Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Cranton[edit]

Delete invented 'neologism'. Lots of Googles but none to do with this word. Article finishes with "and any other phonetically distinctive words conceivable." -Splash 00:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wannigan[edit]

Delete Uh, whatever, no. And no, I will not suggest a redirect to Bluetooth. This might even be speediable under the second definition of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. -Splash 00:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This might be BJAODN meterial. humblefool® 00:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied it once already. Delete. -- Scott eiπ 00:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete nonsense. plain and simple. Osu8907 00:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm trying to give up the deletionism - but it is just too hard this morning --Doc (?) 00:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funnin' us. Delete. Denni☯ 01:02, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
  • Delete - What a load of rubbish. Definitely does not belong on Wikipedia. --Peter McGinley 02:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but the word seems interesting. Some other definition of Wannigan might merit an article. Pburka 03:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonsense. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 05:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Patent nonsense KeithD 18:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nonsense, but not Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The text makes sense; it's the topic which is nonsensical. Pburka 22:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do bear in mind there are two definitions of patent nonsense over at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense; there's an arguable case for this one under the second, perhaps. I decided not strong enough to tag it for speedy, but the second option of oft-overlooked. -Splash 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Haikupoet 23:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it did give me a laugh. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Loren bidner[edit]

He teaches people to hoola hoop. Has a website. Found no evidence of acting career. humblefool® 00:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loren is actually a 'she' and, more surprisingly 'professional hooper’ isn’t a typo (as I initially thought) - but anyway delete. --Doc (?) 00:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is interesting - I found references to a male hooper named Loren Bidner, too. Huh. humblefool® 03:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While her hooping classes have attracted the interest of the New York Times, she is not as yet notable enough for Wikipedia. Delete. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No IMDB hits for Mr./Ms. Bidner. And I think professional hoopster sounds better than professional hooper, just for the record. Fernando Rizo 01:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - copuld be speedy-deleted under the new criteria, which include vanity pages - DavidWBrooks 02:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • no, 'renouned actor' is at least an assertion of notability, even if it proves unfounded. --Doc (?) 02:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only 108 google hits, nn. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 05:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not? He gets several mentions in the New York Times, the New York Daily News, and several television reports. Although of minor importance, he seems to be a rather minor celebrity in the New York area. I can't verify the actor portion, though. John Barleycorn 06:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Vanity. KeithD 18:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 06:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:41, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

NASCAR Britney Spears Drivers[edit]

I really don't think this belongs here --Doc (?) 00:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can explain what the hell this is, and why it belongs in Wikipedia. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this turns out to be something tremendously clever and encyclopedic that I just can't figure out. Fernando Rizo 01:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a note on the author's talk page asking them to swing by and explain the articles. Maybe it'll all make sense then. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Patent Nonsense/Vandalism. 207.161.33.170 has done the same type of vandalism to Jimmie Johnson, Jeff Gordon, Kasey Kahne, and Jeremy Mayfield on 13 July 2005. --slowpokeiv 02:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wtf? Cyclone49 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent Nonsense
  • Delete. Flibbertygibbet. -- BD2412 talk 04:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. what - Thatdog 04:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per BD2412. What he said. Hamster Sandwich 05:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indeed.--ThomasK 06:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Patent nonsense. KeithD 18:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Idont Havaname 18:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above MicahMN | Talk 23:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 06:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense or neologism Mmmbeer 22:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ozkizil[edit]

Delete WP:NOT a geneaology database. -Splash 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

NASCAR Mandy Moore Drivers[edit]

Huh? humblefool® 00:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of conservatives[edit]

This list is not and has no potential to become encyclopedic. Conservatism is an exceptionally broad term which, in the Western world, encompasses a wide variety of doctrines, ideologies, and doctrines. In the United States alone it comprehends Paleoconservatism, Neoconservatism, and arguably Libertarianism. In a broader sense it can include any who today follows the doctrine of classical liberalism, depending on your point of view and which country you live in. Even worse, people can be conservative in one way but "liberal" in another. Some are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa. This list, in order to be comprehensive, must ignore all of these distinctines and lump every possible sort of conservative together.

I would ask of anyone who votes to keep what value this sort of general list has. For the most part it's unsourced, and might possibly qualify as original research. This isn't like a list of office-holders, which can be independently verified and which has obvious utility. It's a list of people that are deemed conservative in some manner, or deem themselves conservative. There is something strange about a list which includes together Alfred Thayer Mahan, Margaret Thatcher, Michael Crichton, and Benjamin Disraeli. They're conservative for different reasons in different contexts. This list takes no account of someone like William Ewart Gladstone, who would seem "liberal" (in the American sense) in 1880 but would appear ultra-conservative today. In short, this list is unencyclopedic, subjective, unverifiable, and anachronistic, and I would argue that its very nature precludes rectifying these problems. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What Mackensen said. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 01:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or drastically redefine (ditto on the reasons) --Doc (?) 01:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, impossible to NPOV. God I hate lists. Fernando Rizo 01:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 04:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment perhaps a link from each of the people listed here (article) towards the conservative disipline that best desribes their philosophy or particular inclination. For instance, at the bottom of the William F. Buckley article, a link to Neoconservatives ect. ect. Hamster Sandwich 05:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed w/ Mackensen. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly defined list. Flowerparty 13:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Mackensen. KeithD 18:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable and in a lot of cases inherently POV. --Idont Havaname 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is such a broad term that it must be POV MicahMN | Talk 23:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - conservative by what definition? - Skysmith 10:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - PoV and impossible to correct. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, conservative is auto-NPOV, and that's me being conservative. GarrettTalk 11:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too easily to dispute and PoV issues. CrazyC83 01:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POv unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 06:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. GarrettTalk 04:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir_ahmetoğlu[edit]

Vanity. I'm quite sure the title of the article is his name. No content, he writes (in Turkish) "don't edit this page, I reserved it for myself". Also there's another nonsense page he created (also VfD) which he links to this page. Delete them please. I'm embarrased that this person is from my country.

SPEEDY Delete. vanity and not in English. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments only - no need to feel embarrased. --Bhadani 06:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity, non-English. --Etacar11 23:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is clearly vanity. MicahMN | Talk 23:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

}

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 20:58, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Vanilla Crisps[edit]

Delete: well meaning, I think, but WP not a cookbook. -Splash 01:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. You got to this just before me. I'm going to tell the user about Wikibooks:Cookbook so that we can get something good out of this =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 01:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Sasquatch. Hamster Sandwich 05:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks and expand. KeithD 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There doesn't appear to be a recipe here either, just a description of what vanilla crisps are, so I don't think there is need for a transwiki here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the article could tell us how to make it, yes it could be transwiki'd but at the moment it's a meaningless article. JamesBurns 06:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar shadows 20:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) If you don't like the article being so short, you could always add to it.[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidence Response Team[edit]

After trying to find out if this was all true it seems to be a bunch of hearsay. this link (if fails search google print with "Incidence Response Team CIA") seemed to show an "incidence response team" associated with the US Department of Homeland Security but not that it was the official title. I'd love it someone proved me wrong since new trustworthy articles are always good. gren 01:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Incident Response Team would make more sense grammatically, and seems to garner a few google hits. Most are related to UFO theories? There might be an encyclopedic topic hiding in there somewhere. Pburka 03:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without evidence, this smells like (teen) original research (spirit). Nandesuka 04:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A quick perusal of a Google search for "Incident Response Team" CIA seems to indicate that that is the proper term, but a look at what comes up in that search indicates that IRTs are ad hoc groupings and not a standard organization. Perhaps an article on the creation of an Incident Response Team and a list of some of them and what they did would be a decent article. John Barleycorn 06:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A quick search turned up this biography stating (of course it could be made up too)

Mr. Charette attended the US Naval War College in Newport, RI, where he received a Master’s Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies. In 1985, he was appointed Chief, CIA Counter Terrorist Center, Foreign Liaison Training and Terrorist Incident Response Team (IRT).

It may also have other meanings, as in business[1] and computer security. Mmmbeer 16:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Mmmbeer alluded, "incident response team" is a common phrase. For instance, a number of state DOTs have incident response teams that specialize in such clandestine and risky missions as clearing overturned tractor trailers. This current content reads like an amateur conspiracy theory, so I'm guessing it should go. Thing is, I can't figure out if "Incident response team" can actually be expanded far enough beyond "An incident response team is a team that responds to incidents" that it wouldn't be just a lengthy dicdef. The Literate Engineer 06:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. GarrettTalk 13:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteroad, North Carolina[edit]

This appears to be a hoax set up by one IP ( User:63.19.222.95 ). There is no Weston county in North Carolina, according to The Cencus Bureau--Weston's in Wyoming. I can find no reference to a Whiteroad, North Carolina, either, and have not checked on his other 3 entries. Strong Delete All. DNicholls 01:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Hedley 01:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Le syndicat[edit]

Delete, this is a subsubsubstub, and it is incredibly difficult to work out anything about the band, except that allmusic.com hasn't heard of them. This might be speediable as no context. -Splash 02:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Cursory research (Google) lists (le Syndicat) as an individual, not a band. Could be similarly named artists. The individual goes by Le Syndicat or alternately Le Syndicat Electronique. He seems to have dozens of releases, although, my research indicates he began as "Le Syndicat" in 1997, not 1983 as is indicated in the article. Lots and lots and lots of material on this one. Heres an example [2] I make take a crack at it myself, even though I usually only listen to Inuit Ulluation music. If anybody thinks its worthwhile, I'll do the edit. Muah! Hamster Sandwich 05:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no attempt to establish notability and no Allmusic page. --TheMidnighters 08:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability of THIS Le syndicat established. --Etacar11 23:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band. JamesBurns 06:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Demos[edit]

This was first tagged by User:Tempshill. Aside from not even bothering to point out which band created this demo, it doesn't meet any requirements at WP:MUSIC. Band vanity. Harro5 02:43, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. RJFJR 14:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 06:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pull a jim[edit]

Vanity/Personal joke, not an encyclopedic article see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Gblaz 03:13, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • yes, there are some hits, but they encompass a great variety of last names attached to the "jim." They aren't all referring to the same thing. Joyous (talk) 04:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy - nonsense attack page, vandalism --Doc (?) 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 14:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn joke, possible hoax. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 18:42, 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 No consensus, kept. Hedley 01:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wangus[edit]

Delete, none of the Google hits have any more meaning than this article does. And I googled for "Wangus Meat" in case it was supposed to be a band or a brand, but got zero hits. -Splash 03:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, no-no, I think it's something much simpler than that. Delete--DNicholls 03:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd feel a lot better about it if a Google search for wangus beef contained less comical results...--DNicholls 18:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BJAODN? Aerion//talk 03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wangus meat is probably much like spam. Denni☯ 04:33, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I have heard that once you eat a wangus, you'll always be a wangus eater. Hamster Sandwich 05:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, but not BJAODN-worthy either. Unless the ingredients are as I described above... Weak keep, now we know what it is. GarrettTalk 04:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: This from Google: beef cows ... Wagyu is a Japanese breed, and Wangus is a Wagyu and Angus cross. So Wangus is an obscure hybrid like a Liger or Tigron. And not as dirty as I thought. :) I doubt this breed is noteworthy enough thouhgGarrettTalk 13:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've rewritten the article in line with Garrett's findings. It's only a stub, but it's better than it was. It's probably not that notable, but I think it just about scrapes in. KeithD 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into some other cow article. Wikipedia should definitely contain informative obscure (sourced) facts such as these. Lupin 11:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with rewrite. JamesBurns 06:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Hedley 01:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bendis Board[edit]

Delete nn forum, gets 170 unique Google hits. (And what does the last sentence mean?) -Splash 03:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum, the last sentence has, regrettably, been removed. -Splash 03:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 69.227.166.204 blanked this page. I restored it manually, but if an admin wants to revert it for any reason...--DNicholls 10:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic material 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn forum, now vandalised. JamesBurns 06:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urgh, please Delete Cyclone49 09:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Ideals[edit]

Was originally deleted by VFD vote, then subsequently undeleted by VFU vote. This VFD is part of undeletion procedure. The reason for its earlier nomination was that it would be original research, and that the website mentioned in the article is non-notable per its low Alexa rank of 760,000. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 12:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I vote Keep, just as I did last time. But having read the VFU page in question I'm not sure if my vote will count anymore, so there we are. =/ I think the article could be expanded, and I think more citations are necessary, but that's simply a matter of legwork. And I still think that this article is necessary, since articles like Democracy have become the battle ground of entrenched camps of wikipedians. Xaa 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it matters, I've worked on the article a bit and added citations. You may wish to take a look at it again. =) Xaa 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as personal essay and original research, unless much better evidence is provided that this is not just personal musing about a phrase. I am not convinced that the phrase "democratic ideals" has any specific meaning beyond the combination of the meaning of the noun "ideals" modified by the adjective "democratic." I note that the Columbia Encyclopedia uses the phrase in a few articles but does not have an article under that entry. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing my vote: no vote. I still don't like the article, but I do feel that Xaa has made a serious effort to meet the worst objections. In its present form, it doesn't do Wikipedia any harm. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This phrase is used widely by politicians and, as evidenced by the newly added citations in the article, is also discussed by social scientists and other researchers. The recent modifications to the article make it less problematic than before. Though it still needs work, I believe that it has value and should be kept so that it can continue to mature. Tobycat 21:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonably good article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. --Apyule 08:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase shows up constantly, and the usages should be documented. Since it is a concept in standard curiculum in California, clearly it means something specific to large notable organizations. 66.30.79.242 16:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randomajestiq[edit]

Delete. The article is essentially vanity (even though it was not written by the artist himself, it is of similar character to vanity). It fails every guideline of WP:MUSIC. Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 03:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment After a brief Google, he seems on the surface to meet at least #6 of WP:MUSIC. There is alot of material on the artist. I can't comment on how notable he is. Electronic music fans? Hamster Sandwich 06:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Golson[edit]

Non notable, vanity page.

  • Delete: Pure vanity. Notability not established. --Ragib 03:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I followed the link to "Drudge" couldn't find his name there. I followed the link to Storm Tracker and there he was. I don't know how notable he is, but if theres nothing to add, I would vote Delete as not particularly notable. Hamster Sandwich 06:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A Google search comes up with 5,870 hits, apparently 244 of them unique. Not an extremely well-known blogger, and I'd be more confident if he wasn't using blogspot.com so I could assign an Alexa ranking to him, but the various Google hits indicate at least some notoriety. Does anybody know if blogspot reveals how popular their individual blogs are> John Barleycorn 06:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another forgettable blogger. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Presume vanity. Flowerparty talk 14:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is this guy? Never heard of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.60.113 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 July 2005
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per John Barleycorn. Hall Monitor 16:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a blogger. Indrian 16:58, 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. Hedley 01:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Act Against Slavery[edit]

should be moved to Wikisource Dhodges 03:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Canada abolished slavery before the rest of the world! That's notable - move the source text to WS if you like. --Doc (?) 08:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was actually Ontario, not Canada as a whole. Even so, it was news to me that it abolished slavery significantly in advance of abolition across the British empire, quite a notable topic. The article could do with cleanup to explain background to the act, explananation of its provisions to a non-lawyer, history of slavery in Canada as a whole. PatGallacher 11:02, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
  • Don't include copies of primary sources. The 1793 primary source material is now in the historical documents section of Wikisource. Uncle G 13:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the new article. Pburka 16:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Doc glasgow. Peter Grey 17:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. -- BD2412 talk 20:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. For the third time today I will ask, What's this doing at VfD??? CanadianCaesar 20:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was a little hasty -O.K., a lot hasty. It seemed to me at the time that it was almost entirely primary source material. As re-written it makes a decent stub Dhodges 00:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand and should be linked from slavery. -asx- 05:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Page added: 24 July 2005, Current date: 3 June 2024

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Long vote - All this discussion :/ Hedley 01:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to impeach George W. Bush[edit]

this page should be deleted.

