Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25[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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noriko Takenouchi[edit]

While her sister may be notable, this is still a vanity page-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Based on the somewhat-confusing article it links to, this seems to be a non-notable character from Digimon rather than a real person's vanity page. - Thatdog 00:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Hamster Sandwich 01:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not vanity unless the subject created it. These kinds of pages are useful for the original articles. --malathion talk 01:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect to Sora Takenouchi seems right Circeus 01:45, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, is this a real person, or a cartoon? android79 02:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • If I understood the articles correctly, then apparently this is a real person, and Sora Takenouchi is both a cartoon and a real person (the voice actress for the cartoon). Thus, I vote delete, as this person is not notable. And the Nora Takenouchi article should be rewritten to make some distinction between fact and fiction. - ulayiti (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. if not vanity then becauust it's not notable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, if I'm understanding this correctly, this is the non-notable pizza parlor-working sister of a marginally notable voice actress, the sister also being personified in a cartoon. I'd say speedy it under CSD A7, if it hadn't been so damn hard to figure out what it was. Delete. android79 03:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This could probably be a speedy under the new rules, as being the sister of a kinda sorta famous person is not a legitimate assretion of notability. And even if the subject did not create it, that is certainly no reason to keep it. Nor is there anything to merge. -R. fiend 03:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find evidence that Sora Takenouchi, the sister, is the name of a voice actress; per IMDb that's just the name of a fictional character on Digimon who is voiced by Yûko Mizutani in Japan and Colleen O'Shaughnessey in the USA. [1] Delete. --Metropolitan90 03:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • That seems to make sense. I thought it very odd that an animated character would be named for the actor providing the voice (or vice versa, which would be even more odd), but admittedly I know nothing about Digimon. Makes me think that the entire Sora Takenouchi article is full of BS. Perhaps it deserves an accuracy tag? -R. fiend 05:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Quale 05:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Fbergo 05:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Explicit claim to non-notability, and clearly vanity (yes, if you put up a page about your friend the pizza chef, that's still vanity) -Harmil 11:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some chick. I'm glad she has friends who like her enough to put up pages to her, but such things (barely literate, tangled references to other falsities) are not the basis of factual articles. They are the basis of site hijacking. Geogre 14:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is not genetic. And she was not "ever interested in voice-acting or becoming famous", just finishes it off, and probably means that the article asserts non-notability (!) so can be speedied. -Splash 18:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability of a "pizza parlour waitress" is not established. Martg76 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proof of notability is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Comment: this clearly cannot be vanity if the article has been up for several weeks. Wouldn't this deletion tag have been put up sooner? DrippingInk 00:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Vanity articles and other undesirables fall through the cracks all the time; that this one didn't is not a particularly compelling reason to keep it. android79 00:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Very good point. Thus I vote Delete. DrippingInk 15:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this article has been up for a while, then it can't be vanity. Plus, I've heard of Noriko Takenouchi. She ran off to Canada because she hated life in Japan. Very obvious. 64.231.72.209 00:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very convincing. And that piece of information certainly makes her worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. :) - ulayiti (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 07:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I believe I know the story behind this page. The person in question is most likely fictional - created by an online acquaintance in an attempt to convince me that this person is a friend of theirs, and leading to his posting several facts in the Sora Takenouchi section which have been dismissed as fiction. Therefore, Noriko Takenouchi's very existence is... questionable. Quack-Wabbit 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, really? Is this person on Wikipedia? 64.231.168.171 22:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not particularly relevant. I'm not here to start a flame war, merely to provide elucidation. Quack-Wabbit 15:19, 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 keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well... I was going to close it myself, but it's cool. Concur with vote results. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew[edit]

The previous VFD on this article was effectively sabotaged multiple (in some cases self-admitted) sockpuppetry, and was closed as "inconclusive" - i.e. it was not possible for the closing admin to determine what the votes actually were (as opposed to "no consensus").

Due to the sockpuppetry etc. involved previously, if you have under 200 edits prior to the re-opening of this VFD (which was at 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) your vote is likely to be discounted (particularly if you sign as another user, and make comments as if you were the other user rather than yourself).

  • The previous VFD, for anyone interested, is here.

Manner vote conducted[edit]

It is divided up by Keep, Delete, Merge and Comment. This is to make it easier to administer. Given the ridiculous situation we had last time, Ta bu shi da yu has imposed order on this vote!

Please keep comments short, and only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page. You can always link to the discussion from your comment. Any rebuttal should go in your comment(s) and be kept brief - if you wish to give more extensive reasoning, do so on the talk page or elsewhere and link to it. If you don't wish to vote, but wish to make a comment, please leave it in this section.

Ta bu shi da yu will administer the vote to deal with sockpuppetry etc. I will administer the vote. He will look at each accusation of sock-puppetry individually, and on their own merits.

Comment from TBSDY: I suggest that if new users want to have their vote count that they give a decently explained reason why it should be deleted/kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Garrett: I numbered the votes for easier counting, hope you don't mind. GarrettTalk 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I appreciate the gesture, but I'll be checking each vote one by one... not all votes will necessarily be counted (though they might possibly). We'll leave it numbered, but it might not reflect the final figure... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for VFD[edit]

This article is basically original research.

