13:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: As I said, I used the term very, very loosely... Perhaps even incorrectly. She doesn't even qualify as a one hit wonder, as far as I can discern. She's only been in less than 20 films according to both the Internet Adult Film Database and Internet Movie Database -- which, by itself, is quite unremarkable, given how pornography is readily and easily produced. Also, just because she is "bound to make a comeback once she starts to fall on hard times" (which is an assumption of the grandest kind, given that pornography isn't the only career choice out there) doesn't mean she will. Plus "all young porn starlets" is a very generic term; there are so many of them that they a great majority of them are severely unnotable. When she does something striking and notable, then Wikipedia should have an entry on her. Until then, there's really no use to have an entry on her; if people want to know more about her, there's always Google. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Allie Sin. Some notability. JamesBurns 05:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia Allie Sin is already #2 on Google! Why dump it now? If people need to know about Allie Sin/Naughty Nati, let them come to Wikipedia and enjoy the other features this website has to offer. Necromancing 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Vote struck, user has already voted once. -- Scott e^iπ 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• The fact that this Wikipedia entry has already gained such prominence in a Google search indicates that there isn't much other material out there, which further strengthens the argument against notability. -- Scott e^iπ 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment if Wikipedia is so interested in deleting porn stars that are supposedly not notable, please also consider deleting the following "marginal" starlets Shay Sweet, Tawnee Stone, Stacy Burke, Lucy Lee, Kristi Myst, Kitty Marie, Kaitlyn Ashley and Adriana Sage. These "supposed" starlets are no more famous than Allie Sin, yet their pages are not up for deletion. I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this seems like a small crusade against Allie Sin. You list all these other non-notable porn stars, why not just keep Allie Sin? Necromancing 00:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a common claim made on VfD: that, because Wikipedia has an article or articles of a certain type, it must have other articles of that type. Generally, the question of whether an article merits inclusion is answered based on community-determined policy. When that policy is unclear or non-existant in regards to the article being questioned, it is up to the community to determine the appropriate action. When several similar articles are handled in the same way, it sets a precedent, which effectively becomes a new policy. From what I can see, there is no policy or precedent concerning what makes a porn actor notable. This means that the articles you mentioned exist only because no one has questioned their right to exist. Only when one of those articles is sent to VfD and survives will your argument have any weight. -- Scott e^iπ 08:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, make better, let the information flow. The notability question is easily answered by answering "Is she notable enought for this not being written by herself or her friend." --Easyas12c 11:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Haham hanuka 16:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable (as is the case with many porn stars). - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment why is this STILL open for discuss after the five day review period? Obviously there will NOT be a 2/3 majority to delete! Please remove tag ASAP. - User:Necromancing 08:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 19:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of common phrases inspired by "currently stationary"

List of phrases inspired by currently stationary was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-05. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of phrases inspired by currently stationary.

Looks like WP:BJAODN to me. :) SV|t 19:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yep.--DNicholls 22:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Dup content, I remember reading (and voting delete on) this already. Don't BJAODN. humblefool® 23:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish. -Splash 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 19:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of female heroes

Delete - I can't picture this list every being anywhere near complete, if it had confined itself to comicbook heroines, or legendary heroines, or hollywood heroines, possibly. As it is, it's just a random smattering of some female personalities, some historical, some fictional, etc. (Plus I'm pretty sure Morgan le Fay wouldn't be the archetype of a heroine...but that's personal opinion ;) ) Sherurcij July 6, 2005 22:33 (UTC)

• Well, she's the 'heroine' of Mists of Avalon, mostly because she's the main charachter. DuctapeDaredevil 7 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
• Delete vague classification which is inherently POV. One person's hero is another person's antihero. "Female literary protagonists" could apply to some. Amicuspublilius 23:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. With some background (historical + sociological) information it could be interesting but current list has pretty low value but high potential for unlimited growth and endless edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doubly pov. CalJW 13:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable in this form, including all the possible female heroes in all the possible defitions - Skysmith 09:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if cleaned up. JamesBurns 05:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ginsburg standard

There is no such thing as the "Ginsburg standard". Ruth Bader Ginsburg, during the hearings regarding her nomination as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, refused to answer questions regarding her personal philosphy except as it related to matters on which she had been an advocate in the past. (In that vein, she was no less forthwright (perhaps more) than Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, when he claimed never to have had an opinion on Roe v Wade' or to have discussed the case with anyone (so far as I can recall)'.)