And it's not only POV, it's inaccurate and misleading. Many quoted "allegations" can not even be traced to a source. For example, Google results for 'Bush and alleged overseeing of "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments"' yields 1 result - this wikipedia page. The charge of 'Alleged "Concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;"' seems to have been copied verbatim from http://www.votetoimpeach.org/notes_5.htm, but the source has no supporting evidence to back up this claim ... and it should also be noted that the author of the source web site in question is none other than Ramsey Clark, Saddam Hussien's and Slobadan Milosevich's lawyer, as well as a leader in the World Worker's Party - ie. not the most credible source, especially when he presents no supporting evidence to back up his claim that the US President actually was "Concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment"

at most, this topic should be a sub-section (and a small one) of the George W. Bush page. Larryfooter 03:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - people seriously want to impeach the President: there's no evidence that he's done anything to warrant impeachment, but that doesn't stop people from trying. I mean people successfully impeached President Clinton. -Acjelen 03:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an article that needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. If there are NPOV issues, tag it as such, but if such a movement actually exists (and I believe I have heard rumblings of it), it's certainly significant. Aerion//talk 03:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Significant, but POV comes out in the last section. Would also support a Merge with Bush's entry. --DNicholls 04:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned up some sloppiness in the last section, which consequently removed some POV.--DNicholls 04:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup. The semi-organized futile grumblings are a phenomenon which is, to some extent, separate from their target. -- BD2412 talk 04:11, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The acts of the US president, whoever he is, affect the world. Impeachment affects the US president. There verifiably exists a movement to impeach the present incumbent. Ergo, encyclopedic. Keep. Incidentally, Larryfooter might learn things of interest from Charles Tiefer's book Veering right: How the Bush administration subverts the law for conservative causes (U Calif Press, 2004). -- Hoary 05:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Vis-a-vis Hoary, above.Sean Black 05:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the fact that something exists does not make it encyclopedic - i went shopping today, does that deserve its own wiki-entry? it's only encyclopedic value is in relation to GW Bush, so then make it a footnote in George W. Bush - but to give it a separate article implies that it is a mass movement - which it is not. It's not even a movement!!! It's a brainfart of Saddam's lawyer, for God's sake!!! Ugh!!! Larryfooter 06:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    -- and Horay, you couldn't pay me enough to read that nonsense :) Larryfooter 06:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Persuasiveness comes with fewer exclamation points. Meanwhile, I'm puzzled by your harping on at the fact that Clark is/was Saddam's lawyer. I happen to think that people accused of war crimes (or of pedophilia, of embezzlement, or whatever) should be represented by good lawyers, and that a conscientious freelance lawyer is not besmirched by the crimes, etc., of his/her client even if that client is found guilty. Have I misunderstood US law? Meanwhile, your ability to judge the nonsensicality of Tiefer's book may be assisted by reading it. -- Hoary 07:49, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Reply to Comment: True Hoary - but if one examines Clark's activities over the past 20 years, then one notices a patern. He defends Slobadan Milosevich - then Saddam - before that he heads up the World Worker's Party - in short, he consistently befriends enemies of the United States of America. So then one must ask himself (or herself) "why?" Why would one take up common cause over and over again with enemies of not only the US, but enemies of freedom, human rights, and life itself (both Saddam and Milosevich were responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people) - so if he starts a "movement" to impeach the president, is that newsworthy or encyclopedic? and if so, is it encyclopedic enough to warrant its own entry, or is it just a footnote to an encyclopedic topic (ie. the President of the United States)? I've never seen any report on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX or read any report in the NY Times, Washington Post or any other paper that leant any credibility to his "movement." There are all sorts of "movements" in the United States, and many of them are not encyclopedic - so why is this one? This falls more into the category of "silly actions of crackpots," and thus is not encyclopedic. Larryfooter 16:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, I would not recommend taking up a mission of removing from WP all articles about "silly actions of crackpots". Anyway, there are six bullet points in proponents section and the picadilloes of one does not dismiss the desires of many people, no matter how misguided. Note: These discussions should be moved to the talk page. -Acjelen 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per BD2412. Hamster Sandwich 06:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The impeachment movement is both real and notable. Stirling Newberry 06:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely ridiculous and misleading page. I am discraced that so many people are voting to keep this page. Osu8907 06:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The attack on Ramsey Clark is inappropriate. He was a US Attorney General, for ghu's sake! The contention that this is not a mass movement is incorrect as well, as Congressman John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has expressed interest in spearheading such a campaign, although I'm not sure how far his activites have progressed. John Barleycorn 06:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When John Conyers starts such a movement, this page can be created. DiceDiceBaby 16:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, like this?: [3]
  • Reply to DiceDiceBaby: It would be crystal ballish to say that Conyers is actively spearheading an impeachment movement, but it would not be crystal ballish to say that he has expressed interest, which he has done. John Barleycorn 22:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A movement is "a series of organized activities working toward an objective", as, for example, the Civil Rights movement. Opinions and statements are not a movement. When people are massing in the streets clamoring for Bush's impeachment...that's the time for a "movement" article. I mean, really: Clinton was impeached, and it would be misleading to contend there was a movement for him to be impeached. - Nunh-huh 07:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You have a point, but I think you're defining "movement" rather too narrowly. There does seem to be some evidence that there really was a "vast" (well, pretty big) right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton; you don't need massing in the streets when you've got Fox on the boob tube, AM blowhards, Murdoch journalism, rightwing Christian fundamentalists, etc.: I'd say there was a "movement", or at least the illusion thereof. There do seem to be organized activities working toward the objective of impeachment; I happen to think that impeachment is unlikely because of lingering distaste of the preceding one, but we'll see. -- Hoary 08:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • "My" definition is Merriam-Websters. A conspiracy is not a movement. A committee is not a movement. A task-force is not a movement. There is no movement to impeach Bush. - Nunh-huh 18:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Is there any chance this vote won't turn into a POV vent? I do think 'movement' is a bit of a grandiose term to use here, but I'm at a loss over what else to call it. Either way, please let's keep the soapboxes on the user's page, huh?--DNicholls 08:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a US political stub and should be tagged as such, pending expansion. The lead is anemic and needs a lot of work, however, as it stands, the overall article is a presentation of well sourced information offered in a neutral tone. The only reason to remove it would seem to an effort to censor the content. In addition, I find no issue with the article's title which seems to be in keeping with stanards on article names. Calicocat 09:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment, there is no serious movement to impeach President Bush. If and when there is there should be an article but not yet. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You may not characterize the movement as "serious," but the movement evidently does exist, and is backed by several notable people. Aerion//talk 13:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Aerion: if being Saddam Hussein's lawyer is "notable" and qualifies the movements for which one shows support as "serious," then we are all in real trouble. Larryfooter 16:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I guess we're all in real trouble (but hey, I realized that a long time ago). Being Saddam Hussein's lawyer is quite notable, I would think. After all, we're talking about Saddam Hussein. Note that I didn't claim the movement is "serious," only that it exists and is associated with notable people. Aerion//talk 20:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one. Clean up as necessary to handle POV issues, but keep it. --Paula Sandusky 10:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, it's certainly a notable subject and needs an article jamesgibbon 11:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impeach him there must still be hope! Dunc|☺ 12:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to clean up. Most certainly noteable. Eclipsed 13:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

500,000 signatures. Movement is valid. DiceDiceBaby 15:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedians can put their ideology aside and vote on the merits of the article, they'll agree that that this is not a serious movement, but a random assortment of pundits and bloggers who have little connection with each other. Based solely on what I've read in this article, there would need to be credible evidence of an actual impeachment movement to justify this article, otherwise its very existence makes it a soapbox. If people want to actually start a credible political movement to impeach him (organize as a political entity, recruit endorsements, fundraise), or demonstrate that such a thing exists, then it would be notable enough to justify an article. DiceDiceBaby 16:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My ideology is that disliking something is no reason to delete its article. I can't stand consolidated school districts, unwieldly-large high schools, or megachurches, but that's no reason for me to list those articles (if they exist) on VfD. In fact, if those things don't have articles on WP, I should create them. If they do exist, I should improve them. -Acjelen 16:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

**:Response My ideology has nothing to do with this vote, nor have I mentioned my ideology. My allegiance in this vote is solely to the tenets of what Wikipedia is and is not. It is by adhering to these guidelines that Wikipedia has become successful and not the internet equivalent of a vandalized bathroom door. I would be happy to reverse my vote if somebody could convince me that this movement actually exists. DiceDiceBaby 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Well written article, carefully neutral, with concrete examples and the circumstances pertaining. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impeach, I mean, Merge with something, I can't find the right article, but it must be somewhere, there's no shortage of controversy about Bush. The 'movement' doesn't merit an article unless at least some formalities of impeachment have been started, say a vote on articles of impeachment, even if defeated. People simply talking about impeachment is notable but belongs with general criticism of Bush. Peter Grey 17:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not really encyclopedic, given that it's not about anything official. If someone sets up a proper, organised effort then yes it belongs here: at the moment it's just a page of people who disagree with Bush and the reasons why. That sort of thing belongs on George W. Bush.
  • Keep if it can be shown that there's a real organized movement. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A lot of conservatives in the US think that all liberals want to see him impeached. --Idont Havaname 18:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative, describes a real political movement. What's it doing at VfD? CanadianCaesar 20:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - When the answer to the question, "What did he know and when did he know it?" about 9/11, RoveGate, the rush to war over fabricated evidence of WMD, the secret energy policy and its relationship to the war, the deaths and injuries of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to satisfy the desires of the Project for the New American Century neo-cons...the list goes on and on. When the answer to that question is finally known, impeachment will be a blessed relief.
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wixway (talk • contribs) 20:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 1st edit. Originally posted at the top - I've moved it to the bottom Aerion//talk 20:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. Please keep in mind that the question being addressed by this VfD is whether the article is encyclopedic, and not whether voters personally agree with the sentiment expressed by the movement discussed therein. Thanks. -- BD2412 talk 21:02, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This movement is likely to pick up steam if the special prosecutor indicts anyone in the White House. And it will really pick up steam if the Democrats manage to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2006. And in addition to all the other alleged crimes, there is the missing $8.8 billion of oil revenue from Iraq, that some speculate was split between George Bush and Dick Cheney, with a few hundred million in patronage paid out to their enablers. -asx- 20:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be notable. Martg76 20:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am about to try a search of The New York Times to see if there's evidence that the movement to impeach Bush "exists," that is, is notable enough to make the news and not just an obscure fringe thing. Dpbsmith (talk)
  • Keep and improve, make neutral, etc. "Memo Shows Bush Misled Public, Antiwar Group Says," New York Times, June 17, 2005, Author: SCOTT SHANE, pg. 13: "Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document...At an antiwar rally across from the White House, speakers roused several hundred people with calls to bring the troops home and to impeach Mr. Bush." It's legitimately in the news. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, delete, weak keep, comment? -- uhh, I don't think there is any big cohesive movement for this. This is something that people say... and, I'm sure there has been some kind movement to impeach most presidents. I live on the east coast so of course I will have that bias... and since the middle of the country Republicans don't have internet yet they can't defend themselves here. ~_~ Oh, my point... what was my point -- I think this article makes it seem like there is a movement, not just a bunch of half-hearted grassroot efforts and people saying that wish that would happen because they don't like the guy. gren 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep MicahMN | Talk 23:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a sentiment, not a movement. Millions of people hate George W. Bush, but there is no cohesive movement to impeach him, either. If something actually comes up in Congress, then let's make an article, but until then its not encyclopedic. The article doesn't even have a particularly good grasp on the concept of impeachment, either; it mentions a move on the part of Rep. Conyers and Rep. Frank to "impeach" Karl Rove, a man who holds a position with no Congressional oversight and therefore cannot be impeached. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional standard is explicitly higher than the wiki standard of notability. Since a subway station is "notable", and a radio station notable if it broadcasts "beyond a city", setting the bar at "impeachment charges introduced" is both high and, quite frankly circular. How are charges to be filed with the judiciary if there was no movement to provide political cover? The movement to Impeach Earl Warren never even got hearings, but was mentioned in the press and in books, and was clearly "notable", even if it went nowhere in Congress. Stirling Newberry 05:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Frank and Conyers did send an inquiry to the Library of Congress for an opinion on whether "high-ranking members of the President's staff are subject to the Congressional impeachment process." So the statement is factual. -asx- 00:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thank you for correcting my error, -asx-. My bad. Be that as it may, my vote still stands on the fact that I don't believe there to be a cohesive movement at work. If Ralph Nader called for GWB's impeachment, then make a note of that on the Ralph Nader and George W. Bush pages, don't make a whole new article for it. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in the constitution that limits impeachment to elected or appointed officials, it says "all civil officers", meaning all non military officers in Article II Section 4
  • Response "if there was no movement to provide political cover" -- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If a well organized website exists that is raising funds and generating large amounts of traffic, the movement is organized and encyclopedic, but Wikipedia is not the place for this movement to take root. DiceDiceBaby 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep, clean, and start on the Impeach President (Next), as the losers, no matter which side, will begin their 'movements' the second the next Pres is elected. Pathetic, yeah, but thats who we are. Kilr0y
  • Keep. Real movement. Encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 05:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Kilr0y. Might as well create a nice little template for the bottom of the pages too. Hansamurai 15:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 15:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it A current Google for "Impeachment George W Bush" returned 549,000 hits just now. If the article needs cleaning up, revision, so be. But, this seems to be a growing movement from my perspective. If anything, for that many hits on google, the article is understatedly encyclopedic. More documentation of legitimate sources must happen, to be sure, but it's only just truly getting started in the last few months, a la DSM and Plame case. Fermentman 18:30, July 25 2005 PDT
  • I say keep it. This page is a testament to the growing feeling in this country that the President lied to the citizens of this country to fight a war that was based on altogether different motives than the one(s) presented. The massive fraud and corruption that is tied to this military action is appalling, not to mention the absolute reconstructing of the government. For example, since when does the Senate forego consent and advise for an up/down vote? One is a Constitutional responsibility. The other should come after that responsibility is discharged. Yet consent and advise was compromised away. And what of the effort to do away with the Constitutional restrictions on terms served by the President? Thjat would be the 22nd Amendment. It was presented by Representative Hoyer with several co-sponsors.(www.thomas.loc.gov) Let alone the claims of Delay to make Republican rulership permanent.(You can Google this) The ravings of a madman? I think not. - Gonzo ....added at or shortly after 02:59, 26 July 2005 by User:66.235.65.174:66.235.65.174
  • So you did one Google search. try changing the terms and see what happens. To debunk something on the basis of that kind of effort is hardly worth considering. - Gonzo ....added at or shortly after 02:59, 26 July 2005 by 66.235.65.174 within the nominating comment by Larryfooter
  • Expand or Delete The article needs to give as complete coverage to other impeachment movements (with greatest emphasis on Nixon, since his impeachment had the greatest consequences). Otherwise it looks like a vehicle for a Bush impeachment movement. An encyclopedia should focus more on history and less on current events.random user .... posted at 07:45, July 26, 2005 by 68.165.99.194
  • Very strong keep - Some of us started the impeachment process on January 20, 2001, when GWB falsely swore to uphold the constitution by illegally taking office after systematically stealing approximately 1.2 million votes. This is not a new movement, it is just one that has taken a long time to catch on due to corporate media protection of a man guilty of 39 crimes and misdemeanors, at last count. If we apply the same standards of evidence that he applied to the minority inmates he executed as governor of Texas, then we not only need to impeach him but should also execute him.
  • Comment. A strong reminder that this VfD is on the merits of the article itself, and not on the merits of such a movement. Personal political views should hold no bearing on this vote. Aerion//talk 14:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Movement does exist and there are notable figures behind it (ie it's not just a fringe website). That the chances of success of such a movement are highly remote (unless the Democrats take both houses of Congress in the 2006 election) is not a reason for deletion. Article can be NPOV'dHomey 17:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - This is an important and historic movement. There are several campaigns (organized and otherwise) within the U.S. with the goal of impeaching George W. Bush. That the main-stream media refuses to report on these is neither surprising nor is it a confirmation of non-existence of such a movement. Let us not get side-tracked with bellicose detractors who wish to distract us with arguments such as no "official" stamps of approval exist to provide legitimacy to the movement or the precise meaning of the word "movement" or that we should include opinions on why the president should not be impeached, and other inane contentions. This is a movement involving citizens of the United States of America against a corrupt government that continues to erode the Bill of Rights and constitutionally provided rights and liberties. One only needs to look around to realize that the citizenry is disenfranchised and is demanding redress. Such redress, which is our constitutional right to seek, has thus far been denied by this out-of-control government on several occasions. This is a bipartisan movement and should be documented here in a prominent way as it unfolds. --Light Messenger 20:06, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
    • User's 1st edit.
    • Please be careful not to let personal opinion and POV seep in here. Aerion//talk 21:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to turn Wikipedia into commiepedia.  Grue  05:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a "either you're with us or you're against us" kind of arguement? MicahMN | Talk 17:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page is utterly ridiculous and shows an inability for certain liberals (I say "certain" because I myself am a liberal who thinks Mr. Bush is one of our nation's worst presidents in history) to write a reputable and neutral encyclopedia. The amount of keep votes here is shocking. A few people don't like the president, fine. A few people (rightfully so in my opinion) think he has stepped over a few lines with his policies, fine. But this article is just an excuse to grind an ax with the president and seriously undermines the integreity of the encyclopedia. The users who voted keep here need to think long and hard about what constitutes principled secondary source creation. Indrian 17:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • This article conforms to NPOV in that it is a list of documentable and notable individuals who have called for Bush to be impeached, and documentable and notable organizations (that at least clear the GNAA standard) which are actively involved in calling for his impeachment. Signed one of those certain liberals who is actually paid to write and had a hand in working on the page. Stirling Newberry 17:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup There exists a movement to impeach President Bush. Are we to remain silent on it? The article is noteworthy and current. If it strays outside the line of NPOV occasionally it should be cleaned up, not deleted. Otherwise we would be deleting a lot of articles on Wikipedia. –Shoaler (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Strong Keep"" - Whether one agrees with the movement or not, the fact is that it exists. The article has been altered to remove any political commentary and simply enumerates the possible charges and the proponents of them. These are facts. If Wikipedia is to have any integrity at all, it can't delete true articles because someone objects to the politics behind the movement. Hundreds of thousands of signatures have been collected, Congressional inquiries are being conducted, and there is a special prosecutor investigating the Plame Case. It would be an egregious omission to ignore an ongoing political event. Morgaine Swann 12:27, July 29, 2005 ....added at 04:28 (and a few minutes later) 29 July 2005 by 66.82.9.62
  • Keep and Clean Up This article absolutely ought to remain. That there is a (possibly small) movement for the impeachment of GWB is not disputable. However, if the allegations cited cannot be verified, then that must be stated on the page. Matro 08:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 12:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!! - Bush and his cronies have clearly committed impeachable acts, far more serious than those committed by Nixon. Those who suggest that this information be deleted should read the U.S. Bill of Rights again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.122.105 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 July 2005
  • Keep - Bush (and his cronies) is a traitor and deserves a fate more drastic than impeachment. Too bad George cut down that cherry tree.
  • Keep. There is a growing movement towards impeachment. Recently, a Congresswoman introduced a Resolution of Inquiry. That seems notable.--Kross 17:46, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The movement exists. No NPOV reasons for deletion have been offered.Alan 00:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Excuse me -- Do my ears deceive me? Did the first poster actually say "This page should be deleted [because] it's not only POV [that's the problem], it's [also an] inaccurate and misleading" [article]? Since when do we pitch info because it's inaccurate?! In free societies what we do with inaccurate information is FIX IT! We don't toss it out!!
  • VERY STRONG Keep and Clean Up - this is very encyclopedic (sp), even if I disagree personally --RN 01:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "article" went sorely awry when moved from the "Impeach Bush campaign" to "Movement to impeach George Bush". Far from being a neutral report, this article is in fact an attempt to manufacture a "movement" that doesn't exist. See this blog begging for people to create a biased article and become part of "history being made". It's unfortunate that Wikipedia allows itself to be used in this way. - Nunh-huh 05:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What went awry about it? I thought "Impeach Bush campaign" sounded horrid, was unclear, and did not give the President the respect he deserves. Only the name changed. I suppose "Campaign to impeach George W. Bush" would have worked as well. -Acjelen 05:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's always better to name an article for something that exists. - Nunh-huh 05:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One exists and not the other? -Acjelen 05:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out above, there's a considerably higher hurdle for calling something a "movement" than there is a "campaign". For movement, there has to be some momentum; a campaign can be any fool with a blog. - Nunh-huh 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - his time has come. ... added at 05:12, July 30, 2005 by 70.187.166.113
  • Keep on te balance of probabilities, it is extremely likely that such a movement exists. ~~~~ 07:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. But this article needs to be re-written to conform to a higher standard.Voice of All(MTG) 17:40, July 30, 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 Hedley