  • It relies on assuming that Jerome's statement about a "Gospel of the Hebrews" was accurate
  • It is an almost universal opinion amongst academics and non-academics that Jerome's statement was an (innocent) error caused by lack of information, and that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" that he refers to were in fact 3 seperate texts -
  • It contains an opinion of why people might have wanted the Gospel of Matthew to exist
  • It presents an extremely POV view of the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, which is totally inconsistent with either the conservative religious view of their origin, or the critical academic view involving
  • It bases all of this on a totally non-sequitur argument that as Eusebius said that "matthew wrote in hebrew letters", there is an entirely different gospel for the hebrews which is not dependant on Mark, and forms the basis of Matthew, and that this must therefore mean that the above 3 gospels (Hebrews/Nazarenes/Ebionites) are in fact 1 gospel not 3 despite the near unanimous opinion amongst academics and non academics to the contrary.
  • The origin of the Gospel of Matthew should be, and is already, discussed at Gospel of Matthew
  • None of the references actually support the argument of the text but instead either adhere to the standard critical academic view, or propose an entirely different argument altogether.
  • The article is even written as an essay/thesis, with introduction and conclusion.
  • The author of the article added detail to all articles relating to this area of the bible supporting the POV of the article. The only people setting up links to the article or even mentions of its thesis are 202.176.97.230 and the article's author themselves, and they may very well be one and the same.
  • The earlier version of the article had extensive duplication of source texts which are already on Wikisource - [2] - when this was removed, it was restored by editors with very few edits indeed.
  • The author of the article has gone to extensive lengths, including RFAR (failed), to preserve it, and there have been many sockpuppets (many of which were admitted to be so - [3]).
  • The article has been reviewed by an editor (not me) who has a doctorate (PhD) in the study of the New Testament, and been said to be unsalvagable original research by that editor.
  • Even the article's title is POV
Keep[edit]
  1. Keep content, but Move to appropriate title (this is a valid topic for an article independent of Gospel of Matthew. Any salvageable material will obviously have to be NPOV'd, and this time, I would like to strongly encourage both combatants and their armies of beady-eyed undergarments to work disputes out civilly on the talkpage. Tomer TALK 04:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Keep. There's obviously some material that's not original research. Once the frenzied atmosphere of the VfD is over, the article should be cleaned up and probably retitled. JamesMLane 01:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep the unoriginal research.  ;-) —RaD Man (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep. No case has been made for the "original research" claim; this VfD seems to me to have more to do with -Ril-'s feud with the writers of the article than anything else. The article certainly needs considerable work, but that's not the issue here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply not true. I have absolutely no feud with the article's creator outside the article. Indeed, I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE IN ANYTHING EXCEPT CONCERNING THE EXISTANCE OF THE ARTICLE. ~~~~ 09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Keep and cleanup. Potential for a valid article. Contains some original research, but that can be excised. -- Visviva 09:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Keep. It needs to be cleaned up, but there is potential and it doesn't seem to meet the standard of original research Salsb 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Keep. The version I read Friday was a clear object for deletion, but the original research that was there has been removed, & although I'd prefer this article to have a different title ("Authentic Matthew" strongly suggests a specific POV to me), the version I read today seems to be a reasonably objective & nonpartisan discussion of the issues. -- llywrch 22:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keep- though controversial, the topic seems to be legit. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keep, as I voted on the previous VFD. Well writte article on a notable subject. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keep - Needs a cleanup but an interesting article that is noteworthy. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 00:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Strong Keep This vfd is nonsense. freestylefrappe 02:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Keep Very good--April12 11:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- user's 8th edit. jamesgibbon 13:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete[edit]
  • Note to anyone in Taiwan: If you are voting to delete please let me know, as it could affect my vote being counted. Davilla 21:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete in the strongest possible way ~~~~ 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete. Original research, NPOV. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete based on most but not all of the preceeding arguements. Hamster Sandwich 01:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete I don't see anything substantial in this article which does not already appear in Gospel of Matthew. Disucssion of the various theories is fairly complete there. -Harmil 02:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. stone with stones; this depends entirely on Jerome being right about their being a single writing. However a mention of this possibility (possibility, mind) in a parent article would probably be good too. Also I'd say the bible scholar's "damnation" of it carries a lot of weight. Oh and a heap of brownie points go to Ta bu shi da yu for bravely overseeing all these contentious Vfds of late. Good to know the result will be guaranteed "barefoot". :) GarrettTalk 03:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. VORPED (Vanity - Original Research - Personal Essay - Delete!) Stirling Newberry 06:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Delete as original research. --Carnildo 07:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Delete, I don't believe that anything in this piece warrants an article separate from the main gospel of Matthew entry jamesgibbon 10:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Delete: The amount of tinfoil hattery around the early Gospels is extreme. This article ignores everything from Higher Criticism on to weave together a wishlist view, arguably to support a further POV (not in the article but which the article will be used to support) for one heretical view or another. Honestly, these schemes and arguments are thick as flies in history. There can be no merge, as that requires equally merging in all other variant readings of the origins of the Gospel and non-Q sources, and we would indeed run out of not-paper doing so. There is no keep, because there is no support for this view that makes it representative enough to need explication, and it obviously isn't just "true" or "accepted as true" by the wider community. Geogre 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Delete, for reasons given. While I wouldn't necessarily oppose the verifiable elements being included into Matthew, ascertaining what those elements are would likely be an enormous headache, and not worth the trouble. I'm sure it would take multiple RfCs. I love the title though. Maybe we can get a page on Amazing Larry and Erudite Steve. -R. fiend 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Delete. Seems to be hopelessly POV. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Extremely strong delete – I have researched and taught New Testament, and I’ve never even heard of ‘Authentic Matthew’. This article takes all sorts of (disputed) asides from the Church Fathers, adds them to several unrelated scholarly theories about synoptic origins – to produce what is a piece of (bad) original research. It is about as factual as the Da Vinci Code! Any (notable} proto-Matthean theories should be discussed under Gospel of Matthew or Synoptic problem. Links to this drivel have been inserted into other Biblical studies articles. --Doc (?) 21:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Delete POV-pushing original research. If there's anything encyclopedic here, it could go in Gospel of Matthew, but not in this POV fork. CDC (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Delete as per Harmil and nominator. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:15:28 Z
  15. Delete original research/essay. JamesBurns 06:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Delete per above.  Grue  08:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. DELETE. The argument that it is cited does not justify its validity, as even original research must be cited for publication. There is no such term as Authentic Matthew (see my Google search on previous VFD) as verified by Doc above, so it should at least be moved, if worthy of that, or merged, as already attended to. Davilla 10:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Delete - changed my vote because everything useful was already merged. Renata3 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Delete - POV original research. carmeld1 23:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Delete - POV/original research/all usable material already merged/name inherently violates NPOV policy -- and how can you have a recount without telling those who voted originally that they have to revote, I'm lucky I saw this. DreamGuy 05:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  21. Delete - While an article with a different title and wholly different content could be written on this subject, it would far better to start from scratch. - SimonP 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Merge[edit]
  1. Merge what is verifiable with Gospel of Matthew.Capitalistroadster 04:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Merge whatever pertinent information that isn't covered under Gospel of Matthew, then Delete for most of the reasons listed above (except for the last three). khaosworks 02:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Merge anything salvageable with Matthew the Evangelist (more appropriate IMHO than Gospel of Matthew). --Angr/t?k t? mi 06:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Merge - put some reference of "alternative theories" on the Gospel of Mathews page. Renata3 17:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looks to have some verifiable and useful information despite its poor presentation. Merge with Gospel of Matthew or other relevant pages, then redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:13, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
Comment[edit]
Please add your comments here, if they are not direct responses to votes. Please also make it short. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were allowed to vote, I would vote keep because, if the Gospel is true, then who wrote it is a separate issue from its existence, and if it is not true, then no amount of writing about it will ever make it true. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke: when an eminent [bible scholar] says something is impossible, it probably isn't. Respectfully, Simon Cursitor 12:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simon, the argument here is not whether this theory is correct, or even possible. It is whether this is a position being argued by any notable scholar, in a way that WP can record. It is not (although individual bits of it may be) - and thus it is original research. Even if the thesis was factually correct - it still would have no place here. --Doc (?) 21:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to whichever admin closes this VfD — -Ril- (talk · contribs) took control of the previous VfD, deleting and moving to the Talk page comments opposed to his position, while leaving in comments supporting him, including many of his own (including personal attacks and unsubstantiated guesses at sockpuppetry presented as dogmatic claims). He made a real mess. This VfD contains FALSE information. Please check the record of the previous VfD.--Mikefar 15:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Above user has 56 prior edits, only 11 edits not connected to preserving this article, admits to using many sockpuppets - [4] - and claims to be the original writer of the article - [5] - i.e. Melissadolbeer - [6]~~~~ 08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations.

  • Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

and

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

  • Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published ...See previous VfD
    • Above is an unsigned comment by Mikefar, who has 56 prior edits, only 11 edits not connected to preserving this article, admits to using many sockpuppets - [7] - and claims to be the original writer of the article - [8] - i.e. Melissadolbeer - [9]~~~~ 08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no desire to get involved this farce but Ril, you are not being honest. Mr Far clearly has not written this article, and you are lying. What worries is that you and other are hurting Wikipedia. Closing admin should use care. Ril, Shame Shame

unsigned by 209.53.181.47 (talk • contribs • block), identical to 209.53.181.26 (talk • contribs • block) ~~~~ 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr Far" claims to have been the one who wrote the article - evidence: [10] ~~~~ 22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And you are clearly a sockpuppet. ~~~~ 22:48, 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 SPEEDY MERGE. Essjay · Talk 09:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Put-Outer[edit]

Non notable element of fiction. Should be merged and redirected to Magical objects in Harry Potter Circeus 01:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • If you thought this should be merged and/or redirected, why did you nominate it for deletion? Putting a merge tag on it is enough, or you could have been bold and merged it yourself. This is the fourth time today where I had to ask, what's this doing on VfD? Honestly, when I first came here, I thought the articles on VfD made Wikipedia look bad. Now I see it's some of the frivolous, unneeded nominations that are the problem. CanadianCaesar 02:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, maybe "problem" was too strong a word. But, the VfD process is famously frustrating. CanadianCaesar 02:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, right, and Merge CanadianCaesar 02:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge That is "speedy keep" because this VfD was listed improperly and "merge" which is what the original lister should have done. -Harmil 02:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge to Magical objects in Harry Potter, per Harmil. VfD is not the place to argue for merges. -- BD2412 talk 03:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE. Essjay · Talk 09:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Spellotape[edit]

Non notable element of fiction. Unlike Put-Outer, it might not even be notable enough for a merge. Circeus 01:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Knight Errant. – Rich Farmbrough 13:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Errants and Knights Errant[edit]

A comparison of Knights Errant to the really important topics in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia topic: "Jester Dormitory"

Google hits: 252 using "Jester Dormitory"

Summary: An article about a dormitory on the University of Texas Austin campus.

Notable comments: Among students, it is said that Jester East is the cleaner of the two towers as well as characteristically the 'sports' dorm, housing many of the UT athletes.

Wow. Better delete the Knights Errant because we have to make room for the really important stuff like Jester Dormitory. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.15.120 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, someone has nominated that for deletion too (though I personally voted to merge some of it with the University article). Any other similar articles you can point out will be appreciated (by me at least). I'm sure there are plenty. This, however, is irrelevent to the plight of "Knights Errant". -R. fiend 20:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and 252 is still more google hits than this group seems to get (see below). -R. fiend 20:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits

"Knights Errant blog" gets almost 5000 hits on Google. Before dismissing Knights Errant, the Wiki folks should know the entire association of the bloggers is due to the buzz created in the chess world for the de la Maza approach to chess improvement. -Jadoube --72.16.15.120 22:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear here, "knights errant blog" gets 0 hits on goggle when you use the quotes. without the quotes it gets close to 5000, but by no means are most of those associated with your little group. More accurate is a search for "knights errant" blog chess, which gets us down to less than 200. -R. fiend 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable chess club/blog/journal/website/llama. Also see Talk:Knight Errants, they seem to be using us as some sort of promo ad. Recommend redirecting to Knight-errant. GarrettTalk 01:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable chess club. I do not recommend a re-direct as per Master Thief Garret as the subject Knight-errant has nothing to do with the subject of chess, blogs or llamas.(excepting the title credits of Monty Python and the Holy Grail) Hamster Sandwich 02:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant a redirect since it's a valid alt spelling of Knight-errant. A user could search for that wording and thus still find the article. But deletion and recreation as a redirect would also work. GarrettTalk 02:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable according to Google, and this page has the wrong caps to redirect to Knight-errant. -Harmil 02:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! Good point, that. Yes indeed. :) GarrettTalk 02:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Knight-errant - it's a valid alt spelling (despite the caps), and there's nothing to be lost by redirecting. - ulayiti (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I believe this may be an easy misconception of a legit spelling, I believe it is still wrong (even discounting the caps). The plural of knight errant should be knights errant. Nevertheless, a redirect (no merge) is fine with me, as it's a minor error that could be made. Would hopefully discourage recreation too. -R. fiend 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title should be changed to Knights Errant. Jadoube — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.15.120 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jadoube is correct: we (the group of blogges) are the Knights Errant, and if the correct search term is entered in Google the results are significantly different. BDK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.193.88 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well "knights errant" chess blog -wikipedia gets less than 190 hits (many from different pages on the same sites). Not many for bloggers, really, who have quite a high bar to clear for inclusion in wikipedia. -R. fiend 05:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Knight-errant --Angr/t?k t? mi 06:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate as a redirect to Knight-errant. —Stormie 08:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and recreate: Wikipedia is not a school noticeboard nor Everything2. A local club is not encyclopedic content unless it alters the world in such a dramatic way that the world talks about it (that's the world, not the people in the club). The concept of the knight-errant itself is a bit of a mess, but that's another matter. Geogre 14:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect to Geogre, the Knights Errant is not a local club but a worldwide phenomenon in the chess blogosphere -- with bloggers from the US, The Netherlands, Australia, India, Romania, Belgium, etc. They have all come together around a "revolutionary" approach to chess improvement. [DG] 192.223.226.6 18:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- seems to be a nationwide organization that is just barely notable enough to be kept. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few comments:

1. Someone above said the Knights are "using us as some sort of promo ad". I have no idea where they got this idea from. We are not promoting anything. The Knights Errant are a friendly group of bloggers who are all trying to get better in chess by following a certain chess training program (mentioned in the entry). Look at the blogs in my sidebar (http://chessconfessions.blogspot.com): we are a bunch of schlumps trying to get better at chess. Nothing more.