I assume this entry is being added because of the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. It is part of an advance effort to legitimize any lack of responsivenss by Roberts during his nomination hearings. That is clearly evidenced by the fact that the contributer who added this entry and who added similar text to Justice Ginsburg's own entry provided no detail of the nature of her refusals, just making the blanket assertion that she "refuse[d] to answer questions posed to her by Senators" and that it the phrase "still used by some today." However, until just now there has never been such a thing as the "Ginsburg standard," and its inclusion here (and its recent adoption by a conservative pundit or two) is clearly a partisan effort that violates Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Moreover, a Google search (not definitive, but instructive) finds only five references to "Ginsburg standard," all from the last week or two. Because this entry is inaccurate and biased, I vote that it be deleted. Geoff.green 22:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism at best. Postdlf 23:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nnneologism with 10 Google hits, and per nominator. -Splash 23:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the guy who wrote this article. Wikipedia attempts to calulate the sum of human knowledge, not randomly delete articles. Hence I hereby vote that we KEEP THIS ARTICLE. --user:steven

• Delete. Neologism. Some of the articles in google actually are typos too (meant to be the Ginsberg standard) Mmmbeer 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Ask Sen. Schumer To Apply The Same Standard To Supreme Court Nominee Roberts As Was Applied To Justice Ginsburg Dear Steven,

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York has gone on record as saying he would question John Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, about his views on abortion and a host of other issues.

When asked questions concerning abortion in her Senate confirmation hearings, now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (then the nominee of President Clinton) responded by saying that the abortion issue could possibly come before her. Therefore, she said, it would be inappropriate for her to give an opinion on the question of abortion. (Incidentally, she had previously served as general counsel for the ACLU.)

Her refusal to answer questions concerning abortion has become known as the "Ginsburg Standard."

Ask Sen. Schumer to apply the same standard to nominee Roberts as was applied to nominee Ginsburg. It is the only fair thing to do.

Click Here To Send Your Email To Senator Schumer Now!

Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends.

"become know as the Ginsburg Standard" by whom? The AFA? Still vote to delete. Also, please mark who you are when you post changes. Thank you. Geoff.green 02:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Fuck Donald Wildmon. This is all false anyway, because Ginsburg did represent her views on abortion during her confirmation hearings: "[The right to an abortion] is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices." That sounds pretty clear. If anything, it should be the Clarence "I've never thought about abortion" Thomas standard. Fuck Donald Wildmon. Postdlf 05:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Nominator vote is vague but sounds like a keep(!), no need to discount any votes. -Splash 03:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

List of golf courses

Only four courses. This has potential. Not nessecarily deleteable, maybe by adding more stuff to it. However, isn't this a bit redundant as there already is a category of golf courses? --fpo July 3, 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Keep. The list is useful, and the Category that you mentioned does not list these golf courses (there are many more than four listed now). Decius 04:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It's "nominate a list because there is a category day", but that is false reasoning. CalJW 13:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep I suppose. I'll organize it by State however (country for foreign ones) --fpo 14:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — This list would be more definitive if it were about golf courses that have been used for national or international golf tourneys. Otherwise it is going to be a vast list of no particular value. It adds nothing that couldn't be covered by one or more categories. — RJH 16:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:RJHall. JamesBurns 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at this point, this is a good looking list. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of professional wrestlers who are also musicians