Gul Ahmed Energy Limited[edit]

Delete Not notable company, which may be in Pakistan. About 12 Google hits. Frühstücksdienst 04:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirected per below. Hedley 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Maker[edit]

Apparently active on the The Bendis Board also on vfd. --nixie 04:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 01:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC) no consensus (5 keep, 1 rename, 5 delete). GarrettTalk 14:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admira Ismić and Boško Brkić[edit]

A touching story, and a pity it can't have a home somewhere in Wikimedia. Denni☯ 04:41, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

  • Keep. I'm the fastest delete-finger in the West, and I am not so sure this should be deleted. It certainly is notable, if for no other reason than a reputable major American news show devoted a story to them. My biggest problem is that with all those accents in the name, no one will ever find the article. Nandesuka 04:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that story! Keep and make more accessible.--DNicholls 04:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept, make sure to have redirects from Admira Ismic and Bosko Brkic to this article. --Metropolitan90 05:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember that incident too. Definitely notable enough to deserve own article in Wikipedia.--Jyril 15:17, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Scanning the story, I have to say that if it is to be kept it really needs cleanup. Right now it reads like something out of people magazine. -R. fiend 15:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to have accidentally changed the title of this nomination, making it a red link. I've switched it back. No vote at this time. Pburka 16:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a very sad story, but the article does not establish notability over millions of other victims of violent conflict. Coverage in an American news broadcast does not establish that it's encyclopedic, either. Not every news item can be included here. Martg76 21:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although suggest renaming to Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo, and describing the documentary itself. Pburka 21:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Pburka. David | Talk 21:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Memorial to non-notable couple. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was quite notable at the time, and for the subject. I'd support the renaming, too. --DNicholls 04:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a memorial. Quale 05:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clean up, expand and move to Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo per Pburka. Dystopos 15:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 06:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad story to be certain, but there are thousands, possibly millions, of stories just like it. We would be opening the floodgates to articles on all of them. --Cholmes75 21:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was BJAODNed. It's at a sub-page there now. Hedley 01:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt_Mutino[edit]

Nonsense. Very funny though. TomTheHand 04:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is funny. But nonsense. (also, the author's tragic misspelling of "choad" has tainted the Matrix.) Nandesuka 04:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ditto.--DNicholls 04:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good for the Uncyclopedia. Hamster Sandwich 06:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the funniest things I've ever read. Nonsense. Add to BJAODN. DarthVader 11:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the Icelandic_Phallological_Museum exist? The article mentions 'Professor Matt Mutino'. DarthVader 11:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article doesn't mention him, and seems to make it sound like a one-man show. But yeah, it's real...--DNicholls 11:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the person who inserted the Muttino part in the ICPM entry is the same that started the Muttino entry: 69.18.208.67.--DNicholls 11:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Phallophobia is real (real=real word), but Matt Muttino doesn't come up under any Google search. And, come on, "head Phallologist" has got to be a joke. --DNicholls 11:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah right...well the thing is that the article you have given the link of was written in March 2001, and the Mutino article claims that he joined in November 2001, so that article certainly doesn't discredit the wikipedia article. I would like a source for an article about Mutino before changing my vote to a keep. DarthVader 12:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Google has zero hits for "Bencolius erectus", the "quasi-humanoid species" which gone extint due to "its overly large and burdensome penis" (also: pls. compare with homo erectus which got its name because it stood up). Among other things this makes me think that this article is a hoax. But at least it's funny. :) Csobankai Aladar 16:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Most definately. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep BJAODN --malathion talk 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. But it should be placed in the "best picks" section
  • BJAODN. JamesBurns 06:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. Definitely "best picks" section. (unsigned by 68.199.20.156)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Hedley 01:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclones 13[edit]

"the CYCLONES 13 GANG is a latino gang from the los angeles area from the city of (huntington park)" etc etc (sans shift key). The gang strikes such a level of dread in the community that it gets 0 (zero) hits at Google. Unverifiable, possibly fiction or vanity. -- Hoary 05:20, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (ignoring one keep vote from a meatpuppet and one unsigned keep vote) -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 ways to safely reach base[edit]

Delete. This page is highly inaccurate (see its talk) and just seems rather pointless in general. The information is already provided (accurately) in the Baseball article. →Vik Reykja 05:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Vikreykja. Hamster Sandwich 06:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utter stupidity. Osu8907 06:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disappointed. Scanning down the VfD listing, I really thought this one might give me some tips on my love life, but, alas, no. EvilPhoenix talk 08:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information already provided at Baseball. DarthVader 11:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. The bugs in the article can be fixed, so that shouldn't be how the question is decided. To me, the question ought to be "will having this article make it easier to find the information?" There's no "ways to reach base safely" section there, and some of the rules being discussed here (e.g. the "hit an umpire rule") aren't even mentioned in baseball, so this information is not in fact available there; so, the article might be worth fixing and keeping. Noel (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The "bugs in the article" are directly represented in the title. There are simply not eight ways to safely reach base. →Vik Reykja 16:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so rename it to "Ways to safely reach base in baseball". Noel (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Baseball.Bollar 15:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    So you would type in "8 ways to safely reach base"? If you don't think people would type that in the search box, then the redirect is totally useless. I have created many redirects to aid people in finding what they're looking for, this wouldn't help at all. →Vik Reykja 16:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Like in said in my edit summary, redirects are cheap. If the baseball article has the valid information, what's the harm in redirecting to it? It's not like 8 ways to safely reach base is going to be used for anything else. Bollar 16:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    OK, redirects are cheap, but the odds of someone typing "8 ways to safely reach base" into the search are so tiny, that I'd be willing to bet cash against it ever happening. Leaving it in just clutters the Wiki with noise. Delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    But as I just pointed about above, the baseball article does not (or did not, as of when I looked at it) have all that information. Noel (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The first hit of a Google search of 8 ways to safely reach base returns the since deleted article 7 ways to safely reach base. Same for ways to safely reach base which seems like a reasonable search question. While I think you're correct that the probability of someone entering this exact phrase into Wikipedia's search box is exactly -0-, it does appear to help in search engine ranking and helping refer new users to Wikipedia. In any event, had I come across this article first and knew enough about baseball to know that it was inaccurate, I would have merged and redirected it in accordance with the deletion policy. Bollar 19:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    That's a great point, Bollar, but I'm still uncomfortable with the factual inaccuracy conveyed by the title.After checking The Rules, it would appear that the article is factually correct. My mistake. Let's put up a ways to safely reach base article and make it a redirect to Baseball. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I would really like to see which rules you checked. Rules 10.05 and 10.06 of the Official Rules of Baseball clearly describe what reaching safely means. The article in question is flat out incorrect. →Vik Reykja 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Rename and redirect. OK, I give :). Let's rename it to Eight ways to safely reach base in baseball or Ways to safely reach base in baseball; Only dates should be written as numerals in WP article titles. Otherwise, no further objection from me. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 16:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there is something new - add it to Baseball. Renata3 00:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would make a good link from the baseball article under "Also See." Frequently, information is easier to digest if it's broken into short pieces. This article could be a useful teaching aid for a little league coach and can easily be printed on 1 page in its current format. Someone obviously put some thought into it and as is stated above, it's not available elsewhere (e.g., under baseball. -asx- 05:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO it's a handy list to have (otherwise I wouldn't have added to it). I've made a couple attempts to "fix" the article, to address some (arguable) inaccuracies with regard to baseball scoring. Since baseball has a "lists and statistics" section, I would say that would be the place to link this article.William L. Gann 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    So if I wrote an article titled X ways to play guitar, and put in the list such things as cutting off the strings and sawing the neck in two, you would find that relevant and useful? This is an encyclopedia we're writing here; we should not consciously include bogus information. →Vik Reykja 03:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a poor analogy and is beside the point. "Bogus information" is a reason to fix not delete. Since baseball has certain rules that are famoulsly complex and difficult to understand (infield fly anyone?) this type of article has heightened utility, even if it's difficult to find the right place for it. Maybe that place is not Wikipedia, but this is exactly the kind of thing that can (and probably does) appear as a sidebar in a baseball reference book. It qualifies as trivia in some sense, and therefore should not IMO redirect straight to the main article--a reader who wanted an information on such a specific sub-topic within baseball would probably not learn anything from the main article.William L. Gann 21:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not really Wikipedia material - The Time Killer
  • Delete content duplication. JamesBurns 06:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat yet again, this content is not duplicated at baseball. There's no "ways to reach base safely" section there, and some of the rules being discussed in this article (e.g. the "hit an umpire rule") aren't even mentioned there, so this information is not in fact available elsewhere. Noel (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't need to be a "ways to reach base safely" section, the information just needs to be there. Take a look at baserunning. →Vik Reykja 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was actually looking for this list today. I could not find it at Baseball or at Batting (baseball), where I did see the reference to this article. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 21:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

KEEPit is a good baseball teaser question, summarized here, rather than picking through a rulebook.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (as a redirect). Note that redirect deletion requests belong on WP:RFD really rather than here. However, given the withdrawn nomination and unanimous voting, I see no need to generate bureaucracy by taking it there. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. -Splash 03:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slyder[edit]

The only thing that links to this page is Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack, and I don't know why it redirects to White Castle. As this article holds no signifigance (the group does not exist, and it would otherwise be an orphaned article, I sugguest it be deleted. mysekurity 05:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Keep Thatdog convinced me. A Slyder is an item on the White Castle restaurant menu. Not as tasty as a farm fresh hamster either. Hamster Sandwich 06:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Slyder" burgers are White Castle's primary offering, a fact mentioned several times in White Castle (restaurant). This redirect seems valid. - Thatdog 08:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BTW, it is often considered bad form to link to a redirect, so the fact that a redirect is an orphan should not be held against it.  :) - Thatdog 08:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is no slyder article, then there must be a redirect. --Mac Davis 17:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep. Fair enough, its a shame we can't see how many times this page has been accessed. Thatdog is right about linking to a redirect, but I would be interested to see how many pages pipe the text "slyder" to the restaraunt. Perhaps something could be written about the Slyders themselves in a header? Or maybe not. Thanks for voting anyway, -mysekurity 18:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Of the pages that link to the redirect target, only one contains the word "slyder" and that is unlinked. There are currently no pages linking to this article. So the answer to your question would appear to be "zero".)-Splash 03:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bongacious[edit]

At best, a dicdef. At worst, completely made up. Bonga doesn't agree with the article's given meaning, either. Delete DNicholls 05:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melike Zeynep Saribayir[edit]

Probably vanity; person seems non-notable. "Melike Saribayir" produces 0 Google hits, and "Melike Zeynep Saribayir" produces two, both of which are derived from this article. Delete. Joel7687 06:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP: 14k, 2d, 1m. -Splash 03:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinett County Public Schools now moved to Gwinnett County Public Schools[edit]

Non-notability. Mandel 06:15, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I believe these lists are being created as a response to the attacks of deletionists on school articles. Are you going after them too now? CalJW 14:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It's just non-notable. Mandel 14:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the teeny weeny morsel of information there with Gwinnett County. Its daughter article Collins Hill High School, Suwanee should be deleted for non-notability. Dunc|☺ 14:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it needs expansion, but there doesn't seem to be a good reason to remove it. Salsb 15:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think creating stubs are very irresponsible. If you can expand, why don't you do it in the first place? You'll save everyone at the VfD lots of trouble. You can always wait until you have enough information before you start a write-up. Mandel 16:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • You could save everyone the trouble by not nominating reasonable stubs for deletion. By now it should be obvious that school articles automatically survive VfD. Pburka 17:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • "By now it should be obvious that school articles automatically survive VfD." Comment. There obviously isn't any consensus with school articles - they must be dealt with case by case. So how is nominating a one-line stub article for deletion unreasonable? And no, I don't stick around VfD the whole day long like inclusionists. Mandel 17:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll explain it, and you won't find it inexplicable. Creating one-line stubs is irresponsible, given that stubs give little or no information about the subject itself and is much more liable to be deleted. Especially when the creator clearly can improve on it, is just pure lazy, and would need a nudge or two to do so. Some stubs stick around like ugly ducklings for years without anyone capable of doing anything to it. Not that one doesn't want to, we can't because schools are inherently local-based. Creators start them then abandons them, going on to create hundreds and thousands of stubs and sub-stubs. I would call that irresponsible. Mandel 17:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Additional comments. Changed everything I wrote from "stub" to "substub". A stub is defined as 3 to 10 sentences in Wikipedia:Stub. This (an original one-liner) doesn't even qualify. Mandel 18:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • "The location and name of a school district, the name of one of its schools, and the location of its website is perfectly adequate, giving as it does all the resources needed to expand the article." I find it very amusing indeed. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't you think "falsely claim" and "this were true" is something of an oxymoron? How can I "falsely claim" something that were true? Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • The phrase "even if this were true" extends the argument without negating it. Dystopos 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't equivocate. Is it true or not that some stubs lie for years without anyone extending them? So how is this "claim" false? Mandel 21:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
            • I am not equivocating. On the contrary, I am clarifying, for you, the structure of the argument which you misread as an oxymoron. It is not oxymoronic. When someone says "Even if gas was free I'd still ride my bike" he or she is not denying the cost of gas, but expanding the argument to preclude debate about points that don't matter. In this case, Tony is saying that he doesn't believe your statement about stubs, but that particular disagreement has no bearing on his opinion in this vote, so convincing him about how long stubs lie around won't change his mind. I agree with Tony that the length of time a stub lies around is immaterial, so I don't really have an interest in researching your claim. Dystopos 22:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • If I misunderstand you, I apologize. But he accusing me of "falsely claiming" something is charging me with distorting a fact than an opinion. Mandel 22:27, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, I quote, "This usually means 3 to 10 short sentences." Read Wikipedia:stub and Wikipedia:Substub. If you didn't create this substub, I apologize, but there's no need to claim I created falsehood. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • Anyone who can read Wikipedia:Stub can see that I did not misquote. I challenge anyone not to find that sentence in the article. Mandel 21:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • "falsely describe" and "even if it was" is an oxymoron. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • The phrase "even if it was" extends the argument without negating it. Dystopos 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm interested in whether or not the article was an original one-liner. If it was, how am I extending a falsehood? Kindly refrain from misunderstanding me. Mandel 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I quote, again, from the Wikipedia:substub article, "Substubs are usually created by people just because they can, then they leave without looking back." I would call that "abandon". Of course Wikipedians have a responsibility towards what they write in the article; they are expected to provide accurate information and act in responsible manner without trolling etc. I agree with the word "rights", not the word "responsibilities". Please don't deliberately misunderstand me - I don't have time for that. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • If I may, I would like to call for apologies for claiming 1) I propagate falsehood; and 2) that I take some vendetta deletions against inclusionists. I find such "inclusionist" attitude irksome to the utmost. Get a grip, this is my first school deletion article in more than half a year. I also find it repugnant that I'm classed as a deletionist just because I put an original one-liner on for deletion. For goodness sake, please don't bring in political alliances into Wikipedia. I'm neither a "inclusionist" nor a "deletionist". Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are notable, school districts even more so. Pburka 16:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Oh good grief. — RJH 17:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful, expandable article that serves to complete series of U.S. school districts and to be a target for school-stubs. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I see no evidence of notability or encyclopedic content in this or in most secondary school articles. DES 22:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. An institution with a budget of $1.2 billion, the largest employer in Gwinnett County, with over 23 000 employees, and responsible for the education of close to 150 000 children in 99 schools holds the interest of many a taxpayer in Gwinett County and the interest of the nation in improving the education of the 1 in 5 citizens of Gwinett County who are currently under their educational care. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excruciatingly obvious keep. School VfD's are oh-so six months ago. —RaD Man (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. School districts are as noteworthy as any other comparably-sized business. --Carnildo 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A school district is a notable public institution, and this district is a large one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 'nuf said. DS1953 02:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, stubs on notable topics improve wikipedia's structure and encourage growth. Nomination appears to be a case of WP:POINT making. Kappa 11:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Providing stubs is more productive than nominating them for deletion. Stubs are useful, as several have pointed out. There is no issue of notability here. Dystopos 15:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  • keep please it is our policy to keep these school articles Yuckfoo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Is there really a policy to keep all school articles? If so, please direct me and other Wikipedians to it, lest we waste our precious time nominating such substubs. Mandel 16:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is a proposed policy for school articles which contains several rules of thumb which, while not official policy, have been derived from long discussion around which some consensus has formed. I believe that you will find the guidelines will at least encourage more productive uses of our precious time. Dystopos 17:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please then post them somewhere where people know of them. At least one recently-made admin has been admonished, by school inclusionists, for a speedy delete. And then there's the "please don't bite newcomers rule". If there is really a change in Wikipedians' perception of school articles, why don't you simply solicit for a vote, then make it a de jure rule? School inclusionists have been known to sit around VfD waiting to snap, voting against any school articles, so I don't think it demonstrates that the community view at large has changed, rather, that "school inclusionists" simply made a more cohesive effort at obliterating school VfD. A much better idea will be to improve the standard of school articles.
        • And for goodness sake please don't bite people who vote against schools. This is getting disgustingly political. Mandel 21:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
        • And oh, it's clear from Schools#This_page_is_totally_unacceptable that the debate is far from close. Mandel 21:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
          • See Wikipedia:Schools (remainder of comment deleted by Dystopos) Mandel 17:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
            • See Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. (remainder of comment deleted by Dystopos) DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Let's all be civil and get on with business. Dystopos 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • As an outside party I should point out that WP:RPA is ideally (not always) undertaken both under consensus by the voters and by an outside party, or failing that someone from that person's side of the camp. This was not the case here. Myself, I might have paraphrased some of these comments (rather than completely deleting), but it's not like they're any bloodier than the other harsh words school Vfds seem to collect. As it is this unfortunate altercation seems to have driven poor Tony away (he's systematically deleted his comments). In future I strongly advise that you ask a random (and uninvolved) admin, or post on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) if you want a RPA carried out. GarrettTalk 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (comment deleted by Dystopos) Mandel 20:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well-written, one-line article on every school on the planet would be a worthy goal. Mandel, please don't take it so personally. It's normal on Wikipedia for determined power blocs to get their way. I daresay you'll live to see the day that deletionists once more delete all schools for no good reason. Until then, try to stay cool and be happy. Grace Note 00:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep pending cruft reduction (read on), else Merge or Categorise. Please look at this old revision. THIS is what I want from the article. Yes. When a school has an article, add its name and a link to the list. If it doesn't, DON'T. A list of 100+ unlinked names is as pointless to the reader as listing the chapters in The Lord of the Rings, as it tells me nothing. Either link them, or write a stub beneath each, or remove them entirely. I can almost feel the Schoolwatch spittle on my neck as I write this... :) ...but it's not like I said delete--but wait, I did, I said remove the lists of indiscriminate names. I'm all for including stubs of notable schools, and for merging non-notable ones into lists together, but listing school names does not strike me as very useful to the reader; as it is they could easily overlook that one lonely link way in the middle of the page and think the page was devoid of links. GarrettTalk 01:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TWBPSK Kevin Ray's Corner[edit]