2. As for how "important" we are as a group in the blogosphere, this is the key point. Ask anybody in the chess blogosphere about the "Knights Errant" and they will know who we are. The question is whether anything from the chess blogosphere is worthy of inclusion. This is a fair question. I would propose it is at least as important as, oh say, the East Branch Pecatonica River in Wisconsin. Let the Knights Errant entry stay up for a while and then see how many more hits they get than the more obscure entries.

3. When I started learning chess, and was trying the Knight's chess improvement program (without actually knowing about them), it would have been great for me if this had come up at Wikipedia. I searched the web for terms that would have come up, but they didn't come up in Google back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fully support keeping the two entries. I view their entries not as advertisements or promotion, but as a bit of information that interested parties may not find elsewhere on the internet without a difficult search. I too wish that this had been here, as it would have made my start as a blogger easier. Thanks, generalkaia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.154.251 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 13:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blades and Billets[edit]

It's a fanmade map for a videogame. Yes, that's all. Take it away Vikings! "cruft cruft cruft cruft! Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! cruft cruft cruft cruft!" GarrettTalk 02:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. android79 02:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for gamecruft, and throw a dollar in Garrett's hat for the musical accompaniment. -- BD2412 talk 03:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Garret is just going around to every warcraft custom map and saying "cruft" (whatever the hell that means) with no reason for deletion whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that these maps have earned their place in history and have received enough recognition, fan writing, and website support that they deserve their place in Wikipedia history.
    • Every? Well, this is only the second, but I can't guarantee it will be the last. And as for "cruft", see cruft or especially Wikipedia:Fancruft. As for whether they've earned their "spot in the sun", well, that's what Votes for deletion is for, to decide by community consensus if an article lives or dies. GarrettTalk 03:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Garrett. Sings bel Canto "Crufty crufty CRUU-UUUFFFT" Hamster Sandwich 03:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'Blades and Billets' gets 4 Google hits, of which the first one is unrelated. - ulayiti (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and here's a dollar to stop singing... humblefool® 03:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of the dozens of fanfiction-related items (get those norsemen to sing about mead instead, will you?) - Skysmith 10:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I want one without so much rat in it. Fan-made, fan-played, fan-loved, fan-honed, and fan-cruft. I'm sure it's wonderful, but Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Geogre 15:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC) 15:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even though the nominator didn't provide much of solid reasoning, I would delete this entry. It's fan-made, hardly notable, and unlikely to be expanded. - Mgm|(talk) 18:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • clears throat, prepares to sing the bass line oooooooooh! delete! delete! delete! delete this cruft! =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:31, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Mmmbeer 22:02, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tides of Blood[edit]

  • Restore. The reasons given for deletion make no sense, other fanmade maps for the same video game are allowed for no reason. Either delete DOTA allstars and Advent_of_the_Zenith or allow this article.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.105.142.11 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC). It's a fanmade map for a videogame. Yes, that's all. Take it away Vikings! "cruft cruft cruft cruft! Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! cruft cruft cruft cruft!" GarrettTalk 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. android79 02:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • [I assume this is meant as a Keep vote] why is there no vfd for dota, life of a peasant, tower defense, aeon of strife, all these other things? Regardless of what it is. It is here to give Tides of Blood its place in history as it is clearly a notable piece of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrewedThePooch (talk • contribs) 03:53, 25 July 2005
    Because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Articles are nominated for deletion if someone comes across it and feels it is not encyclopediac. It is possible the nominator hasn't seen the other articles you mention. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but I have now... *does best impression of Dr. Evil laugh* :) GarrettTalk 03:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for gamecruft, and throw a dollar and a quarter in Garrett's hat for the musical accompaniment. -- BD2412 talk 03:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Garrett.Hamster Sandwich 03:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Garrett. Thunderbrand 04:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unnecessary Fan-Related Detail - Skysmith 10:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any item in an encyclopedia should be referred to by a group outside of its own participants. If an item is referred to only by its own participants, then it is jargon or argot or slang or cruft. However, when a subject appears in multiple referential contexts, it will need discussion and explanation. Hence, fanfiction, fanmaps, etc. are not appropriate encyclopedic fare unless some context other than fans (e.g. getting on the 6 o'clock news for being scary), it is inappropriate content. On the other hand, there are specialist-oriented sites on the Internet that thrive on such material. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, however. Geogre 15:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per George. - Mgm|(talk) 18:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. nonencyclopedic. Mmmbeer 22:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and widely known custom game. Derktar 01:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. And also delete the other WCIII map articles (can someone list them on VFD), and also unlink them from the WCIII page, as redlinks encourage article creation. —Lowellian (talk) 10:53, 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 speedy deleted. JeremyA (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail gateway[edit]

Contains a single line in Arabic and nothing else.

  • Speedy deletion: meets the criteria. --Ragib 02:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Chairboy 02:54, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Labrador Adventure Route[edit]

this is a Wikipedian's pet name, should be userfied or deleted, but my CSD was reverted by User:Splash, whom does not appear to be an admin, and I see no reason why CSD was removed 132.205.94.174 02:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not speediable because it doesn't appear to fit any of the criteria. However, I will say Delete, not notable, irredeemably self-referential. android79 03:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed the Pooch[edit]

A slang dicdef. Already successfully transwikied. If this cannot feasibly be expanded beyond a dicdef it should be deleted. GarrettTalk 03:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless somebody can expand it into something about the Family Guy episode. — Ливай | Ⓣ 03:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have articles about Family Guy episodes, and that's how I primarily view this article. Even so, the rest isn't just a dicdef but describes the origins of the phrase. CanadianCaesar 03:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete drini ☎ 03:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, not as a Family Guy episode, but as a legit phrase. Sure, the page is a tad dicdeffy, but as a legitimate figure of speech with a fascinating etymology, "Screwed the pooch" (which has been around for much longer that FG (first USENET, 1985) and is used frequently enough to warrant its continued inclusion) has potential for further expansion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice against recreation as an article about the Family Guy episode. android79 03:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC) WP:WINAD
  • Strong keep. It can very easily be expanded beyond dicdef if someone can produce the origin or history of the term. Forget the Family Guy business -- this term is interesting and relevant. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe the expression "screw the pooch" may have originated (or at least become common) among NASA test pilots and reached the general public through Tom Wolfe's book The Right Stuff. --Metropolitan90 06:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, I reiterated some of what was already in the article.) --Metropolitan90 06:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with an article on the slang term Screw, which is referenced in the disambiguation page, but doesn't exist. Screw is identifiably different from, though related to, other terms. A history of the term could be a good article, one particular phrase isn't. Stirling Newberry 06:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tasteless vulgarity, non notable. Klonimus 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... if tasteless vulgarity translates to non notability, we should be VfDing nigger. CanadianCaesar 07:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is not just an article about the Family Guy episode. It also contains information about where the phrase initially originated. Even though it may be slang, there are various other slang terms in Wikipedia. User:ScrewedThePooch 8:03, 35 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Already transwiki'd. Those longing for the loving discussion of the word should go to Wiktionary to do so. On Wikipedia, encyclopedic content counts, not lexical content. The term is very old, of course. It hit the popular culture throught Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff and the movie version of it. It's the punchline to a farmer's daughter joke. Make sure you didn't screw the pooch. From that, it has become a common term for "mess up." Well, see, that's not hard, is it? Purely dictionary work and purely not apt for Wikipedia. Geogre 15:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dictdef. What is with people saying "strong" next to their votes? Are they supposed to count double? Tempshill 17:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it just indicates that they are unlikely to be persuaded to change their minds, and that they have a strong opinion about this. WP:GVFD is clear that strong/weak do not make any difference when it comes to closing the debate (from a vote-count point-of-view, which isn't all that matters anyway).-Splash 18:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef, already transwikied, no encyc content beyond that. -Splash 18:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 22:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef CDC (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. DS1953 03:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article can be expanded in two directions. If and when this is expanded into a full Family Guy article, the dicdef should also be mentioned to avoid confused readers. Agentsoo 10:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 07:42, 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✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Peru Justo[edit]