Someone said this article couldn't be put up for speedy deletion and that if we wanted it gone we would have to do it like this.. so here we all are... its a pointless page, lets just delete it and get on with our lives --- Paulley 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

My vote: Delete, if anyone likes the idea of listing wrestlers in bands, lets just make a category for it instead --- Paulley 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and just add a mention to the relevant person articles if not there already (which one supposes it would be if they are famous musicians too). I don't like the categorify option because it's just a random overlap of things: three or four articles do not make a category you could write a few paragraphs about, per the recommendations for categories. -Splash 23:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair point, stick to original plan just to delete it -- Paulley

Delete, too esoteric. McPhail 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete trivial, not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 05:05, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

List of songs about romantic breakups

Overlaps List of songs about romance (including breakups). The latter one has been kept up better (see history). Looks like (a copy of) same source? Did not check merging necessity. -DePiep 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge --malathion ^talk 23:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fork. JamesBurns 05:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

List of songs about the fear of death

Was overlapping List of songs about death; merged, now it's 100% overlap. -DePiep 14:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete redundant. —Tokek 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -Splash 23:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 05:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Nudity. NSR (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Nekkid

Wikipedia is not a dictionary(WP:NOT) Tokek 22:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to nudity. Joyous (talk) 23:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Joyous; it's not particularly a neologism, (and I don't like redirects for silly words), but it is used fairly widely at least in British slang. -Splash 23:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to nudity. JamesBurns 05:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to nudity, but also create Wiktionary article. - Gilgamesh 19:45, 31 July 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. The votes are: 3 to keep, 3 to delete (counting the nominator). -- BD2412 ^talk 02:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ebookers

Advertising. Page created by User:Ebookers. -maclean25 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• delete "We believe that ebookers' merchant relationships are the amongst the best in Europe..." possibly POV-ed beyond what is salvageable —Tokek 22:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is a major company, in the UK at least with regular television advertisements etc etc. I was shocked to realise they must not already have an article. They get 1,590,000 Googles and their website has an Alexa traffic rank of 3,469 with 306 incoming links. That's enough for me. It needs the ad-langugae removing but that is no reason for deletion. I have tagged it for cleanup. -Splash 23:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Why did you remove "Category: Leading Online Pan European retail travel company"? That was just funny. -maclean25 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Notable company. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I really don't like advertising in Wikipedia. This article is an advertisement written by the company, unless the user's name and the articles name being the same is a coincidence (vanity?). The entirety of the article, with the exception of first sentence of the first and third paragraphs is "ad-langugae". The million hits on google are from other similar adverts (in various languages). Although...I could live with a cleaned-up version of the page (with no ad-language), though I do not intend to do the research on this company. - maclean25 02:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep that needs a lot of work. I've marked it pov. We should have an article, and we'll probably get a good one sooner if we keep this than if we delete it. CalJW 13:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:16, 27 July 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 17:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Osuwari

Anime fancruft. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOT) —Tokek 22:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Japanese term meaning "sit". nn — RJH 16:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. – ishwar  (speak) 21:04, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
• Delete nn foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 05:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 20:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Los Sobrios Emputados

• delete* This is a vanity page. It is of some small, unknown local band, and probably will never become more than a stub. The article was by a member of the band. It should be deleted. Fantrl 28 June 2005 12:44 (UTC)
• Delete - Unnotable, very POV at parts. -- Cabhan 28 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 05:00, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Lord of Nightmares

Short and POV. Delete. BradBeattie

Delete ➥the Epopt 18:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Replace with a better, more informative entry User: Michael Hopcroft

Delete--DNicholls 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn animecruft. JamesBurns 04:58, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Louis Montebello

Bio of a teacher. Pure vanity, or something of particular merit in keeping such an article? --Sgkay 11:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not really. In Malta, Ing Montebello is somewhat of a personality so the page is value adding