Non-notable website, one match on google for TWBPSK. Vanity page. Chairboy 06:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

RAWK[edit]

Not Notable, Vanity Bollar 06:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --DNicholls 06:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. 30 edits in a single day. Hamster Sandwich 06:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect - Note, I had listed this in Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions prior to this Vfd as patent nonsense, the article seems to have changed since then, but I do not see any version of the article that has any meaningful content in the context of an encyclopedia article, I think each individual version so far met either CSD A1 or G1. I suspect some of this may be pure vandalism, note someone has yanked the Vfd tag right off the article.--Mysidia 06:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed deleted, recreated (as a placeholder) and protected. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Bco[edit]

This site has an Alexa ranking of 127,378, which isn't as bad as it could be, but the site still doesn't seem that important. If the article is kept, somebody needs to edit out all of the junk (I tried, but I don't have the patience). Delete. Joel7687 07:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Full of rubbish too. DarthVader 10:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
  • Delete nn, website advertising. JamesBurns 06:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BCO is a rich and active community where people can find a wealth of travel, music, art, fashion information. The article apparently keeps being edited by it's users thus reducing it's usefulness. Imeyer 17:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Votes made by anon[edit]

  • Delete. I wanted to shoot myself in the face with a shotgun when I read this article.
  • Delete. blam.gif
  • Keep.
  • Delete. blam.gif...seriously.
  • Delete. as a BCO member, I find this entry useless. Thanks.
  • Keep. As a long-lasting and seminal messageboard BCO deserves to have an entry.
  • Keep. BCO is a messageboard unique on the internet... (mostly) unmoderated and (mostly) intelligent and (always) entertaining and as such deserves to be noticed and defined. 20:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.114.155 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Censuswhacking[edit]

  • Dont Delete Is mentioned on several sites - including BBC Evil Angel

Not a single use-site... coverd by the BBC and others NN Neologism used by one site on the interent. Googlewhack is a little different. humblefool® 07:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems to be a neologism. DarthVader 11:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 10:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC) User: 24.171.36.233.

Not a single use-site... coverd by the BBC and others

  • Delete. Non notable neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has been mentioned on the BBC's website but probably never will be again. If the practice becomes notable beyond the website from whence it originates then I look forward to the article's return. Flowerparty talk 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 07:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of open-source software packages[edit]

Unmaintainable list: there can be thousands, or even tens of thousands of open source software packages. minghong 07:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed. I thought we'd done this one .. jamesgibbon 11:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable - a category would serve better, anyway. See also: list of all songs not part of any Wikipedia list except this one. Aerion//talk 13:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contains useful information, and although I prefer categories, sorting this massive list into cats would be a massive workload. If someone wishes to be bold and take on this project, fine by me. Myself, I'd rather be lazy and let it sit. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Split. There is a lot of information here. It should either be kept or reorganized. This information should not go to waste.--Hyperlink 17:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to something like "Popular open-source software packages" or "Notable open-source software packages". The information here is good. --benjaminong 09:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Split; Split it into its sub components, or have each section here give a brief explanation and perhaps a few examples then have a 'See also: this article' section. --ShaunMacPherson 02:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split, as per User:Hyperlink. JamesBurns 07:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split. Wikipedia - an unmaintainable list. There can be thousands, or even tens of thousands of articles :) Greenman 14:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename, contains good information --kernoz 20:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. The list has useful information that I point people to quite often, and I think it would be much more useful in it's current format than being in a category. Hello World! 22:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it's fairly maintainable, as there are category sections. Though an actual category might be better, being Wiki-illiterate, I'm not sure there's a category setup that arranges everything quite so nicely on one page. --Orborde 06:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe this could be done, either. Not on one page, anyway. What I would suggest would be a series of sub-categories (one for each subheader), themselves categorized into a main category. (Category:Open source software?). This would be much like ShaunMacPherson's suggestion above, except for using the category namespace instead of the main namespace. Categories are easier to mantain, and don't as easily promote articles on non-notable or vanity subjects. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 07:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful reference, there dont need to be articles on every package.Muppetboy 8:26, 02 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✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midget master blaster television spectacular[edit]

This does not sound notable; could not find anything on it with Google. Delete. Joel7687 07:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead death[edit]

Not notable band. No evidence that they meet any of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Would have fallen under the proposal for speedy deletion of unremarkable bands, but this was voted down so we'll have to go about this the long way. delete -Wiccan Quagga 08:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A google search turns up many results for the string "Dead Death" band, but no pages for this band. The band's website (as listed in the article) doesn't even have a dedicated URL, but is hosted at freewebs. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Not Notable. Hamster Sandwich 10:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band hasn't even registered one of the linked web sites. Pburka 16:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 07:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diagon[edit]

Neologism cohesion 08:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 21:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian culture[edit]

Completing VfD - no vote--Doc (?) 13:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote "This is apparently a comedy riff." (Wetman 08:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC))... but now I retract that: much work has made this a sensible member of a whole group of "Culture of..." articles --Wetman 06:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Agree, delete. --Ninam 21:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change has actually been pleasant. :) (unsigned by User:Milan20
There is no need for deletion of this page anymore. It is just a stub now. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 18:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep and expand, but this material strongly needs to be NPOVed. Strong keep--another great save by Capitalistroadster. Meelar (talk) 17:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is utterly devoid of content and would have to be rewritten from scratch anyway. Best to give it a red link so as to encourage that. Keep - Capitalistroadster steps up to the plate again. Denni☯ 23:45, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I am sure more could be done about this article. Major part of Serbian studies. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable slavic culture, source of Nikola Tesla
  • Comment. I am progressively improving the article. Thus far, I have added sections on Serbian literature, music, art, cinema and theatre with more to come over the next few days. I may or may have this completed by the end of the voting period but wish to flag that I am working on improving the article. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it up Capitalistroadster --Doc (?) 07:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credit Capitalistroadster with the save! -- DS1953 14:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have substantially finished rewriting this page. Capitalistroadster 04:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Skwardya, Krena, Matthew Clarke[edit]

non-notable, POV, vanity cohesion 08:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Have the released any albums? Did you check AMG? Do they meet precedents for notability of musical groups? EvilPhoenix talk 10:03, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Added Matthew Clarke. Seems to be founder of bands, potentially page author, potential vanity. EvilPhoenix talk 10:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. No sign of compliance with WP:MUSIC but if they sing in Cornish that would not be surprising. However, another indication of notability would be playing a world music or folk music festivals but the article gives no evidence of that. Delete unless some verifiable evidence of notability is presented. Capitalistroadster 10:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS No article on Skwardya or Krena on Allmusic.com. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Skwardya has two albums available through one of the linked websites. Performing in Cornish makes them notable within an obscure genre. Pburka 16:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, self promotion. JamesBurns 06:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason to be there --SpaceMonkey 15:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Junaed Shaheed[edit]

Delete 1 google hit for this 23 year old sports critic/historian. TheMidnighters 08:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was copyvio. It's already on the copyvio page so I will remove the vfd tag. Woohookitty 17:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Onenewsafrica, OneNewsAsia[edit]

Advertisement, NPoV, notable cohesion 08:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • When you see an advertisement, always see whether you can apply Copyright Judo to it before, and instead of, bringing the article to VFD. These advertisements are (as are most advertisements) copyrighted and not licenced in a GFDL-compatible way, for example. Copyright Judo applied. Uncle G 12:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 07:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Winoke[edit]

Neologism, mixed drink of wine and Coke. Google search yields some kind of software, I couldn't find any hits that talk about this. EvilPhoenix talk 08:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Delete (Dang, beat me to it.) Same as above. Also, the end borders on patent nonsense.--DNicholls 08:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yanzhi[edit]

Not notable. Sietse 09:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I spilt my salsa![edit]

Delete neologism. TheMidnighters 09:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 13:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chua Seng Leng'[edit]

Vanity and doesn't appear to be notable. DarthVader 10:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vanity. --Ngb 10:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't exist anymore: 10:20, 24 July 2005 Fuzheado deleted "Chua Seng Leng'" (nonsense vanity) DarthVader 10:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Langer[edit]

Also note the name disambiguation at Langer/Temp.

This article was VfDed (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Langer), the result being to move it to Wiktionary. This VfD is to confirm what I take to be the intentions of those voting in the first VfD — to move it by deleting it from Wikipedia and placing it in Wiktionary. There's little if anything here that's encyclopædic; a slang term from a small locality isn't a suitable article subject. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (just to make sure that things are completely clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mel Etitis. Hamster Sandwich 10:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per criteria: "Any article that has been discussed at Votes for Deletion, where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." --DNicholls 10:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per DNicholls. Capitalistroadster 11:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Even being generous and applying such criteria retrospectively without time limit, the speedy criterion doesn't apply; The article at Wiktionary bears no resemblance to the article under discussion, and no version in that article's history even remotely resembles the current Wikipedia article Langer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because it's formatted in wiktionary house style. It's still a dicdef. Dunc|☺ 20:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You clearly didn't actually read the history of the Wiktionary article. The very first version of that article, with the prominent comment "Transwiki of page :en:Langer", is almost word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia article. That is, of course, because the Wiktionary article is the Wikipedia article transwikied, as that edit comment says. Uncle G 20:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment' The above statement is completely false; I'm shocked and repelled to see that repeated falsehoods are being used here to defend the deletion of this article. Compare the first version of the Wiktionary article with Langer. There is no resemblance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only falsehood here is that that hyperlink is to the first version of the Wiktionary article. Follow that link, and click on the "Older revision" hyperlink (that is right there at the top) several times, to find the actual first version of the article, which you will find to be, as I said, almost word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia one. I find it dismaying to see an editor pointing to the wrong version of the article, incorrectly labelling it as the first version when it is quite obviously (from reading the page or the article history) not, and then claiming to be "shocked and repelled" at supposed falsehoods on the parts of many other editors. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. The article history has been manipulated in order to include an earlier version than was previously present on Wiktionary. I am not impressed. That's very naughty, you know. Please do not repeat utterly false accusations in defence of your own patently false claims. Please avoid resort to subterfuges like this. I'd also like to point out that the current version of the Wiktionary article is clearly inadequate in function when compared to the Wikipedia article that a number of people are still, perversely, trying to delete from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The only person who has manipulated any article history here has been you, as per the deletion log (given below) where you undeleted the article several times. No-one else has undeleted any article history, either on Wiktionary or Wikipedia. Yet again, you accuse everyone else of doing what in fact only you have been doing. Your campaign of accusations of "falsehoods", "naughtiness", and "subterfuge" on the part of other editors is beginning itself to resemble naughtiness, subterfuge, and disingenuousness; and smacks of assuming bad faith on the parts of all of the rest of us. It also insults the intelligence of everyone here, who can quite easily read the deletion logs and the article histories themselves and find that this article was transwikied, was deleted, and that the first version of the article on Wiktionary is almost word-for-word identical to the Wikipedia article that you undeleted here. Please stop asserting falsehoods that we can all easily look up in the logs and histories and find to be false (or indeed just follow the hyperlinks that you give and find to be false), and please stop accusing everyone else of doing various things that in fact only you yourself have actually done here.

              And if you can improve the Wiktionary article, do so. Please stop complaining that it's inadequate. Wiktionary is a wiki, too, and {{sofixit}} applies equally as much there as here. Uncle G 01:22:42, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems like a good encyclopedia article. No good reason to delete has been given. This vfd was improperly closed before the five day lag time so I have opened it again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closure as a speedy delete was quite proper. The article text that was improperly restored on 2005-07-22 had gone through VFD and had been deleted in 2004, and had not gone through VFU and gained a consensus to undelete. Even without CSD criterion A5 applying (which it does — I've double-checked that the author information was properly transferred.), CSD criterion G4 applies. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again you falsely represent the deletion of a transwiki'd article (the context is late last year) as "quite proper." Absolutely not. Repeating a false claim umpteen times won't make it true. You describe the restoration on July 22 as improper. False again. Why do you repeat these patent falsehoods? A5 could not possibly apply since the article was VfD'd some time ago and at the time the current version was created A5 did not exist. You then falsely invoke G4: "A substantially identical copy, by any title, of an article that was deleted according to the deletion policy". Since there was no deletion policy applying at the time and no VfD result for delete is on record, again you're piling falsehood upon falsehood, for reasons I find inexplicable. What, precisely, is it that offends you about this article? I'm utterly flummoxed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just like the Wikipedia article history, the Wiktionary article history, and the deletion log, which all show what you assert to be the case to be false, the VFD discussion is right there, too.

        Repeating a false claim umpteen times won't make it true. — Indeed. So please stop doing so. We can all see, right there in the deletion log and the article history, your undeletion of the VFDed, transwikied, and (way back in in 2004) deleted version of the article, and we can all see that it is identical to the first version of the Wiktionary article. And we can all see that Wikipedia had a deletion policy in 2004, too, and that the statement that "there was no deletion policy applying at the time" is also false. Uncle G 01:33:00, 2005-07-25 (UTC)