Delete. Not notable. A Google search for "Red Peru Justo" produced 66 hits. Merely having a webpage on Tripod.com doesn't make a organization notable. Are there any Peruvians out there who could comment on this org? -Ichabod 11:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. --Zpb52 03:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I myself being Peruvian have never heard of this organization, but i have not lived in Peru in about 12 years so I only know as much as the next person. Jobe6 05:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • How do you know how much I know? -Splash 18:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Hasn't even made it as far as getting their own domain name: they're still using Tripod. -Splash 18:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Most of the google hits seem to be web directory entries or guestbook entries and the original version of this article also reads like vanity. No indication that anybody outside of this organization has heard of it. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn self promotion. JamesBurns 07:43, 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 move to Shane's Chess Information Database. – Alphax τεχ 05:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SCID (chess)[edit]

Software ad. — Ливай | Ⓣ 03:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - ulayiti (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete drini ☎ 03:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That software is freeware and hosted on Sourceforge [11]. The article is badly written but it is not an ad. --malathion talk 03:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am adding this page to my list of articles I intend to improve. I can turn it into a decent software stub in a couple days. --malathion talk 03:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, having been adopted by user malathion. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is an ad, it's not a very effective one, as there's no link to the product. I agree with malathion. From the above link, it looks like the page should be moved to Scid (chess) or Shane's Chess Information Database (which would match the currect dab page). --Pagrashtak 05:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Shane's Chess Information Database. —RaD Man (talk) 00:07, 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 merge and redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vannacutt Psychiatric Institute for the Criminally Insane[edit]

Delete.Does this really belong to Wikipedia? With "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" notes as well. mu5ti/talk 03:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • It's just as valid a topic as Arkham Asylum. However, because the main article isn't too long, this can be merged with the 1999 movie, unless it's in both versions of House on Haunted Hill, in which case Keep CanadianCaesar 03:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the whole entire article can be merged with the House on Haunted Hill(1999) article. But it needs vast spelling\grammar improvements and also needs to be completed... User:ligersrock2487 01:02, July 25, 2005
  • Delete: There's nothing here, folks. You want someone to write something about the fictional place in the fictional films? Ok, let them do so. No "keep" involved. Blow this up, as it is not an article and nearly qualifies for speedy. Geogre 18:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How's there "nothing here"? I see information that's not on the main page. I see a picture. I see no reason not to merge. CanadianCaesar 19:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image "from the official website." Then a number of paragraphs that repeat each other (the plot is told twice). Other than the first sentence, the whole of it is presented as if fact. No, there's nothing there. There is no discussion, no context, no placement of the object in any world other than the movie. So, knock it out. Then people can work on the movie article, if they choose. This infinite fracturing of every fiction to suit the fancies of fans is ridiculous, illogical, and, in the end, a good way to destroy the information by stranding it in places where people cannot find it. Geogre 01:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with House on Haunted Hill (1999 movie) and Redirect. No information is lost and it makes sense. Wikibofh 23:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to House on Haunted Hill (1999 movie) any information that is important enough to be on that page; I'd suggest deeply cutting it, though, and merging perhaps one paragraph. If it's not important enough to be part of the parent fiction, it's unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a prime example of non-notability. Nandesuka 01:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- anything useful into House on Haunted Hill (1999) and redirect. - Longhair | Talk 12:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- anything useful into House on Haunted Hill (1999). carmeld1 23:46, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finching[edit]

Really? Google's not heard of this. I doubt that this is the correct term for this. humblefool® 03:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because a director uses a technique, like this, does not mean that they "invented it", especially if it isn't really done by followup directors. MicahMN | Talk 02:51, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Puerile[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Enström[edit]

NN head of a small belgian company. humblefool® 04:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no notability established. --TheMidnighters 04:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup; the article doesn't need a header for every other line of text. Where did you get the "small belgian company" from? :-) Axel Enström was actually head of SCA, which is a major Swedish and multinational pulp and paper industrial corporation. There is an article on him in the Swedish encyclopedia Nationalencyklopedin. --Uppland 09:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I don't blame Humblefool for nominating this, as the article does not make notability clear, and there appear to be no useful online sources other than NE, which requires subscription. Uppland 14:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, notable, manager of large corporation. / Alarm 14:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Fred-Chess 14:08, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. In particular, remove those headers and rewrite into two or three a compact, readable paragraphs. --Salleman 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this page also exists on my wiki and SCA is not a small company. This person had a tugboat named after him (Fram - see other ships named Fram). NSK 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it good. —RaD Man (talk) 00:06, 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 MOVE (and keep redirect). -Splash 16:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sherri Moon[edit]

  • Delete. Vanity/non-notable. —Cleared as filed. 04:10, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough for a stub, I fixed up the page a bit for a fairer assessment. --TheMidnighters 04:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And move per Gazpacho, then turn into a redirect. Sheri Moon is the spelling at IMDb. --TheMidnighters 04:28, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Military Brats[edit]