This is untrue. The article is nothing but an adversitement appart from being listed twice under Louis montebello. - Maltesedog] 21:16, 16 June 2005 (GTM +2)

• delete Louis Montebello and Louis montebello, advertisement. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Louis montebello. —Tokek 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:53, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Louis montebello

• DELETE. Louis montebello is not a well known personality in Malta. He is not a particularly important person who should be listed on wikipedia. Also it looks like an advertisement. In fact the article is the same as Louis Montebello. --Maltesedog 06:03, 8 July 2005 (UTC) (signed by Tokek)
• delete Louis Montebello and Louis montebello, advertisement. See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Louis Montebello. —Tokek 23:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Golpalott's Third Law

Fight back! Stop the pottercruft now! --Doc (?) 22:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can find a suitable merge. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 23:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ➥the Epopt 23:44, 23 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mrdowling.com

Web page vanity. Alexa.com rank of about 189,000. Not sure its a falls under CSD so its here. 'Delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 23:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article gives no idea what is this website really about. Pavel Vozenilek 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn website advertising. JamesBurns 04:52, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

John Farr

Non-notable music band vanity. See also Andrew Meyers, Michael Werner, "Royale with Cheese", Mayank Puri& Andrew and the Atlas Shruggeds. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep John Farr is the most inovative guitarist since Les Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.30.179 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --malathion ^talk 23:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More inovative than Jimi Hendrix then. I don't think so. Allmusic.com has never heard of him. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, vanity, ad, fails WP:MUSIC. get your own website. —Tokek 04:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:51, 26 July 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 02:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Weh

Tempted to label it nonsense but don't think it is. Rather, it is a neologism/dictdef. hence, delete. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Agree that it borders on nonsense. At best it is a neologism. Weh. Tobycat 23:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If a neologism, how widespread/notable is it? Any rpg or chatroom will churn out 5 or 6 new 'words' every year. Just thought that might be a consideration before anyone's tempted to send it off to Wiktionary. That being said, Delete.--DNicholls 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• And "wuh" means "where", "when", and "whoops". Delete. Chatoyant 23:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Tobycat. —Tokek 04:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:50, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Justin Walter

Drummer for a band that has not released a record yet. Joyous (talk) 22:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity - there will likely be articles for every band member soon. Harro5 23:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 10:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 04:49, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Etrom

Band vanity. Meets no criteria for WP:MUSIC and isn't likely ever to. Harro5 23:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Easy delete Renata3 10:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 04:48, 26 July 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. Dmcdevit·t 00:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Profit a prendre

This article actually has nothing to do with a Profit-a-Prendre. Nothing at all -- its about joint tenancies, and doesn't do a very good job at that. I have written an accurate article on this topic at "Profit-a-Prendre." Rainbowwarrior1977 23:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete There's also a good Joint Tenants article. --DNicholls 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:47, 26 July 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. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Cryptology (album)

The (official) name of the new Muse CD has not yet been confirmed, but it was previously believed to be called Cryptology or Stars on Fire. Right now, some rumours appear/seem to be false. Can't we just wait until it is (officially) confirmed (like what MrHate said about Tool's upcoming album Teleincision, which is a rumour too)? -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as other hypothetical albums/books have entries and information is compiled about them. Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --DNicholls 23:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not just a rumour source. I'm asking for someone to delete the article because, it is not officially confirmed. As I said above. -- Mike Garcia | talk 23:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, at least until it is confirmed. Cyclone49 02:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation. JamesBurns 04:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. There will eventually be an article for this album, and since the band has already spoken about it and played songs on it, there's no reason we shouldn't have an article about it. Acegikmo1 20:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, we don't create album articles that has a rumoured title that isn't quiet official yet. -- Mike Garcia | talk 00:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That's why I think we should rename it to Next Muse album or something of the like. Acegikmo1 20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think that would be a good idea. -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Well I've Created an Article Next Muse Album which was used to redirect to Cryptology. Why not have it as the "album speculation" page until more is confirmed? But yes I think really this should be deleted Blindfreddy84 23:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
          • The truth about this album is that the album may not exist or be called as Cryptology, source InMuseWorld.net. -- 67.150.21.77 22:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was move to Wiktionary. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Catalectic