  • Either keep - or merge into the wiktionary article, and delete (can that be done?) --Doc (?) 19:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC) silly me, just remembered WP:NOT a dictionary. --Doc (?) 19:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete dicdef. Should have been speedied per wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Langer. Dunc|☺ 20:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been, several times. From the deletion log:
      • 17:10, 24 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
      • 12:55, 24 July 2005 Duncharris deleted "Langer" (recreation of previously vfded material)
      • 12:06, 23 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
      • 08:44, 23 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (recreated article that has been Vfded (result: moved to Wiktionary))
      • 23:22, 22 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
      • 22:56, 22 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (delete (yet again) disguised personal attack)
      • 17:54, 22 July 2005 Tony Sidaway restored "Langer"
      • 14:25, 22 July 2005 Master Thief Garrett deleted "Langer" (nonsense dicdef; content was: 'Langer. Cork (Ireland) slang, meaning "penis" or obnoxious person". '''Examples:'''John is some langer: John is an obnoxious person.I showed her...' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/213.78.71.168|213.78)
      • 15:13, 5 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (nonsense, personal attack)
      • 09:51, 1 July 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (content was: 'Langer is a Cork slang word. Meaning drunk, penis, fool. EG: Starchaser is a langer, starchaser was langers, or starchaser has a tiny langer.' (and the only contributor was '213.202.154.220'))
      • 15:18, 23 June 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Langer" (nonsense)
      • 00:10, 25 March 2005 Duncharris deleted "Langer" (content was: '{{delete}}Langer is a term used (for the most part) by people from the beautiful city of Cork. Although it can be used as a term of endearment, ...')
      • 02:24, 10 February 2005 Curps deleted "Langer" (patent nonsense; content was: '{{del}}Langera highly selfish insidious person, normally male, devoid of moral and character, who will, under no circumstances do no man no favour....')
      • 18:36, 2 February 2005 Deb deleted "Langer" (content was: 'Person from Ireland, who is know as a bit of a fool. Slang word for idiot.')
    • Uncle G 21:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. as can be seen from the more recent deletions, increasingly indefensible reasons for deletion have been invoked to justify further wrongful speedy deletions after the article has been restored. It's been claimed that this is a "disguised personal attack" (it obviously isn't), the recreation of an article previously correctly deleted as a result of a VfD which it isn't). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The content was properly deleted, as per VFD consensus, all the way back in 2004. It was re-created and deleted several times since, as the log shows. It was the undeletion of it that was "improper" and "wrongful". That undeletion should have been done through WP:VFU. It was not. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. You simply repeat the false claim that the article was deleted as a result of a VfD. It was not. The VfD result was transwiki. The transwikied article bears no resemblance to the article we're discussing. This VfD discussion would be considerably more brief if I didn't have to continually correct you on simple matters of verifiable fact. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once again: The first version of the transwikied article is almost word-for-word identical with the article that you undeleted. If you want to "continually correct" people "on simple matters of verifiable fact", please make sure that you actually have a leg to stand upon before you attempt to do so. In this case, it's pretty easy to verify that you're asserting falsehoods. The deletion log is right there for all to see, and shows the article being deleted several times, and you (and only you) undeleting it. The Wikipedia article history is there for all to see, and shows its deletion after VFD and transwiki (on or after 2004-12-06), the various re-creations of the article from scratch beginning on 2005-02-02, and your subsequent reversion on 2005-07-22 to the VFDed version from 2004 that you had undeleted 2 minutes earlier that same day. The Wiktionary article history is right there for all to see, and the first version of the Wiktionary article is simple to compare with the Wikipedia article that you undeleted. Uncle G 01:22:42, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
  • Delete. – ishwar  (speak) 21:07, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
  • Delete this version. However, there should be a disambiguation for the family name Langer at this entry. Martg76 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Martg76 there is such a name disambiguation at Langer/Temp. Uncle G 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and disambiguate per Martg76. The dictdef should stay at wiktionary. Flowerparty talk 23:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the temp file should be copied to this article and the current article deleted. I can think of at least three notable Australians with this surname namely Albert Langer the activist, Justin Langer the cricketer and Allan Langer the rugby league player. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to have to say keep. I'm a Cork man, and i feel that this word is used all the time in ever day life in this part of the world. It has become a way of life and a way in which we distinguish ourselves from the rest of the countys. It has also produces many books and songs that have centered around the phrase, meaning, history and evenmore nowadays the identity it has for the county. If you delete it your going to be fighting a long loosing battle. Us Corkonians are very stubern and will just keep trying to get an entry into the encyclopedia. If it comes to a Delete decision, give it a few months and i'm sure the article will be up again. Ablaze 07:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I was going to abstain - but Ablaze changed my mind. With all due respect, that is the worst argument for keep I've ever heard -'vote with us - because we won't accept any decision from the community' is a violation of all that WP stands for. Further WP:NOT a dictionary (not even for Corkonians) - I'd go off and create an article for evey bit of Glaswegian, except for WP:POINT. --Doc (?) 09:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I never meant to sound like that. True that you could put an article for every different type of slang out there and that’s not what WP is about. I was trying to put across the point that the term itself is more than just a dictionary entry or piece of slang in Cork. It a term that makes us distinct from other counties in Ireland. It’s a cultural entry about Cork people and how they use it. I think it deserves a bit more than a wikitionary entry as it has been used in songs and is the subject of many books, and these books are not just on slang. I never meant to sound like you gotta vote for us or whatever, I’ll accept the decision whatever it is, but isn't this the second time its up for debate? Ablaze 11:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I'm appalled that you should think that what makes Cork distinct from other counties is a slang term for penis... I wonder how many natives of Cork would agree with you. If it's true, then I'm glad that my roots are in Limerick.
    Secondly, yes, it has been discussed before, and the vote was to transfer the article to Wiktionary as it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. It was then recreated out of process, and an admin has insisted on recreating it despite near-universal consensus that it should have either stayed deleted or been put through the normal Requests for undeletion procedure. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is one of many things that is associated with cork. If you asked any Irish Person about the term Langer, what county would they think of? Ablaze
    That's not the point, though — a term might be associated particularly with one group without its being particularly significant, much less definitive of that group. I suspect that in the attempt to defend this article you're grossly exaggerating the significance of this one little bit of vulgarity. (And I have asked Irish friends and relatives, and none of them knew what I was talking about.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not exaggerating the significance of the term at all. If you read the article you will see that the term got country wide recognition last summer with the song. So much so, i found it strange that friends from Dublin and Mayo were using the phrase in a less harsh meaning, like we use it down in Cork. The word has meanings alright to be vulgar, but also used in every day between friends (as it says in the article). I'm just saying what i know is true. Your friends must of been on holidays last summer! :o) Ablaze 13:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I understand things correctly the sequence of events is thus. The page is put on VfD and the result is transwiki and delete. It is transwikied, and it is deleted. The page is undeleted, and this appears to be out of proccess, so it was deleted again as a recreation (ad nauseum). This second VfD was brought about to end the deletion war (although I suppose maybe a VFU should have been brought about). Therefore, in line with the original decision to delete, this is my vote. -- Joolz 16:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the damned thing already! --Carnildo 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could there be a compromise in deleting this - but adding the additional material to the Wiktionary article? --Doc (?) 21:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Let me explain why, lest folks think that I'm just responding to the putative ambiguity of policy. The new material here is, IMO, not sufficient. There has been an attempt to make this into an article. I readily grant that. However, although the article says that the story of the word is complex, there are no complexities given. There's no philology at all. It's just "this word has many meanings." Well, duh. Most regional sexual slang does. There is a great deal of wheel spinning and smoke generating, but when you boil this down, all you get is, "It means X, Y, Z, and it's regional." I.e. it's still lexical and not philological. Patruriunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus. Geogre 18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: For the record, I think there is no ambiguity about the transwiki policy. After transwiki, an article is deleted. This is not spelled out, per our law gamers, because it isn't needed. One criterion for speedy delete has always been "duplicate material." If something exists on one of our projects, we speedy delete from the other project, where it doesn't belong. Thus, no need to say, "And after you transwiki it, you delete it." Geogre 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I dont think its just regional. True that it did originate in Cork but since the song, the remix and the word of mouth around the country, For example, I was at Oxyegen a few weeks ago and the amount of people (not from cork) that i heard using the word was really suprising. The term has a grip on the whole country. I also dont think that you could compromise by adding info on the song etc as it doesn't belong in a Wiktionary.Ablaze 18:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The song information would not belong in the Wiktionary. However, it does not make this non-lexical. Personally, I'd say, rather, that the effect of the song is null at this point, as it's quite a bit too early to determine if it has caused a real spread of the term or just a pop-culture reference that will fade in a few weeks. However, were we to assume that it is an important fact and one in need of explication (because it's confusing people), the Wiktionary will answer the meaning of the term, and the song, if it's really that popular and important, would be a fit subject for an article. Personally, I don't think so, though, and I think the song is, at this point, just extranneous. Geogre 21:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I wouldn't write the song off as a fade, considering it was released over a year ago and was top of charts for several weeks. Details on the song. And By now most people in Ireland know more or less what a langer is.Ablaze 23:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dicdef already transwiki'd. JamesBurns 07:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merrge and redirect to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. Dmcdevit·t 03:49, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian African presence in the Americas[edit]

The idea that New World civilizations were not of indigenous origin is very dubious. A well-written NPOV article which deals with these theories would be OK, but this isn't it. Afrocentrism is as dubious as Eurocentrism, and can also be a form of US cultural imperialism. PatGallacher 10:46, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, not notable. Thue | talk 14:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Kearvell[edit]

Delete probably hoax. nn regardless. TheMidnighters 10:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 11:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, no assertion of importance or significance. Considering yourself great doesn't qualify. (I got into an edit conflict adding the tag.) —Cryptic (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though I wikified and cleaned up this article, It only gets 136 hits on Google, only a few related to books or publications. --Wackymacs 13:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedily. I find only extremely weak assertion of notability, and that's when I use my imagination. Aerion//talk 13:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per Cryptic.--DNicholls 13:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. (I think this is also in the spirit of the "recreate" votes below.) Eugene van der Pijll 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'THE 5th DOWN'[edit]

A poorly-named, poorly written, WALL OF TEXT article about a single game involving two college teams. GarrettTalk 13:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Of interest only for trainspotters who scribble down statistics about every football game everywhere. Even the writing style is more appropriate for a sports column than for an encyclopedia. — JIP | Talk 13:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, cleanup. A national championship game is notable, but not usable in this format. Indifferent Bollar 14:19, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This was not a national championship game, it was an early regular season game. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:21, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
  • Delete then Recreate We're obligated to delete it, I think, because of the improperly formatted title. However, a properly titled article about this event would not be inappropriate, since it is the only American football game in one of the two major leagues (the NFL and Division I) on record in which a 5th down was played. That it resulted in the win is true; that it ultimately determined the national championship is also technically true, as Colorado split the championship with Georgia Tech, which they would have been unable to do with one less win and one more loss on their record. The Literate Engineer 17:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a better name, and cleanup. per Literate Engineer Dsmdgold 20:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then Recreate to a better quality article. User: 24.171.36.233 10:55 PM, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely worthy of an entry, but needs an appropriate name and stylistic revisions. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. Delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 03:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary of the unique situation to Down (football), leave this as redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:26, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Comment I have created an article at Colorado v Missouri, 1990 football game, which covers the information here in a more encyclopedic style and has some additional info. The name is a bit inelegant and I would not object to it being moved. I vote that 'THE 5th DOWN' be redirected to the new article. Dsmdgold 04:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've just voted to keep that one. Even so I think you should have rewritten and moved this article instead of making a VfD fork. Nabla 18:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (as above}. *Plus*, ive decided to nominate Colorado v Missouri, 1990 football game for Deletion aswell. As i dont think it belongs on Wikipedia. - The Time Killer
  • Delete minor football game, trivial. JamesBurns 07:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  05:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Colorado v Missouri, 1990 football game - this is a much better write-up. Xaa 20:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect as above. Nabla 18:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. JDoorjam 19:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ugochukwu Enyioha[edit]

"Ugochukwu Enyioha (born 21 April 1980 in Lagos, Nigeria) wants to be a Nigerian entrepreneur. [...] In 2006, while still in school, he will found X-Digital [...]" Right. I'd say userfy except it's the work of an anon user. Rl 13:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hub culture[edit]

600+ Google results View However all of the pages relate the term to the book. If the term has no independent meaning than the purpose of this article may be self promotion by the starter who happens to identify by the moniker, "hubculture". Delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 14:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

22surf[edit]

I recommend delete because 1) Vanity 2) Non-notable 3) borderline Original Research. Even after going through the website, I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to be about. Peter Grey 14:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was no VfD notice in the entry, but I fixed it.--DNicholls 14:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was userfy. That will make this the userpage of User:Tfarrell. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Farrell[edit]

Self promotional entry (author identifies himself by username); move to user's own page

lots of issues | leave me a message 14:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP:2k, 1d, including nominator. -Splash 03:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Orient[edit]

Non-notable; stub; probably only created to populate Category:Global warming skeptics William M. Connolley 14:21:59, 2005-07-24 (UTC)

  • delete per listing William M. Connolley 14:23:13, 2005-07-24 (UTC).
  • Keep and expand — from what I've read she appears notable to me. Written 100+ articles; executive director of AAPS, &c. — RJH 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Published clinician appears notable. JamesBurns 06:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete (8 delete, 2 keep, 2 anons, and 1 new user) --Allen3 talk 17:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob Hacker[edit]

He hung arround with a barely notable band - who never let his join - got evicted and convicted when they abused his hospitality - wild guy, but not I think notable! --Doc (?) 14:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it needs some additions about his own career in order to solidify it. I do believe he was also a roadie for TAS, so that might also warrant keeping.69.154.189.180 19:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. If judged as a musician, since there's no criteria for roadies or partiers, he fails WP:MUSIC. --TheMidnighters 20:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn roadie vanity. --Etacar11 00:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm from Tulsa and somewhat familiar with their music scene; I personally knew members of Agony Scene, and Jacob Hacker, though never a member, deserves note for the numerous illegal activities he and the band participated in together. Either more information needs to be added to this page, or it needs to be merged with Agony Scene's entry.Mistergrind 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have only a vague idea where Tulsa is. A non member of a non notable band in an outback US city does not deserve space in what is meant to be an international project--Porturology 04:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WTF? You want to delete something because you don't know where the city it took place in is located? That's just ignorance-- not to mention calling a city the size of Tulsa "outback."Timmybiscool 00:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I want it deleted because he is a non-member of a barely notable band whose other claim to fame is a criminal record. Who on earth wants to know about this except the sock puppets who are running this debate.--Porturology 01:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sock puppetry? WTF? You better have some evidence to back yourself up. You think someone is NN, but other people don't, so they MUST be sock puppets, huh? Go ahead, I want to see your evidence. Or did it come from the same corner of your mind that thinks Agony Scene (signed to a major indy record label with national tours and two albums) is "non notable" and that Tulsa is "outback."Timmybiscool 02:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming the external links contained in the article do provide some degree of verifiability. I find it surprising that someone with only a vague idea of where a city is decides to delete on that basis, especially given that the information is only a mouse click away. I might also add that WP:MUSIC is not policy and should not be treated as such (especially where it has no jurisdiction). Lupin 11:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The point being that if I wanted to know about Tulsa it is only a click away. However i can not imagine that anyone other than a few people in Tulsa will ever want to know about this small time crim and the value of Wikipaedia is demesned by his inclusion.--Porturology 23:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. Is there some sock-puppetry here.--Porturology 00:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note to user Porturology, Tulsa is either the second or third largest city in the state of Oklahoma, behind OKC. Hardly backwoods.
  • Delete non-notable rocker. CDC (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think he should be judged on music criteria as some of you are, because this article is not primarily about him as a musician. The links all check out, especially the prison and police stuff, so I vote to keep him in. 207.70.152.126 17:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, okay then, he's also a non-notable small-time criminal. CDC (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but how many small-time criminals house, are arrested with, and tried alongside members of nationally recognized/touring bands? If he were just some stero thief I'd be voting delete, also. It's his affiliation with the band that gives him noteriety69.154.189.180 21:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there is a grand tradition of Larceny amongst musicians and artists in general, he never went for the REALLY big score that would have put him over the top, so to speak. He still has a chance to get into wikipedia, he just needs to do some bigger crimes, or maybe even DO SOMETHING USEFUL. Like start a band that gets signed to a major label or well known indie, sells a few thousand copies, tours internationally. Just let me know if he comes to Canada so we can alert the proper authorities. Hamster Sandwich 12:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough band thugTimmybiscool 22:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's fifth edit, all to VFD pages CDC (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable. A criminal who happens to play music. Big deal. --Cholmes75 21:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can pretty much sum up anybody and add "Big deal" on the end and give the illusion that they don't matter. Tony Sirico-- a criminal who happens to be on a TV show. Big deal. See how easy that is? You're disregarding the fact that TAS is signed to a major label and that this guy was involved in one of its members being arrested and tried for a felony-- and yes, THAT is a big deal. Timmybiscool 00:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborians[edit]

The article is a hoax. Also, the article creator said that it should be deleted. Please, look at the article talk page. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborian speech[edit]

The speech is not relevant. There is no article about Eastern-Herzegovian dialect and Zlatiborian is the part of it. Eastern-Herzegovian dialect is the part of Shtokavian super-dialect. Please, look at the article talk page, as well as in article history. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Zlatiborian literature[edit]

The article is a hoax. Also, the article creator said that it should be deleted. Please, look at the article talk page. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Institute for the Zlatiborian language and literature[edit]

The article is a hoax. Please, look at the article talk page. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 14:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 14:01, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music[edit]

This is based on a highly speculative interpreatatuion of Schubert's alleged sexuality, and is not notable enough to be an article SqueakBox 14:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The essay is not notable enough to warrant its own entry. Merge, if necessary. This is surely no more notable than her "Beethoven and the rape controversy".--DNicholls 14:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This was at one point a part of WikiProject:Critical Theory, and it's not clear when or why it fell out. The fact that the interpretation is speculative isn't relevant, since the Wikipedia article is a summary of the speculative article. What is important isn't the contents of the article (I know little about critical theory) but whether it is notable. The New York Times describes this article as follows: [W]ell-known musicologist, Susan McClary, winner of a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award, whose contentious 1991 article "Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music" became a manifesto for a number of queer theorists. Sounds extremely notable to me. Nandesuka 15:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It still seems that this should at least be merged with her main entry. As it stands now, her entry hardly mentions it, except in passing, suggesting that it isn't all that important, relatively speaking (to her own work).--DNicholls 15:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (written before reading DNicholls). The title implies that the article is about the construction of subjectivity in Schubert's music, whereas actually it is about Susan McClary's theories of subjectivity in his music. Therefore the title is misleading, and if the article survuives its Vfd the title must be changed in order not to deliberately mislead the reader. I disagree about notability, but would be happy to see the article merged into Susan McClary as this is about her theories of Schubert but pretends to be about Schubert himself, SqueakBox 15:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The very first sentence of the article is: "Constructions of Subjectivity in Schubert's Music" was originally a presentation...". Who, exactly, is this article going to mislead? People from Mars? Should I campaign to rename the article Shakespeare In Love because it is really about the movie, but its title will mislead readers into believing it's about the Bard's love life? Your claim that the article "pretends to be about Schubert himself" is not supported by even the most cursory reading. Nearly every paragraph indicates that it is paraphrasing from McClary's article ("She begins..." "She then compares..." "Before closing her essay..." There's one paragraph that could probably use such a tag before it. This should have been fixed with a simple edit. A VfD is utterly and completely inappropriate here, and you should have known better. Nandesuka 15:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I say, as I strive to keep my personal feelings out of it, finding as I do McClary to be one of the most shrill, offensive, and destructive voices in the world of contemporary musicology: but this essay is extremely notable in the field, indeed infamous. It may not have risen to quite the level of the "Recapitulation of the first movement of the Beethoven Ninth Symphony is a metaphorical act of rape!" controversy, but it's up there. At any rate, it's keep-worthy. Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Franz Schubert, where a single short paragraph on McClary's research into his sexual orientation will suffice. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Franz Schubert, as per User:Angr. JamesBurns 07:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:36, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fronk[edit]

I couldn't find any trace of this while searching for it, found message board usernames and regular names along with mispellings but no usages as described here. Even MySpace, which is referenced here only returns two results, both usernames. Delete Rx StrangeLove 15:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication of use outside Wkipedia. --DrTorstenHenning 15:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I asked for references this morning, none yet. - Chairboy 17:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What about this:

http://forum.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=messageboard.viewCategory&CategoryID=60&Mytoken=20050725004916

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. I am sure Zydeco was up for deletion once.