Unremarkable and unverifiable list. Recommend delete. Peter Grey 04:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Title is slang. List is going to be either, a) unmaintainable and a violation of WP:NOT Indiscriminate Info due to the fact that its criteria for inclusion are "Everyone who had a parent in the armed forces", or b) requiring an arbitrary notability cut-off for inclusion, which is bordering on original research. Add to that the fact that this information, while pertinent in any person's biography, forms a list that has no benefit or usefulness and that stand-alone lists should be discouraged at all costs, and there's no reason to keep this list in a merged or categorized format. The Literate Engineer 04:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. LitEng said it quite well. -R. fiend 05:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable. There are potentially thousands of notable people who could be listed here. Kaibabsquirrel 05:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term Military Brat should be a dicdef. Hamster Sandwich 05:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since some people who will be added to this list may not liked to be called a military brat. Though I am one myself, and the term is used a lot, I think the list should go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. Klonimus 06:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Irrelevant, unmaintainable - it would have to include potentially thousands of people - including all the historical ones from the time somebody created the first standing army. Not a small amount of historical people include children of soldiers - although sometimes it is mentioned only in context of their (usually) father dying in battle. Not to mention potential rows of what constitutes proper "military" - Skysmith 10:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush with Drill Sergeant for all the excellent reasons above. :) GarrettTalk 11:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This list isn't even in alphabetical order. Flowerparty talk 11:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am one and not notable. Why should those uppercrust notable REMFs get a list?  :) Wikibofh 23:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 07:47, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ship of foolz[edit]

Non-notable posse. Gazpacho 04:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What... the... hell. Google hits advance the case of non notability. Delete CanadianCaesar 04:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is not the end-all-be-all of popularity -- Keep (vote by User:141.158.97.121)
  • Delete. Just a group of guys. I've belonged to several groups of guys, but most of the time we didn't give ourselves names. Oh, also delete Mad merv. And I'll cast pre-deletion votes for "Zipper", "Hodge", "Rordge", "Special Agent Alonzo Moseley" and "Shorty McNostril", (and the others) should their pages appear. -R. fiend 04:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the person who created the article is voting more than once to keep it and also its non notable and Mad Merv was deleted in february of last year.Jobe6 05:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable and largely gibberish.Hamster Sandwich 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush with postmodern deconstructivists, this is... um... yeah. Sounds like a fun enough group, but not here. :) GarrettTalk 11:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Loze the ship of foolz. WTF, mate? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BTW, what's a pleasure group of nihili-anarchists do, anyway? humblefool®
  • Delete nn, just some guys. --Etacar11 23:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Atari2600tim 01:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn foolz. JamesBurns 07:49, 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 MERGE. I have followed Y0u's suggestion. -Splash 16:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey_Kong_Coconut_Crackers[edit]

This article should be deleted because it has no other potential than what is already there. It's not really telling us anything that can't be placed in another article about Donkey Kong Deezil 04:47, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riding the short bus[edit]

What's worse than a garage-band that hasn't "made it" yet? A a garage-band that hasn't even started up yet. Vain, vain, vain. GarrettTalk 04:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. Perhpas we may stretch the speedy A7 criteria? This is a group of people with no claim to notability, so it really isn't too different different from a person with no such claim, is it? Usually I'm opposed to speedy criteria for bands, as merely being in a band is some sort of assertion of notability, but this goes out of their way to make it perfectly clear that there is absolutely nothing notable about them. Delete, preferably speedily. -R. fiend 05:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a proposal to add a speedy criterion for bands that didn't meet at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. It got about 68% yes votes and was held not to have achieved consensus. Therefore, A7 doenst' apply, I'm sad to say. DES 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy criteria should NOT be stretched. Looking at the debate around the latest proposal, people have very strong feelings about this and many, if not most, expect the rules voted on to be followed strictly. Bear in mind that the margin by which A7 passed was not very large. A7 explicitly talks about articles about "a real person" and can thus not be used for articles on bands, books, intersections, fan fiction characters, high school debating clubs, user-created computer game maps, or pieces of furniture at the Hogwarts school of magic. Which might be unfortunate, but that's the way it is. But do join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C that tries to find a wording for a new proposal for extreme band vanity. Oh, and delete this. / Alarm 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well said, Alarm. Yes, I removed the speedy tag as I thought vfd was the way to go. And yes I am also the vandal who removed the VfD tag :) (don't know what I was thinking, but I removed both the SD and VfD tags) so thanks to Cdc for restoring it. --Dmcdevit·t 23:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Band-foolery. I'd add speedy, but don't want to get in trouble from wiki-cops. They can be rough. Hamster Sandwich 05:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. DES 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. Klonimus 06:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and even if it were, the band is extremely non-notable. Wikipedia is not a sign-up forum. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like these kiddies need to stay on the short bus.  ;) Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily if possible. -- The Anome 22:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vaporband vanity. Starting so early now... --Etacar11 23:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is just kids calling themselves a company/posse/crew/clan/band -- normal stuff for kids to do -- but it's close to being nonsense, as they have 7 songs without music so far, just lyrics. Uhhh, so how, exactly, are they songs? Best not to think about it. Geogre 13:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 07:50, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Oldies Jukebox[edit]

Google search confirms it is a radio segment at an Akron station. I nominated this because there is a promotional tone to this hasty article. We need to crush advertising. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)


Please do not delete the Sunday Oldies Jukebox. This is a commercial free radio station that survives on the benevolence of it's listeners and is manned by an all volunteer staff. They play the best selection of oldies on the dial. (anon entry starter)

move comment, apparently I haven't followed through with this vfd lots of issues | leave me a message 04:56, 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 speedy deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 07:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mad Merv[edit]

This article, I'm afraid, suffers the problem of non notability CanadianCaesar 04:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this has already been deleted along time ago. " 04:06, Feb 14, 2004 Delirium deleted "Mad Merv" (non-famous autobiography -- listed on VfD 5 days, votes 6-1 to delete)" Jobe6 05:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. And graffiti in public places isn't "art" its vandalism. Hamster Sandwich 05:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Does it qualify for speedy as recreation of content previously deleted. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as recreation of deleted content. -- Scott eiπ 06:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 06:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Alfred W marker[edit]

Might be a great guy, but non-notable based on google search. Chairboy 04:59, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Hayes singer/songwriter Wednesdays sometimes sundays[edit]

The article name is not particularly useful. Perhaps rename/move to "Bernie Hayes"? --Alan Au 05:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the deal with that title? Well, the same user just posted basically the same thing at Bernie hayes, so this one can certianly be deleted. Allmusic gave me a Bernie Hayes as a member of a band called Club Hoy (from Sydeny, so its probably the same guy). No vote on the other article yet. -R. fiend 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bernie Hayes is an Australian musician. In my view, he qualifies under WP:MUSIC having made two albums as a singer/songwriter in his own name as well as his membership of Club Hoy. He also wrote the song "You Made Me Hard" which was the third single from The Whitlams double-platinum Love This City - Hayes brother Anthony aka Stevie Plunder was one of the Whitlams founding members. This article is surplus so it can be deleted. I vote to keep the album but it should be moved. I have rewritten Bernie Hayes establishing notability under WP:MUSIC. He has recorded a couple ofsolo albums was a member of Club Hoy who had some success in the early 1990s and wrote "You Made Me Hard" which was a single from The Whitlams double platinum in Australia Love This City album. The Bernie Hayes singer/songwriter album is superfluous so delete. His solo album from 1999 was Every Tuesday Sometimes Sunday so the album title is wrong so it should be deleted. Delete them both. Capitalistroadster 11:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another fine Capitalistroadsterization at Bernie Hayes (which is not nominated for deletion). There is no reason to keep this oddly, and per Capitalistroadster (and indeed the original author, it appears) incorrectly, titled article. All GFDL considerations, if any exist, are satisfied by bernie hayes. Delete. Uncle G 13:34:17, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
  • Delete, not really a subject at all. Tempshill 17:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Uncle G. JamesBurns 07:52, 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, as withdrawn and no other votes. -Splash 16:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prepaid[edit]