Dictdef. Won't ever be an article. Tempshill 23:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--DNicholls 23:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Harro5 23:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Not enough info for an article. Tygertyger 17:28, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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: Speedily deleted

Kenneth Evoy

The page provides no useful information and should be deleted. It is clearly a vanity piece.

I speedied it. Redwolf24 (Talk) 23:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Anagoge

dictdef Tempshill 23:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --DNicholls 23:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Wiktionary. Harro5 23:45, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• {{wikitionary}}. humblefool® 23:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• wiktionary Renata3 10:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 04:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Novels involving beer

Much too whide a topic for a list. Harry Potter could go on it; it's got Butterbeer! Urg. humblefool® 23:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete too broad. --malathion ^talk 23:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical. K1Bond007 06:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonmaintainable as well... probablyaround a million novels mention beer of some sort. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 21:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 04:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense
• Delete Nonsense
• Keep Keep it! It sounds like the primary criticism is that the title is too vague or too broad-sounding. In actuality, there are very few novels in existence wherein the main plot revolves around beer, so the list would be quite finite. Someone's comment indicated they misunderstood and thought it should be about any books which mentioned beer -- which would obviously be too broad. But, that's not the case...

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand National Party Classical Liberal Policy Advisory Group

This will likely never become a useful article - a list of chairpeople of a political party advisory group. Also, no one will ever search for that article name. Harro5 23:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:44, 26 July 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. – ABCD✉ 02:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Shenzhou 8, Shenzhou 9, Shenzhou 10

Although I've been working on these articles, I think we should get delete them under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Currently the Chinese have not said a word about what will happen on the flights, and all we have on them is speculation from Western observers. Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Any pertinent information there could be put under Shenzhou spacecraft future missions. --DNicholls 23:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real possibility for growth Renata3 10:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree that there is room for growth, but in a couple of years. About all we can say about these flights is that they will happen after Shenzhou 7. Apart from that all we are doing is crystal ball gazing. To quote Wikipedia is not:

Individual scheduled or expected future events, such as the 2028 Summer Olympics, are not suitable topics for articles, unless they are as predictable as an astronomical event; planning or preparation for the event is already in progress and the preparation itself merits encyclopedic inclusion; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

• • Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. These will probably be launched and will be named such... however, we can't be perefectly sure, so delete for now until the Chinese government comes out with a plan. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 21:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation. JamesBurns 04:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not, can always be created if/when they happen. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against non-speculative future articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Shenzhou spacecraft. I would actually prefer Keep, but I guess that's not going to happen. I suppose I'm one who doesn't mind if Wikipedia functions as a crystal ball. Jdavidb 17:25, 27 July 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. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Group

This is a collaboration page, not a page belonging to a real user. It does not belong in this namespace. Moreover, it seems to serve no useful purpose.

• Delete. -- Beland 23:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really have no idea what OB1 is up to. ~~~~ 22:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 04:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Userpage of nonexistent user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 26 July 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. Dmcdevit·t 01:01, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Peep Peep Hurray, All Aboard With The Steam Team

From the same spirit that seems to have brought us Cranky Bugs & Other Thomas Stories, we now have Peep Peep Hurray and All Aboard With The Steam Team which is a horridly written article about a non-notable Thomas the tank engine video. EvilPhoenix talk 23:56, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Individual episodes or videos are inherently non-notable (best left on fan sites) and any useful info can be merged into the main Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends article. Harro5 04:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Harro5. --Maustrauser 04:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, nn videos. JamesBurns 04:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep individual episodes per Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 13:51, 26 July 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.