And if it was, it was probably deleted if it's usage then was as limited as Fronk's is now. If Fronk becomes more widely used in the future, someone will write an article about it and it will probably be accepted. Rx StrangeLove 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:33, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics - Songs about Jane[edit]

Lyrics to individual songs aren't really encyclopedia-worthy, and if they were, they should be included in the pages devoted to the album. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: Mere collections of public domain or other source material... Delete DNicholls 15:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:31, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Quaffles, Anyone?[edit]

POV, possible vanity. While it may be popular on fanfiction.net, it only gets 16 Google hits. [6] Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamino Saberdarts[edit]

Amoung it's other problems, I only get 13 returns in a Goodle search, 12 on Yahoo. delete Rx StrangeLove 15:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as nonsense. Bollar 15:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 nomination withdrawn.

===South Lanarkshire Council=== Advertising.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 16:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC) [reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Issue9mm[edit]

Finishing somebodies incomplete VfD nomination, I'm not expressing an opinion on this. Rx StrangeLove 16:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second this for deletion Ymallet 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what terms are you for deleting this article? 24 July 2005
      • (The above comment was written by User:Mole Man.) Comment: I agree with Mole Man here; you ought to justify your vote, whatever it is. --Ardonik.talk()* 02:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article as non-notable internet trivia. I would have nominated this page for deletion myself if Rx Strngelove hadn't done so. The site has no Alexa ranking, has only 716 google hits as of this evening, and is linked to by just 4 sites (if you ask Google) or 11 (if you ask Alexa.) The article itself boasts that the forum has ~1800 members and ~51000 articles, but that number is surpassed by (for instance), the Battle for Wesnoth forums, which don't have or deserve their own article. --Ardonik.talk()* 02:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

There is no boasting, just facts. If you actually haven't even checked the site, the numbers are plain to see. Doesn't matter how many hits or not this gets the fact is it has long surpassed many of its larger rival communities such as JediMindTrick which had much more hits which no longer even exists. By you defining this page as non-notable internet trivia you should try looking at some other wiki articles sometimes. July 25, 2005

(The above comment was written by User:Mole Man.) --Ardonik.talk()* 08:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the votes on this page were blanked by 81.136.194.168 (talk · contribs). --Ardonik.talk()* 00:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete With only 20 regular members claimed, and no claims of notability other than engaging in some flame wars, there seems to be no reason for this article. WP:NOT a web directory. Especially with any Alexa ranking at all. --Icelight 15:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons outlined by Icelight. Mr. Billion 04:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from nominator. -Splash 03:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl[edit]

DELETE this outrageous case of violation of common sense. The release of the vapourware game has been beeing delayed I don't know how many times. Now it is "early 2006".

Previous debates

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, confirmed by this case, and I am executing my right and promise to put this piece of promotion of unfinished garbage on vote for deletion again. mikka (t) 17:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Shadow of Chernobyl" + "new releases" gets 931 Google hits, and the game has a page at Gamespot [7]. It's definitely real (even though it was missing at E3 this year... but then again so was Duke Nukem Forever). We should keep all articles on vaporware supposedly being made by companies that have released notable games, because it's better than getting the article reposted and speedied or dragged through VfU if and when those games do come out. --Idont Havaname 18:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No more vaporware that Duke Nukem Forever, as mentioned by Idont Havaname. The game receives enough attention from the gaming media to be notable. WP is not a crystal ball, that's quite true, but there's enough attention being given to this game now that it doesn't have to be in order to rate an article. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of (possible) future products listed on Wikipedia, as can be seen at Category:Future products. There are also articles on chanceled games. Besides, noting ongoing deveploment of a game is not predicting future and this case doesn't seem to be covered by Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. --The Merciful 20:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable game. Constantly in PC gaming news. No less notable than other vaporware such as Duke Nukem Forever. It'd be one thing if there was nothing ever shown on this or hardly any information, but that's not the case. The article contains no speculation, but rather official information released from the developers/publishers. Does not qualify for crystal ball. Please read that section better. K1Bond007 20:33, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • If it is constantly in the PC gaming news, then reliable, verifiable, independent PC gaming news sources should be cited in the article. Currently they are not. I might be inclined to change my vote below if someone provides evidence, other than their own assertions, that this game is in fact getting attention in the gaming media. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (vote changed, see below) as advertising unless someone provides good source citations showing that the game is in fact receiving wide attention in PC gaming circles. In any case the article should not discuss the game as if it existed and its characteristics were known. If we are to have an article about it at all, it should discuss it as notable vaporware and represent the game characteristics as speculative. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is not the 2012 Olympic games or an undiscovered chemical element with predictable characteristics or the next transit of Venus. This is a marketing blurb about a game which may or may not ever be released and may or may not resemble the description. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the three latest entries I got when searching "S.T.A.L.K.E.R." at BluesNews: July 23, 2005, July 08, 2005 and May 18, 2005. It should also be noted that the term "vaporware" is both degarotaty and speculative, and therefore unecyclopedic. Factually games are only "released", "in development" or "chancelled". As user K1Bond007 noted, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy does not ably to this article. --The Merciful 11:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added some more ext links to the article, as well as a section about its status (or not) as vaporware and a paragraph near the top with information about its AI that its developers released earlier this year. Also worth noting is that out of the 2 million + results Google gives for "Stalker", the game's site is first, and the image results shown on the web search both appear to be screenshots from that game. --Idont Havaname 03:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good enough, Keep in present form and hope for improvement. There are places where the article needs to cite sources instead of simply weaseling: "The game is expected to have a non-linear storyline and feature gameplay elements such as trading and two-way communication with NPCs. The game is described as including some role-playing and economic elements." Expected by whom? Why? What's the authority for this information? Until recently you could have said "the next release of Windows is expected to include the WinFX file system" because Microsoft's glossy marketing blurbs said it would, but that appears to have been an empty promise and putting them in an article would have amounted to accepting Microsoft marketing's point of view. NPOV requires the adoption of at least certain degree of skepticism regarding companies' claims about futures. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, currently one of the most anticipated video games in the industry. Even if it is never released (which is a possibility), it attracted a larger share of attention than a lot of games that were actually released. It also needs some healthy doses of a factual cleanup and sourcing, as well as italicizing ad blurb references. wS;✉ 21:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. THQ still has a page listing for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. I agree with WolfenSilva. --ShadowHntr 00:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game is still in developement and when it is officially cancelled, then we should delete the page. Fableheroesguild 20:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lango (conlang)[edit]

Nothing seem related to it in google, not notable, I say delete Kiba 17:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Kiba. Nandesuka 17:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the sadly common sights of Wiki-Hell: ... Neologists and conlangers, who invented words - or worse yet, entire languages - and posted them as articles, condemned to an eternity spouting nothing but meaningless self-made words in unknown tongues, these uncromulently disembiggened souls are denied the ability to engage in intelligent communication with others!" ... We know where this article goes. :-) Delete. --Idont Havaname 18:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although I don't see why the previous speaker deems it necessary to insult conlangers and other people with linguistic creativity. But that aside, we seem to be dealing here with IAL/euroclone no. ###, and to that a hardly verifiable one. --IJzeren Jan 18:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't an insult from me - it was a direct quote out of the Wiki-Hell subpage that User:BD2412 created. He sometimes bans things to Wiki-Hell on VfD, and since conlangs are part of Wiki-Hell, I thought I could do the honors this time. --Idont Havaname 18:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you quote somebody like that, you take responsability over what you write. But it's fine. Just be a little polite, and don't insult people who have interests that you cannot understand. --IJzeren Jan 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as Idont Havaname has already done the condemning of this non-notable creation. -- BD2412 talk 19:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. – ishwar  (speak) 21:07, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is essentially a creative work in progress. Would we want an article on a movie that was just at the conceptual stage? Still, if someone wrote 1000 articles in the language and started a new wikipedia... Peter Grey 04:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, not yet notable, unless good evidence to the contrary provided. Attempts to search this in Google Scholar and such are greatly complicated by the existence of the real Lango, which happens to be a Western Nilotic language spoken in Uganda [8]. But as nearly as I can tell there are no relevant hits in Google Scholar. I'm limited by not knowing Russian, but as nearly as I can tell the Lango conlang website itself provides no evidence whatever that this is more than one person's pet project. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn conlang. JamesBurns 07:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability per CONLANG. It's not even listed on Langmaker, for pete's sake. Almafeta 13:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 03:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Pudwill[edit]

Nonsense. Speedy deletion? --Ian Pitchford 17:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if it is speedyable, but it is certainly deleteable! Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. -- BD2412 talk 20:01, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Call it a speedy, it's borderline for a few different criteria. It doesn't stand a chance here. Put it out of its misery. -R. fiend 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Lupin 11:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholics[edit]

This is an overly broad list, which leads to significant incompleteness in each subcategory. Many more narrowly defined lists of Catholics exist - see Category:Roman Catholics. Should be deleted as a list of loosely associated topics, or made a redirect to Category:Roman Catholics or some other such article. NoSeptember 17:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list should be modified, but I'm not for deletion. As I said on the Talk page- it's about definition. Catholics are people once baptized in the Catholic Church who have not explicitely "crossed over" into some other faith. They may have become atheists or indifferent, but- this doesnt matter. Btw- was Luther a "Lutheran" ? Or Marx a "marxist" ? Mir Harven 18:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Talk:List of Roman Catholics for possible clarification.Mir Harven 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use category instead. It's a controversial issue anyway, as a lot of people are Roman Catholic but aren't practicing. Even Eminem is allegedly, theoretically one, but he obviously doesn't practice. Not to mention the category is potentially huge, and would probably have to be broken up into "American Catholics," etc. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Personally, I think any excuse to delete this list will be attempted! Why is that I wonder? It's not a "controversial" issue either. I have no problems with lists of Methodists and Baptists, Jews and Muslims. But if anyone dares to make a comprehensive list of Catholics the world's is somehow threatened!? I'm all for breaking up the list so that some of the bigger sub-sections can be their own pages. This page is still valid. Dwain 18:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • The breaking up of this list as you describe is what Category:Roman Catholics already does. We can create an article for any subcategory on this list that does not already have one, but many subcategories already have their own article (so we are duplicating effort here). NoSeptember 18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentally ginormous list. Delete. And if List of Muslims or List of Jews exist, consider listing them here as well. humblefool® 19:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DO NOT DELETE--I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY (AT KINKO'S) TRYING TO KEEP THE LIST UPDATED. I HAVE DONE SO WITH METICULOUSNESS AND SINCE IT IS SOMETHING I KNOW A LOT ABOUT I HAVE ENJOYED DOING IT. THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE THAT TOO MUCH INFO. IS PRESENT, NOT THAT IT IS INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!! ([email protected])
    • Above unsigned vote is by User:63.164.145.85 who I can verify has added well over 100 names to the list just in the last few days. It would seem reasonable to count his vote. NoSeptember 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems redundant with the cateogry and all, and open to anyone throwing their name in the list, particularly as, unlike some other lists, no one is famous just for being a Catholic. I think the same goes for other religion lists. Categories are better. Delete. -R. fiend 21:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too broad and unmaintainable. There is already Roman Catholics category (which in itself is too broad) and a number of R.C. subcategories. 23skidoo 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and also the categories, all of which are completely absurd. There are more than one billion catholics in the world, and that does not even include dead people. A large proportion of biography articles would have to be linked there and also be put into those categories. You could just as well make a list of men and a list of woman plus categories. Martg76 21:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a subset of List of Christians which is similar to List of Muslims... I don't think every religious affiliation list is going to be deleted and I don't see how this is different than the others. I do think it might be wise to break it up into sub-lists just as it is a sub-list of the Christians list gren 22:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list in unmaintainable. There are millions of catholics in the world and wikipedia is not a telephone book. Fbergo 22:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I think it is implying notable Catholics. gren 23:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE--I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY (AT KINKO'S) TRYING TO KEEP THE LIST UPDATED. I HAVE DONE SO WITH METICULOUSNESS AND SINCE IT IS SOMETHING I KNOW A LOT ABOUT I HAVE ENJOYCED DOING IT. THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE THAT TOO MUCH INFO. IS PRESENT, NOT THAT IT IS INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!! ([email protected]) Addendum to previous message: I think that it would be best to simply place a moratorium on any new additions or edits to the "List of Roman Catholics", so that a division by category can be arranged. I did not realize that space would be such an issue for Wikipedia--as a near-computer illiterate, I thought cyberspace was unlimited, but I see there is a problem, so as of 12:01 A.M. (7/25/05), a MORATORIUM should be installed prohibiting any new additions, deletions, edits, etc., only permitting viewing. Thanks for your attention!! Robert Sieger ([email protected])

    • A moratorium is not necessary. The information in the list will be preserved, either in the current list, new subcategory lists, or in the category scheme (although there are a lot of red links), and it will be at least 5 days before any action is taken as a result of this vote. NoSeptember 23:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "NoSeptember". R. Sieger ([email protected])

If I may give Mr. Sieger a piece of advice, I wouldn't recommend using Wikipedia as a "back up" or a personal storehouse for information (in fact the comments above nearly made me vote delete based upon the no original research rule based upon the impression I got). Anything posted here can be deleted, altered, vandalized, or what have you at any time, and Wikipedia itself has a habit of becoming inaccessible with annoying regularity. If there is any research or information in any article that you've created that you really don't want to lose, I suggest making a back-up of it to either your hard drive or a printed hardcopy ASAP. 23skidoo 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read the "delete answers", I've came to a unanimous (hehheh..) conclusion: the list must be kept. Arguments for deletion go something like this: yeah, and List of Muslims, List of Jews, List of Buddhists, .., too.. It won't happen. These list will not be deleted. So- either all or not a single one. Since the former option is out of question- the RCC list must stay (albet radically modified in not a few features). Since I was the one who has been, initially, the most suspicious about the RCC list, I can ask with some authority: why is this list here at all ? Not accompanied by other fellow lists ? Now, the whole affair begins to smack of something...undesirable. Mir Harven 07:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having difficulty figuring out what encyclopedic purpose the list serves. Is it so that someone writing an article on the Church could use it as a source for "oh, and X, Y, & Z are famous Catholics"? Aside from that (which could easily be handled through the category) I don't see a purpose for it. As much as I love to see new articles on the Church, I think this one has to be a delete. -- Essjay · Talk 09:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all lists potentially longer than 1 million people, including this one. They add no value. :) — RJH 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It is both very accurate and relevant. The length shouldn't matter.Gateman1997 18:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To: "23skidoo"--I had, in fact, done just what you suggested, and saved a fairly recent version of this whole category as an email I sent to my own Hotmail account. Thanks for the advice!

  • Weak keep. I agree with a lot of what Essjay and RJH say but their objections could also be resolved by scaling back the list to the most prominent examples in the various categories. Listing more than 1,000 actors and actresses rather than the few dozen most highly acclaimed ones makes the list less useful rather than more useful, IMO. DS1953 03:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 06:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are several people actively maintaining this list, so despite its potential size, it will be better maintained than many other lists here. If deleted, we need a comprehensive set of lists by topic (occupation/nationality/et cetera) to cover all that would otherwise be in this list. - User:Doohickey July 26, 2005
  • Delete. The Category:Roman Catholics at least constrains the "membership" to notable people. If it is only a list after all then how about my grandparents, parents, us, our kids, our ... well, you get my point. And have you seen the red link farm under the Activists section? Well heck, I suppose all of my parish priests could be considered activists. And why in the world is Bobby Fischer listed under Criminals and Misfits? Who is going to patrol that kind of edit? I see lots of opportunity for mischief here. hydnjo talk 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vandalism. User 70.18.211.240 has added a few names (either evidently non-Catholic ones, like Bobby Fischer or politically charged (Albanian leader Karsniqi)) with rather clear purpose of undermining list's credibility. Whatever this may be- this is becoming interesting. As if someone tries, surreptitiously, to get the list deleted. Hmmm....food for thought. Mir Harven 10:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all similar lists. There is no point nor encyclopedic value to such a list. I could see a point to "List of famous Roman Catholics" (though I don't like lists and would oppose it still), but as it is, this seems to be nothing more than a list of everyone mentioned on Wikipedia who happens to be Catholic. --Kadett 04:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make a good point and that's why Category:Roman Catholics does the job so well. By definition, anyone in this category would have an article and thus be notable. hydnjo talk 16:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the difference is that you can organize it better than in categories. By occupation, by time period, etc. gren 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories can be rich in subcategories (this one has sixteen) which serve the same purpose. Also, a person can easily reside in more than one subcategory and with much better visibity than in a list. hydnjo talk 22:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If a list is to be encyclopaedic it must have the potential to be comprehensive and complete. By definition this list can never be either.--Porturology 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

To all concerned--I did put Bobby Fischer in as a misfit by mistake because I forgot that the issue was the religion (and he is not Catholic, although he IS a MISFIT) of the individual not the character; also I realized my mistake with Krasniqi and deleted it, but it was on my mind and I am planning to email the Attorney General and whoever else I can think of regarding this Florin Krasniqi who has been an arms trafficker for the past DECADE and it is not a secret that he wants to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of its remaining Serbs; this so bothered me that I posted him, but then realized that he is a Muslim and deleted it. Sorry!! R. Sieger ([email protected]) (aka 70.18.207.16 with these [9] contribs.)