Dictionary definition CanadianCaesar 05:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn. That didn't take long. CanadianCaesar 05:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps some of this material can be merged with appropriate articles? as its written its more than a dicdef, but the title itself dosn't indicate what the substance of the article actually covers. Hamster Sandwich 05:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... I'm going to ask you be blocked for an offensive user name... no, I'm kidding. I'm no economist; where do you think this stuff should go? CanadianCaesar 05:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe a move to prepaid goods or prepaid items? CanadianCaesar 05:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I was thinking to add to the links mentioned, if the information is not already there, that things like credit crads, cell phones, tolls, gift cards ect. ect. can be pre-paid. Other than that there isn't anything in this article I would consider encyclopedic. Its mostly just links to that material. Comments, Ideas? Hamster Sandwich 12:13, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow moon[edit]

Oh please, it's just a server! At the very least merge into World of Warcraft servers, but even then I'd want a description of what you can and can't do or see or find on this server. GarrettTalk 05:15, 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. -Splash 16:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kamuzu Academy[edit]

I'm not sure what the current policy for "school" articles is, but this one certainly doesn't establish notability in its present form. --Alan Au 05:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The policy is not to nominate school's to VfD, since they will be kept. On principal I vote Keep. Klonimus 06:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there's no policy. There is a policy proposal that attempts a compromise and suggests merging rather than VfD'ing, especially since (real) high school articles are almost never deleted. See WP:SCH for the debate and guidelines. This article though, in its curent form, has basically no no content (4 words!) and so is basically speediable. I'll just wait for someone to expand it, since that's what usually happens when schools come here. --Dmcdevit·t 07:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Policy is established by practice. In practice there have been no significant school deletions for three months now. It isn't worth listing them for deletion--much easier to just clean them up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please don't nominate any more school articles, as it just is a waste of time to do so. CalJW 21:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is our policy to keep these and also what jim wants Yuckfoo 21:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aardvark --Carnildo 23:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was listed for deletion just ten minutes after being created. The briefest search shows that the head of the school has been awarded an MBE for his work there, it has been called the Eton of Africa, that a BBC documentary was made about the school, and that the then head of Eton school was so impressed that he said that henceforth Eton should be known as "The Kamuzu of England. It really is the last school to list for deletion, and anyone could have saved us this discussion simply by googling and expanding instead of listing for deletion. We, after all, supposed to be editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Consider me sufficiently chastized. Would pointing to WP:SCH have been so difficult? (BTW, thank you Dmcdevit!) Geez, tough crowd.  :( --Alan Au 04:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice to have a member of Category:Schools in Malawi. Kappa 10:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:44, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  • Keep given that it seems to be the most elite school in the country, albeit an LEDC. Dunc|☺ 11:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't list schools. It's very tiresome to have to vote "keep" on all of them when the reasons for keeping or deleting are the same in each instance. Grace Note 00:16, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of World of Warcraft Mods[edit]

No real content besides external links, and an unmaintainable and inherently unencyclopedic list if it did have content. Judging by the talk page the original editor seems to have lost the energy. I suggest putting the links on the main page (if not there already) and then delete this. GarrettTalk 05:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Terminate with extreme prejudice. Erm, I mean delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flip a coin. Heads: delete. Tails: merge with World of Warcraft. I'm not sure which of those two the proper course of action is, I just know that the proper course of action is one of those two. Maybe once more comments are made, I'll be better able to call it.The Literate Engineer 06:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this can never work. curse-gaming.com is listing multiple new mods every single day, many of which will never be used by more than a handful of people. The only useful content this contains or ever could contain is the links to the mod websites. —Stormie 08:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, Seemed like a good idea at the time. But would be better merged with World of Warcraft. Havok 10:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Nothing here worth saving, and I am a Warcraft fan. :) — RJH 15:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could be of any interest if the list wasn't so small. wS;✉ 21:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per RJH. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:20:54 Z
  • Merge with World of Warcraft. -newkai | talk | contribs 10:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - reference to the best known compilations could be made on the WoW article Barneyboo 03:37, 7 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 11:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Tag[edit]

702 Googles, non-notable fanmade custom map/gametype. Sounds very fascinating, but not very encyclopedic. GarrettTalk 05:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep The point of an encyclopedia is not to hold to some paragon of encyclopedianess, or even worthiness, but to explain concepts. Someday some poor websurfer is going to wonder what someone means when they say I used to play a lot of sheep tag, shouldn't wikipedia be there, once all the Warcrafft III forums have closed down? Yasth
  • Delete and replace with an article on the little plastic thing attached to the sheep's ear called a "Sheep tag"! Frühstücksdienst 05:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incidentally, is there really a little plastic thingy attached to sheep ears called a "sheep tag"? I've only ever seen sheep at the state fair and at petting zoos. Oh, and cooked, as in gyro or leg of lamb, and worn, as in wool. I'm getting pretty close to violating WP:POINT at the moment, so I'll make a comparison: articles about custom maps and gametypes for video games have about as much worthiness for an article as a rambling essay about my experiences with sheep. Which is to say, none at all. The Literate Engineer 06:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an interesting take on the Chewbacca defence! -Splash 18:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, there are such little plastic thingy attached to sheep ears called a "sheep tags". I have spent time on farms and that's what they call them. Its a fairly common term among sheep farmers. See this page for a picture and info about a sheep tagging system. Frühstücksdienst 17:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • no vote There's a whole category of these things?! I mean, there's a lot of cvg-cruft around, and Wiki is not paper, but this is just getting ridiculous. --Alan Au 17:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper and the article actually isn't a worthless stub. Tempshill 18:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, ne, crufty. -Splash 18:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is certainly no stub; and represents a trend among Warcraft players.Please note: some ppl spell "warcraft III" as "warcraft 3". Google for [warcraft 3 "sheep tag"] returns 1360 hits. Debroglie 09:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. warcraftcruft. carmeld1 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Warcraft game along with DOTA, etc. Derktar 01:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC).