  • I swear that I did not hire this dude to support my position in favor of this VfD. ;-) hydnjo talk 00:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This list is useful, even if it potentially duplicates much of the functionality of Category:Roman Catholics. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to propose it for deletion and not the dozens of other lists. If one really wants to delete this, one should first develop a concensus to Catergory-ify and delete _all_ lists, and begin executing that concensus on less-controversial lists. Rast 00:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep While I believe lists do not belong in an Encyclopedia, they are now an engrained part of Wikipedia. If any list has any right to exist, this one should. However, it mostly seems to be a list of famous or notable Roman Catholics. I vote keep, but I strongly encourage consideration of "Notable Roman Catholics".
(above unsigned comment by Jvraba) NoSeptember
  • Does that mean no red links allowed? If so, then I agree with you. hydnjo talk
I think it is fairly obvious that this list will not be deleted. But- the point is how to arrange it ? I guess it cannot stay in this form, so, to avoid possible "mammothing", it would be good to break it into a few lists. Just- I don't see how. If a division would be along national lines (Spanish, US, Dutch,..), it just creates more confusion. If it's vocational/professional (writers, scientists, politicians,..)- the naming is problematic (Marcel Proust was an author who was, techically, a Catholic. But, he was not a "Catholic author".). I'd say the list has to be divided. But, how ? Mir Harven 17:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and break. It's obviously not unmaintainable, as people have been maintaining it—it's hard to patrol for vandals and self-promoters, yes, but the alternative seems POV-ish. If there are lists of Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, and others, and the Catholic list is deleted, it seems as if Catholicism is the "default" religion here, and the other lists are deviations from it. While I have an opinion on this, I don't think it ought to be asserted as fact. :.) Breaking it up will ease patrolling the pages. My kingdom for a relational database... → ( AllanBz ✎ ) 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and break Agree with what others say about breaking the list up. --Chris 05:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is why categories exist, no need for a list, specially for a list with tons of nonverifiable material like this one. drini ☎ 23:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Important list User:Khanada 21:07 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The category does not give the reference info that this list maintains i.e. if the person was/is a politician, what office do they hold? This list lets you know without going to the individual entry. Big time saver! Camille
  • Strong Keep A very comprehensive list and therefore mustn't be deleted.

Strange, it's happening to an article about Catholics... there seems to be some bias.User:Cockney

  • Keep Perhaps some modifications would be beneficial, though it is unnecesary to delete the article; the question of deletion is of special interest to me as a Catholic and as a contributor to the page.--Thomas Aquinas 20:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pool_Shark2[edit]

Looks like advertising. POV and uninformative Yoghurt 18:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete that and Pool Shark 2. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this information seems reasonably balanced and eminently verifiable. I've put a redirect in place, by the way. Lupin 11:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it looks like the POV is gone now. 18,900 google hits. [10] Jaxl 15:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:21, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

On Raglan Road[edit]

This is just a poem; not an article, unencyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 18:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Possible copyvio, though it is more likely that it was written by the article's creator. Unencyclopedic. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, a quick Google Search makes it look like it is copyvio. [11] Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • From a little more research, it appears that this was made in good faith from a red link in List of Irish ballads. If someone creates a non-copyvio stub, I will be prepared to change my vote. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously delete as a copyvio, but an article on the song would be welcome, as it's quite well known. I was surprised to find out how recent it is though, as I always thought it was old. Anyway, I think the song is more often just called Raglan Road, but I could be wrong. -R. fiend 21:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete copyvio and do we really need articles about individual Irish ballads anyway?Palmiro 16:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 07:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Joyous (talk) 02:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Robin Gissing[edit]

No evidence of notability. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tweakers.net[edit]

nn Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:43, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. (is that what "nn" stands for?) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep and expand. in NL it *is* a well known site amongs computer geeks Spearhead 19:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. I'm not dutch so wouldn't know too much but after looking at the site which as 100,000+ registered users, certainly seems to have some notability. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 21:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 16:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Salpointe catholic high school now moved to Salpointe Catholic High School[edit]

nn schoolcruft' Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC) Keep I apologize for nominating. I mistakenly belived that precedent was to delete secondary schools with a few exceptions. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep -Although the page needs much work and more information, its limited information merits its inclusion as a source of reference.--68.84.203.76 07:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete substub. Dunc|☺ 21:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no notability established. Dunc|☺ 22:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete no encyclopediac content. Unfortunately not technically eligable for a speedy under WP:CSD. DES 22:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I fixed it up some so I think it fits the keeping policy for NPOV, etc. Actually move to Salpointe Catholic High School --gren 22:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still contains no notable content. Still Delete. DES 22:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your article -- but instead of nonesense it now is the classic argument over school deletionism or keepinimism gren 22:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Granted. I am in most cases a mergist, but on primary and secondary schools I am a deletionist, absent something quite unusual, i don't think such schools are notable enough to warrent inclusion. No one ever said this was patent nonsense, or at least I never did. The annon user says "content is low" but what notable coneten could there ever be for such an article? DES 22:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I said it was nonesense, it was just a dead media link and no context. Nothing is notable in the normal encyclopedic sense, but argument I follow is NPOV information makes it worthwhile. But, this is why there is still a debate on this subject I guess. gren 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I admit the content is low but more can be added over time. I don't see why High Schools should be excluded from wiki. Then of course, I'm just an anonymous user :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.146 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 24 July 2005
  • Keep per anonymous user. Kappa 22:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is silly. -- Visviva 23:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly good school stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Added some notables from their own Hall of Fame. No A-listers, but a few head honchoes, opera soloists and whatnot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 05:45, 25 July 2005
  • Keep on nominating these. Maybe next week we can try reinventing the wheel. —RaD Man (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taco. For the usual reasons. --Carnildo 07:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly reasonable stub Salsb 13:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already stated. Unfocused 13:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Time for a boiler-plated notice message to people who nominate... RJH 14:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A good start. CalJW 21:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above keeps. DS1953 03:05, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  • Frying pan to the head of the nominator for nominating an article whose topic is near-universally considered to be notable. Oh, and Keep. Almafeta 13:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on keeping schools. Grace Note 00:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 16:14, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel P O'Connell[edit]

I found an article about his house. That's about it. Sounds like a great Democratic power player, but not notable for it. humblefool® 19:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article is missing a key verb. I'm going with delete unless expanded to establish notability and actually say something about the guy. -R. fiend 21:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right. Been expanded enough to make it a marginal keep. -R. fiend 18:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From this website I get the impression that he is notable enough for an article, we just need to write one. NoSeptember 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per NoSeptember. I've formated the article and expanded a little. Also note that he got an obit in the Albany Times-Union which refers to him as "boss of the Albany Democratic machine" [12] Meelar (talk) 14:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks notable. feydey 20:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fifty years running political machine in major county. DS1953 03:13, 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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate Dominion[edit]

spam Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Face[edit]

NN mascot to nn site... humblefool® 20:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

GFU[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article admits that this term is not often used. Flowerparty talk 21:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete KMA, similar page by same anon user. --TheMidnighters 21:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the KMA page. Pburka 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and REDIRECT, unanimously apart from nom. Thusly done. -Splash 04:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaii (mascot)[edit]

I do not believe that the mascot for the Kat Desktop Search Environment program is significant/noteworthy enough to warrant its own article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Kat Desktop Search Environment (and possibly pare it down in that article). Lupin 22:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm wondering why Wikipedia keeps a special category for software mascots if you cannot insert a software mascot in it. What about deleting the two entries about non-existent, non-significant, ugly Microsoft mascots (which are to be considered as easter-eggs more than mascots)? If you want so, I will move the article about the mascot in the Kat page (if you don't delete it), but I think that you have to rethink the policies ruling that category. Rcappuccio 13:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kat Desktop Search Environment, nn on its own. JamesBurns 07:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. This page is now protected and marked with {{deletedpage}} since it has been deleted and re-created several times. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Discrediting Task Force[edit]

Delete not notable. TheMidnighters 21:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete: Since the project is dead, it is no longer notable (by no sources, we cannot determine if it ever was notable). Cbrown1023 21:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Desktop Search Environment[edit]

Kat Desktop Search Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This project has been dead for over a year and the project home page has been shut down. Notability was somewhat arguable before, but at this point it appears that Kat will likely be a historical footnote in the development of Strigi. Additionally the article was written by the author of the software, which is a no-no in the first place. Scott.wheeler 12:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if the project is dead, say the project is dead. If the project has turned into strigi, merge with strigi. — Omegatron 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I'd argue that it's border-line on notability and I'd say the same with Strigi. i.e. the nomination wasn't because it's dead, but because I think it's below the threshold for notability and being dead isn't going to become more notable. Strigi will likely at some point be notable, but it would be a bit odd for me to suggest the creation of another article that also wouldn't meet the notability requirements to merge Kat into.  ;-) Scott.wheeler 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep as historical information; may be in the future it will be useful. Is there another more suitable project to store it?. 87.217.176.154 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced. Addhoc 13:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Nuri[edit]

Not notable (50 hits) and/or vanity, and I'm tempted to suggest nonsense... Delete. Flowerparty talk 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm adding Gopal Das as well, this seems like a set of nonsense Eckankar-cruft created by User:Grizzmaster and enhanced by User:67.149.10.55. Delete for both of them. Klonimus 24.60.163.16 21:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep for both. This is one of those things where the Google test simply doesn't apply. If he's a figure in a religion- Eckankar- then there's no more reason to delete this than to delete Xenu of Scientology. Xenu is, by the way, a featured article. CanadianCaesar 21:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I was worried that might be the response. I've removed Gopal Das, since it was not my intention to VfD both. Nonetheless I feel for Rami Nuri a redirect may be more useful than what's there now. Flowerparty talk 22:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back on this I've made a severe misjudgement: I took Rami Nuri to be a person (hence my vanity accusation). I apologise and retract my previous vote. Keep. Flowerparty talk 00:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense Eckankar cruft. Klonimus 05:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the major religious figures of the religion Eckankar. A religion without it's major figures is worthless. Think about Christianity without Jesus, or Judaism without Abraham. Werty8472 July, 24, 2005.
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Save If you would take the time to notice, there is no advertisement on the ECK master pages. Just because the religion page itself has external links is no reason to VfD everything related to it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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:6m, 3k. (Why did a merge come to VfD?) I've merged it. -Splash 04:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Striped Tiger[edit]

A single minor character from a popualar childrens TV show, now long off the air except in re-runs, is not notable enough for an article. Merge into Fred Rogers or some other suitable place. DES 21:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Reading the later comments and observing the history suggests there has been some work during this VfD, and so I've not reverted to an earlier version as some votes suggest. Anybody can of course be WP:BOLD and do so if they should wish. -Splash 04:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin's illness[edit]

Much of the content is (poorly written) personal research; more importantly, the article is unencyclopædic, concerning a part of Darwin's life that is dealt with in sufficient detail in the Charles Darwin article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (just to make things clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the comments by those arguing for keeping the article, and gone back to look at it 9and its earlier forms). I'm not convinced (to put it mildly), but it's clear that I'm in a small minority. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revert. Take a look at the page history. I wrote the original, it was then expanded considerably by user:Rsabbatini (a.k.a. Renato M.E. Sabbatini a Brazilian doctor with expertise in this area). The article around 9 July 2005 was pretty good, had references, etc. It was then furiously edited by Creationist (talk · contribs) aka Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs) aka 128.205... who through I think newbie overzealousness plus the fact that he's a YECist did the original research (though I think he was doing it in good faith and has remained civil so far, despite the fact that most of his edits elsewhere are being reverted). I think it might be a good idea to revert to the version around 9 July, but was waiting for someone else to do it.
    • As for the charge that it is unencyclopedic, one has to bear in mind that Darwin was the greatest scientist of all time and the length of the article we have on him can't discuss it in detail, i.e it is of appropriate depth. The references to articles in the peer-reviewed literature shows an interest in this subject and thus importance. Dunc|☺ 22:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, first, the claim that Darwin is the geratest scientist of all time is dubious, to put it mildly. Secondly, even if he were, that's not a good enough reason to include articles on matters unrelated to his science (even if his desperate detractors try to insinuate that it's related). Thirdly, there are articles on everything' in the peer-reviewd literature (for various reasons, into which this isn't the place to go). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to before Creationist/Kdbuffalo earlier versions of the article make clear why it is notable - [13] - but it does need extensive cleanup, and I am not at all sure that it should be such an extensive article as it is. It would be part of the series on Creationism. ~~~~ 22:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but revert per Dunc CanadianCaesar 23:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs a little minor formatting but detailed article and consistent with our coverage of Charles Darwin. Capitalistroadster 01:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup / improve formatting ,,,,,dave souza 20:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has gone downhill badly since it was featured on "Did you know?" but that's no reason for deletion. CalJW 21:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found the page interesting and fairly complete. It adds something to the Darwin page. We shouldn't get rid or it.

MY REPLY[edit]

I appreciate duncharris's assistance with me in regards to Wikipedia technical matters. I also appreciate his comment about me acting in good faith and behaving in a civil manner. I would like to say that I enjoy doing historical/medical/psychology research. This is why I found the Darwin illness issue interesting.

Now I don't think there can be an denying that I based my material solely on the medical and history of Darwin (vis a vis quotes of Darwin which I gave in full context). I also used the reported scientific consensus vis a vis Britain's prestigious Academy of science the Royal Society. Personally, I find JAMA, British Medical Journal, Royal Society, American Journal of Medicine, and Dr. Colp to be excellent sources and very informative. I also quoted the saltationist (punctuated equilbrium) Richard Milner. I also gave excellent sources regarding the etiology of panic disorder vis a vis studies. So far, nobody has said why my research exactly was errant.


Below is some of my medical sources categorized by the source they came from:

Darwin's sickness as reported in The American Journal of Medicine

According to the article "The Illness of Charles Darwin" by William B. Bean in the September 1978 publication of the American Journal of Medicine rarely did a day go by where Darwin did not have in "many degrees of severity and many combinations" the following medical symptoms: nausea, severe vomiting, flatulence, alimentary canal pain, various forms of eruption of the skin, and nervous exhaustion.

Dr. Bean also noted the following symptoms obtained from a Darwin letter:

"My nervous system began to be so affected so that my hands trembled and my head was often swimming".

Dr. Bean quotes from another Darwin letter the following symptoms:

"involuntary twitching of the muscle...fainting feeling - black spots before the eyes."

Dr. Bean wrote in his article that Darwin suffered from "psychoneurosis provoked and exaggerated by his evolutionary ideas". Dr. Bean also wrote that his Darwin's wife, Emma, greatly disapproved of his evolutionist ideas and "This, facismile of public reaction, must have kept lively his anxiety and torment."

Lastly, some have claimed that Darwin got Chagas disease in South America. Dr. Bean dismisses the diagnosis of Chagras disease for Darwin's illness which has been attributed for Darwin's illness and due to the following reasons: no other member of the Beagle crew had symptoms of Chagras disease, "infection with T cruzi occurs not from a bite but contamination of a bite with excreta" and Darwin had "numerous partial exacerbations and remissions that would be unusual in the case of Chagras disease".


Psychic Causation And a Royal Society Article

The Royal Society is the independent scientific academy of the UK. It should be noted that in the abstract for the January 1997 article, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, D. A. B. Young, "Darwin's illness and systemic lupus erythematosus" (for the full article see: Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 1997 Jan;51(1):77-86) it states that today the psychogenic view of Darwin's sickness "holds the field" . Also, the abstract stated that D. A. B. Young noted subsequent to AW Woodruff's work showing that Darwin did not likely have chagas disease, the chagas view finds little support. Even the leading proponent of Chagas disease, Dr. Saul Adler, stated that Darwin may have suffered both from chagas diseas and from "an innate or acquired neurosis" (see subsequent discussion of Chagas disease).


Darwin's sickness as reported in Journal of the American Medical Association

In the article "Charles Darwin and Panic Disorder" by Thomas J. Barloon, MD and Russel Noyes, Jr. MD published in the January 8, 1997 Journal of the American Medical Association the following maladies of Darwin which by in large were not mentioned above were given and they occured as sudden and discrete attacks: "palpitations, shortness of breathe ("air fatigues" ), light headedness ("head swimming" ), trembling, crying, dying sensations, abdominal distress, and depersonalization ("treading on air and vision"). These attacks were many and Darwin in a letter wrote that "Constant attacks....makes life and intolerable bother and stops all work". Dr. Barloon and Dr. Noye conclude that Darwin's medical symptoms point to panic disorder and agoraphobia. One of the reasons given for a psychiatric diagnosis was that "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was psychiatric."

However, Ralph Colp Jr. MD, a physician and psychiatrist, who studied the matter Darwin's sickness for 18 years and authored the book "To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin" and is definitely one of leading experts of Darwin's sickness, if not the leading expert, due to his medical and psychological training and exhaustive research doesn't believe in the above diagnosis of agoraphobia (Dr. Bean cited above describes Dr. Colp's book in the following manner, "His painstaking work in seeking out every possible source comes close to yielding the complete biography of an invalid's illnness") .

In a letter to the editor published in the April 23/30 1997 edition of JAMA entitled Ralph Colp Jr. MD, noted that "It has been observed that when Darwin "was a member of the Council of the Royal Society in 1855-1856, he attended meetings on 16 occassions," and that he away from home about 2000 days" between 1842 and his death in 1882." Dr. Colp stated that the above behavior shows that Darwin was merely balancing work and leisure and the diagnosis of agoraphobia does not fit diagnosis of agoraphobia for Darwin.

Dr. Colp also noted that "it is possible" that Darwin gastrointestinal symptoms were caused contracting Chagras disease. Dr. Colp states regarding the possible Chagas disease, "The disorder was first active and then became inactive, permanently injuring the parasympathetic nerves of his stomach and making it more sensitive to sympathetic stimulation and hence more sensitive to the "psychosomatic impact of his anxieties." An organic impairment best explains the lifelong chronicity of many of his abdominal complaints"

Dr. Colp concludes his letter by saying:

"In summary, I believe that Darwin's illness consisted of panic disorder (without agoraphobia), psychosomatic skin disorder, and possibly Chagras disease of the stomach." It should be noted earlier Dr. Colp noted that Darwin had facial eczema that often was caused by controversies over his evolutionist ideas. Dr. Colp also wrote that as far as he can determine "skin afflictions are not among the many somatic complaints that comprise panic disorder".


Darwin's sickness and the British Medical Journal

Dr. A. W. Woodruff, a British expert on tropical tropical diseases dismissed the chagas hypothesis for Darwin's illness.

I cite the following paper from Carolyn Douglas at Purdue University entitled "Changing Theories of Darwin's Illness":

"Dr. A. W. Woodruff, a British expert on tropical diseases, questioned Adler's diagnosis. He pointed out that many of Darwin's symptoms (heart palpitations, undue fatigue, and trembling fingers) appeared before Darwin sailed on the Beagle, and that when they recurred after his return, they were associated not with physical strain (as would have been expected with Chagas's disease) but with "mental stress." He also pointed out that no other member of the Beagle crew suffered from Chagas's symptoms, and he questioned the accuracy of Professor Adler's statistics about the high rate of infection with Chagas's disease in the province of Mendoza, where Darwin was attacked by the "black bug" (745- 50). Woodruff's diagnosis of Darwin's illness was "an anxiety state with obsessive features and psychosomatic manifestations" (749). After reading Woodruff's article, Professor Adler continued to believe in the theory of Chagas's disease, but he pointed out the possibility that Darwin suffered both from it and from "an innate or acquired neurosis" (Journal 1250). The "black bug" theory therefore lies in limbo, and even its chief proponent did not argue that it excluded psychological causation of some of Darwin's symptoms." For those who are interested in further investigation here are some a journal articles: Woodruff AW, Darwin's illness, Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 1990 Mar;26(3):163-4 and Woodruff, A.W. 'Darwin's health in relation to his voyage to South America', British 'Medical Journal, 1, 747-8, 1965


Darwin and the diagnosis of panic disorder and agoraphobia

According to Barloon and Noyes as a young man, Darwin had "episodes of abdominal distress, especially in stressful situations". In addition, Barloon and Noyes stated that like many people with panic disorder, he had a "premorbid vulnerability" which in his youth was referred to as "sensitivity to stress of criticism in his youth." According to the American Psychology Association, panic disorder usually appears in the teens or in early adulthoood and there does seem to be association with potentially stressful life transitions. It should be also noted that panic disorder has been noticed in clinical setting that the histories of panic disorder patients often include some type of separation from a person who is emotionally important to them. This may be significant as Darwin's mother died at the age of eight and he then boarded at Shrewsbury Grammar School. On the other hand, it has been said that Darwin had a happy childhood overall and was encouraged by his siblings. Bowlby noted that separation anxiety may help cause the develpment panic disorder in adulthood. Psychoanalyst Dr. Rankine Good and Edward J. Rempf described Darwin's father as tyrannical and it will be subsequently discussed as to why this description of Darwin's father was given. This may be important because Bowlby suggested, due to clinical observation, that agoraphobic patients frequently describe parents as dominant, controlling, critical, frightening, rejecting, or overprotective (However, not every element of his observations were subsequently confirmed in studies). Several authors found that parents of agoraphobic and panic patients often provided less emotional warmth and tend to be more rejecting.

Also, in regards to the cause of panic disorder it is currently thought to be psychobiological in origin. For example, historically panic disorder was often triggered in war time. It is well known that Darwin was not the aggressive/assertive type and that Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog". This may related to a study by Chambless and Mason saying that regardless of gender, the less masculine in trait a person afflicted with panic disorder is, the more likely they are to use avoidance (social withdrawal) as a coping mechanism . Individuals who have a more masculine traits often turn to external coping strategies (for example, alcohol). Dr. Bean wrote that while Darwin had great confidence, at the same time he was: neurotic, became nervous when his routine was altered, and was upset by a holiday, trip, or unexpected visitor. Barloon and Noyes cite Darwin remarking "we [Darwin and his Emma] have up all parties, for they agree with neither of us".

It is important to note that one of the reasons given by authors Barloon and Noye for their diagnosis panic disorder and agoraphobia was that "variable intensity of symptoms and chronic, prolonged course without physical deterioration also indicate that his illness was psychiatric." However, Ralph Colp Jr., an American physician and psychiatrist, who studied the matter of Darwin's sickness for 18 years and authored the book To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin doesn't believe in a diagnosis of agoraphobia, because, despite that fact that Darwin loathed meetings, when Darwin was a member of the Council of the Royal Society from 1855-1856, he dutifuly attended meetings on 16 occasions, and was away from home about 2,000 days between 1842 and his death in 1882. At the same time, Barloon and Noyes state that only infrequently did Darwin leave home and usually accompanied by his wife. Barloon and Noyes then cite a letter declining a invitation and Darwin saying "I have long found it impossible to visit anywhere; the novelty and excitement would annhilate me". Perhaps, the best solution to Colp and Barloon and Noyes differing analysis is that Darwin merely became less socially active. However, perhaps Darwin's possible social withdrawal was due to his sickness being physically debilitating.


7/25/05 kdbuffalo

=[edit]

TO: The people who voted to keep.

Thank you for your keep votes. I did a lot of hard work in regards to researching the historical biographical information and in regards to the medical/psychological journals.


TO: ALL

What is "Did you know?" Where is it? I am interested in knowing more about "Did you know?" I am guessing it was put in "Did you know?" because someone found the material I found in the historical arena and medical journals interesting.


Sincerely,

Kdbuffalo

The thanks and hard work are to be welcomed. I appreciate that a lot has gone into pulling together sources for interesting aspects of Darwin's illness, however a lot of hard work is needed to strip this down to a concise and clear encyclopaedic article. The Psychic causation section needs to be drastically pruned, and given that the chagas disease diagnosis was an earlier theory, could perhaps be moved further back. Also, while references are good they break the flow of the argument and reduce clarity, so linking to footnote references would be a good change. I've made a couple of miner corrections for starters, but someone's going to have to sort this out sometime.....dave souza 22:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp[edit]

The conciseness and clarity of this article was suffering from repeated and surplus text, and excessive POV. The consensus appears to be keep, but improve. I've revamped it and recommend removal of the VfD notice...dave souza 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bradoon[edit]

A dicdef, adn seems unlikely to expand beyond a dicdef. Transwiki to wictionary. DES 22:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see more information here than a dicdef. Joyous (talk) 22:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 22:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I haven't officially joined Wikipedia yet, but seeing that I wrote the article I'd like to suggest you delete Bradoon and merge the information into the snaffle article. Looking back, that’s probably what I should’ve done. 70.144.154.154
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 13:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Übernet[edit]

Some anonymous editor put this up for speedy deletion and while I don't think it fits that criteria I am not sure it is notable. I looked at the ubernet site and everything and I can't tell whether this article is self-promotion or what. In any case it is not notable as it is just a small community of audio-likers. It's not nearly as as well known as hydrogenaudio.org or the like and I fail to see any reason why it's encyclopedic. Ubernet which is a redirect page to this should also suffer the same outcome as this article. gren 22:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete gren 22:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ubernet is well known in the audiophile filesharing community. I'm not a member, but they're relevant. --malathion talk 00:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I put the article up, it could certainly use some fleshing out. Their website is not that infomative, but my friend tells me that the network is fairly large. I beleive one of the requirements to join is to rip a certain number of cds according to their specifications. I find the idea interesting, and would hope that people that know more could add to the article, but I shall let the community decide if it belongs here. [I am not associted with Übernet] --Terrible Tim 16:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ubernet is smaller than most direct connect hubs and the only thing it has going for it is that people don't know much about it. Which, seems to be against what is encyclopedic. I mean, the only source is their site and what users or people who have heard from users would have to say. Which seems a little odd because it can't be more than hearsay at that point. gren 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certianly agree that not every DC hub needs an article. However these people seem to be more organised, they have even released their own client based on DC. The reason I wrote the article was because I wanted to know more about them, but Wikipedia had no article.--Terrible Tim 22:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Factually incorrect. Übernet ceased their P2P activities. Maeka 01:04, 04 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Users second edit. --Allen3 talk 13:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 04:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitron[edit]

Dicdef, and seems unlikley to expand past one. Transwiki. DES 22:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. More than a dicdef; reasonable article. Pburka 00:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has the potential to become a great article. Category:Alcoholic beverages has many examples of other alcohol articles that that managed to transcend dicdef status. - Thatdog 00:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial non-fiction books[edit]

This list is arbitrary, or to highlight the problem leading to VfD, it's original research.

  • Keep It's a very interesting read, and there are so many things that link here! --User:220.236.61.128 15:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and clarify somewhere that it is not a good idea to start such lists. --Pjacobi 22:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hard for such a thing to avoid being PoV. Maybe if each entry on the list cited media accounts of a cotroversy over that item... DES 22:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the recent CFD of category:controversial books. Dunc|☺ 22:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly defined and subjective with no concrete criterion for inclusion. Flowerparty talk 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and informative. CanadianCaesar 23:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no "research" involved in noting that something is controversial. --malathion talk 00:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many non-fiction books are controversial to one degree or another. Inclusion on a list like this is entirely arbitrary. Kaibabsquirrel 05:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, arbitrary and subjective, per nominator. Quale 06:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - every non-fiction book can be controversial to somebody for reasons of morality, religion, politics, what have you. Not to mention that many people use the term "controversial" to say, in effect, "I do not like this and you should not either". Otherwise the page should include the reason who considers the stated book controversial and why. The reason that scientists debate about the merits of some book does not necessarily make it controversial. Now the page labels certain books controversial (including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, displaying clear POV - Skysmith 10:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is poorly defined, but it is interesting. Most of the older books clearly belong on the list because they were important to a paradigm shift of some sort. The problem is with the newer books, anything written in the last half century at least should have it's place on the list justified in some way. For example, Michael Moore's books are more inflammatory than controversial, and shouldn't normally make the list. However, if you add a sentence under the books name such as "This book was dropped by HarperCollins post 9/11 and was only printed after a letter writing campaign by librarians who accused the publisher of censorship", the entry becomes at the same time justified and more informative to the reader. This would be easy to do for most of the books that truly belong on the list, and at the very least this strategy should be tried before the list is deleted. --AAMiller 12:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague, prone to edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 16:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, prone to edit wars, duplicates category (although the category misses the years) Alvin-cs | Talk 17:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of controversy about a book can be considered objectively, with cites if needed. -- The Anome 16:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Contrary to some assertions, this list is not POV. All of these books have faced either censorship, litigation, or dispute. While the article needs some clarifying, the contents of the list are intriging. -The lorax 19:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A valid list that can be very fun to read when said controversy is cited properly. Lord Bob 06:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its a list that I like to read, the controvesies need to be said about each book though. Wikipedia Username 03:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect --Allen3 talk 13:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

3.14[edit]

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117068 was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-01. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117068.

This doesn't seem encyclopedic, and it's probably not expandable. --Alan Au 22:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Pi. Joyous (talk) 22:31, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Joy Stovall. Flowerparty talk 23:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pi, clearly. However, the nominator might note that this article is infinitely expandable!! -Splash 23:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Wikipedia naming conventions indicate that numbers in article titles refer only to dates. This should be deleted, and 3.14 (number) should redirect to Pi --malathion talk 00:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Although Wikipedia conventions may forbid numbered titles except for dates, having a redirect page for 3.14 is actually useful for people who keep typing "pie" or trying to find the symbol on their keyboard. 23skidoo 00:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "Pie", er, Pi. --Idont Havaname 00:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pi. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, with a mention of how this tends to be the accepted trunkation of Pi in most American schools (thus making it encyclopedic, and also something that might be searched for/by). --InShaneee 02:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3.14 ≠ π Oleg Alexandrov 02:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pi for readers and editors who are bad at math. android79 02:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dada. Common guys, can't we just take the matter into our hands, delete or redirect, and worry about the consequences later? If we hit the three-revert-rule, then we can put it to a vote, and apply the force of bureaucracy then. linas 02:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirect to Pi. I will yield no further though. 3.141 and beyond should simply be deleted. Wikibofh 03:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to pi. Some infidels think of pi as of 3.14, so the redirect is useful. -- Naive cynic 08:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't the Pope once rule that pi was equal to three? Can't have all those irrational numbers floating around. ;-) Redirect as above. — RJH 14:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the least bad option. Redirecting to pi seems to imply that they are equal and will lead to ridicule by mathematicians, and deleting confuses people that type 3.14 and want to find information on pi. The convention that numbers in titles refer to dates holds only for integers (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's worse, being ridiculed by mathematicians or not being able to help users that are less than skilled in math find the information they're looking for? android79 21:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Best is it if we are not ridiculed by mathematician and we are able to help users less than skilled in maths. I think we achieve this if we keep the article with a text like "3.14 is often used as an approximation for pi". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it someone types "3.14" in search, they're probably looking for information on pi. It seems to make more sense to add the "3.14 is often used as an approximation for pi" in the article on pi. Joyous (talk) 22:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is already in the article on pi, but it is so far down that the reader is unlikely to find it (and I don't think it should be much further up in the article). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that pi is approximated is explained in the article's introduction. android79 22:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I disagree, but seeing that I am alone and it is not that important, I think it's better to end this discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Probable and useful search phrase. Links to this page should be watched and edited, of course. Septentrionalis 18:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to pi, or perhaps more specifically, to section dealing with approximations. PrimeFan 20:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been told that anchor redirects (for instance, to United States#External links) don't work in the current software. (I just tried it myself, but there could be some other way to do it.) A good idea, though – maybe in the next version of Mediawiki... android79 21:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • I tried your U.S. Ext. links anchor redirect example and it worked perfectly. I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0. PrimeFan 21:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pi#Numerical_approximations_of_.CF.80, which works for me. —Theo (Talk) 13:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pi, if any mathematicians scream about it then 1) they haven't read the article, and 2) they're more anal than any mathematician I've ever met, that's for sure. Xaa 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:20, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Deverauitan[edit]

I can't find any outside confirmation that this existed as an actual language, or even a dialect. According to the article, the maximum number of speakers was 45, which seems small for a true language. A request for an outside citation on the talk page is still outstanding. Joyous (talk) 22:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not verifiable. -- Visviva 09:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — if it exists at all, it's a non-notable patois spoken by at most 45 people. — RJH 14:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:16, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Stupid Place[edit]

Delete probably ad. nn regardless. I listed as speedy but tag was removed. Also delete the redirects: Stupidplace.com, Stupid place.com, Stupidplace. TheMidnighters 22:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crush with llama, ad about seemingly non-notable website (was going to Vfd it myself just now). No it's not really a speedy (the ad section of the CSD rectification poll failed I think), so the slower method will have to do. GarrettTalk 04:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Socks ahead. --TheMidnighters 05:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this page is perfectly fine and does not violate any rules. It seems that the user TheMidnighters is vandalising this page. I will have to procede in the banning of this user if he does not stop voting for deletion of this page. NataliaBacha 08:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has five previous edits. -- Visviva 09:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This page has absolutely nothing to do with deletion. It's true TheMidnighters is trying to vandalise this page for absolutely no reason. This guy should be banned. -DarknessFalls 09:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has one previous edit. -- Visviva 09:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Who voted for this page to be deleted? I mean this page has nothing wrong. The users wasting their time on pages like this should be paying more atttention to the bad pages. This page should actually be an example for the other pages since it is neutral and respects all the laws. Jamon 09:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has six previous edits. -- Visviva 09:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa rank: 918,913. And for reference Alexa rank for eBaum's World is 349 -- a slight difference as far as notability goes. Bollar 23:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, WP is not a web directory. Quale 06:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- Visviva 09:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per sockpuppets. CDC (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep,this page is well known especially in the U.K. and Canada, it's like the ebaum's of Europe. Maria6 17:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has one previous edit. -- Bollar 19:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't see how this is different from the other comedy websites, mine as well keept it. It is actually usefull. I checked out the website it is good example of freedom of speech on the net. Elsebo 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has three previous edits. -- Bollar 19:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree this website is also known by a lot of young people I know in Japan. It's the next big thing! -- Seijiro 016:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has three previous edits. -- Bollar 19:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 23:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Flowerparty talk 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I don't agree with the person above, since their is other websites under the same category. This one is no different than the others. This has nothing to do with web guide, they are just a few web sites that are important to the Internet. This website is very original and different and is in my opinion better than ebaums's world. Hoffnung 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, Who is the idiot who voted this page to be deleted. There are many other more contreversial pages on Wiki and this page should not even being considered to be deleted. This page is perfectly fine. Malikshaheed 23:36, 25 July 2005
User's first edit. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alexa rating 918,913 (vs. 349 for ebaumsworld). If it gets popular first, then it may merit an article but Wikipedia is not here to boost a site. DS1953 03:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, why are you comparing it to ebaumsworld. this page deserves to be on wikipedia. alexa doesn't meen crap anyways it's all about the business. -Jkwon67 00:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit. --TheMidnighters 00:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Das[edit]

Completing a nomination by 24.60.163.16, who called this article part of "a set of nonsense Eckankar-cruft." CanadianCaesar 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep A religious figure is, in and of himself or herself, notable and Wikipedic. Consider that Xenu became a featured article. CanadianCaesar 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, this is one of those articles where the Google test doesn't apply. The religion also has an article. CanadianCaesar 23:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CanadianCaesar. Flowerparty talk 01:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even remotely notable. Nandesuka 01:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the major religious figures of the religion Eckankar. A religion without it's major figures is worthless. Think about Christianity without Jesus, or Judaism without Abraham. Werty8472 July, 24, 2005.
  • Keep, although that Eckankar opening paragraph's use of ext. links tests the border between citation and advertising.--DNicholls 04:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense Eckankar-cruft. Klonimus 05:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if I called Jesus walking on water "nonsense"? What if I called the burning bush nonsense? What if I VfD'd Xenu as nonsense? It's a religion. The word "nonsense" shouldn't be used and "cruft" can't be applied. CanadianCaesar 06:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Save If you would take the time to notice, there is no advertisement on the ECK master pages. Just because the religion page itself has external links is no reason to VfD everything related to it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 01:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Amy Jewell[edit]

Unverifiable claptrap. Delete. Lupin 23:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn vanity/unverified, and blanked too. --Etacar11 01:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, looking back at the page history she just looks like a person with notable friends. Which, of course, normally doesn't make one famous. Cute though. :) Delete — RJH 14:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Rears, and redirect Britany rears[edit]

Delete nn porn'star' collecting a grand total of 6 Google hits. Notable for having a lower case surname, though. -Splash 23:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Redirect in light of Pburka's comment. -Splash 00:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentI've taken the liberty of moving the article to Britney Rears, as that is clearly the proper title. I left the VFD link to this page, though, worry not. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable pr0n actress. JamesBurns 07:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's info. This article just needs to be expanded--Dysepsion 23:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_24&oldid=1081092175"