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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chang (surname)[edit]

Not encyclopedic! Why not have every single surname of every single ethnic group in the world? Frühstücksdienst 05:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into List of Chinese Surnames - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are more than two people named Chang with Wikipedia biographies, keep and convert into a disambig page for them. Otherwise, delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC) There are already several Changs at Zhang (surname), so I'm changing my vote to redirect to Zhang (surname). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm sure ther are more than two, disambigu-fy per Angr. (Also, delete all lists of surnames! That's what Wiktionary is for.) --Dmcdevit·t 08:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zhang (surname) (no mergeable content). Add as many disambiguation links as you want to Chang (I think creating sub-disambiguation pages is silly). Surnames are encyclopedic in their own right, if there is something to say about them beyond etymology and frequency (as there certainly is in the case of common East Asian names such as this one). We've had this discussion before.-- Visviva 08:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there is evidence that all the Changs are having their surnames pronounced as Zhang according to the languages they speak. As far as I know some Korean people named Chang are having their surname pronounced as Jang in the Korean language. — Instantnood 12:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zhang (surname), nothing to merge. JamesBurns 07:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 常 is a Chinese surname spelled Chang in pinyin and Ch'ang in Wades-Giles. Redirecting to Zhang would be inaccurate. Chang and Zhang are not always the same. --Yuje 21:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You reminded me about 常. I have modified the article accordingly. :-) — Instantnood 21:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zhang (surname), provide disambuguation as nessecary. -Loren 00:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Yuje has suggested, Chang and Zhang are not the same all the time. I'd like to request everyone to reconsider. — Instantnood 21:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Further request: On top of the previous request, I'd like to request administrators to extend this VFD, given that people voted previously are unaware of the new argument presented. — Instantnood 18:44, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone voting to redirect is rather monolingually rude. Redirecting a chinese surname to a different one is as rather appropriate as redirecting Smith to Jones. SchmuckyTheCat 06:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, keep and sort out (although redirecting would have been OK, since it can easily be undone). I didn't really want to get into this here, but the situation is even more complicated. There are also 4 Korean surnames spelled "Chang"/"Jang," of which only the most common is the one covered in Zhang (surname)... two more Korean surnames are spelled "Chang/Ch'ang." See List of Korean family names. I'm not volunteering for this detail, but clearly there is plenty of sorting out to be done here. -- Visviva 12:40, 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 KEEP. Clear consensus to retain content, and clear consensus within those votes to retain the article. -Splash 16:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsang[edit]

Not encyclopedic! Why not have every single surname of every single ethnic group in the world? Frühstücksdienst 05:32, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD: developmental disorder or parenting[edit]

personal essay (see WP:NOT) --Alan Au 05:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOR, articles shoudn't be signed, WP:NPOV. DES 05:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NatusRoma 06:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, besides someone should tell the author of this new invention called "paragraphs". — JIP | Talk 12:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons already given above. --DrTorstenHenning 14:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research, essay, unreadable, hurts my eyes. Tempshill 18:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:38, 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 KEEP. -Splash 17:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking[edit]

The content isn't complex enough to justify an entry (this should be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia entry, maybe move to the wiki dictionary project). Additionally, bad writing style and bad examples (LAME). Fbergo 05:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. DES 05:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would argue that falling isn't complex, yet has an article. As for bad writing style and examples, that isn't a good argument for deletion. If you feel an article is poorly written, fix it. --Pagrashtak 06:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it needs serious rewriting - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clean up with more methamphetamine. Tweaking is SoCal slang for meth-heads. Klonimus 07:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasonably common colloquial usage among computer users. Article is not very good but IMHO has considerable potential. Tweek was also the name of a controversial audiophile product that was supposed to improve the quality of contacts in switches used in audio systems. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, use here is slang, could be dic def. (Authors should add similar content to appropriate articles.) In current state, it's just an outline of how electronics and software are modified in the development process. Same points should be made in articles about electronics, software, and so on. Can't really have an article about the word modify or improve with the focus limited to amplifier tuning. Tweaking means a thousands different things in a thousand different disciplines. DavidH 18:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above arguments. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:24:41 Z
  • Keep on tweaking this article until it becomes a featured candidate. —RaD Man (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best transwiki. Why do we give so much more slack to stupid computer-related articles as compared to stupid non-computer-related articles? Nandesuka 01:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but work needed. Agentsoo 10:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. Common electronics term. JamesBurns 07:56, 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 MERGE (and redirect). Already included in target, so just redirected. -Splash 17:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Law[edit]

Individual character in a single compuiter game, not widely notable (the character, not the game), not encyclopediac, Merge back to article about gmae or list of characters therein} DES 05:49, 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. -Splash 17:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daws Hill[edit]

Not notable and unverifiable. Frühstücksdienst 05:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - definitely verifiable, and we might want to try and find someone who can do so. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consulting a map I find that it's a real place. Consulting Google Web I find within 1 minute the U.S. Navy housing area in RAF Daws Hill and a map of RAF Daws Hill, both of which are now in the article. Keep. Uncle G 06:40:48, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real place with real communities of interest namely defence bases. Capitalistroadster 11:46, 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. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tekken characters (all kept). --Tony SidawayTalk 03:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsujin[edit]

character in a computer game; character is not widely notable; no encyclopecic content; merge to article about game or list of characters in the game DES 05:56, 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. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tekken characters. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True Ogre[edit]

Computer game character; not widely notable; no encyclopediac contnet; Merge to article on the game or a list of characters in the game. DES 06:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: User has already created Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tekken characters, so I see no need whatsoever for this redundant VfD. jglc | t | c 14:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Merge" is right out because List of Tekken characters was already too long, and User:Mitaphane has taken it upon him/herself to splice some characters out, including this one. I'm not a fan of Tekken, so I can't judge notability for myself, but hey: innocent until proven guilty, right? **Marblespire 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Not notable until notability is established. If the lsit is too long, create sub-lists by game or some other useful classification, such characters are simply not notable enough for separate articles. DES 21:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Tekken characters. JamesBurns 07:58, 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 COPYVIO. VfD tag removed. -Splash 17:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leona Lo[edit]

Original Reporting; signed article; PoV; probably non-notable topic anyway. Delete. DES 06:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article reads "(c) 2003 Singapore Press Holdings Limited". Wikipedia:Copyright problems is down the hall, on the left. Uncle G 06:45:18, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
  • Keep if the article is rewritten. The subject (a published author) seems sufficiently notable. Pburka 23:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 07:59, 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. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tekken characters. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre (Tekken character)[edit]

Single character in a computer game. Character is not widely notable; article has no encyclopedic content. Merge to List of Tekken characters. DES 06:23, 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. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tekken characters --Tony SidawayTalk 03:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Jinrei[edit]

Single character in a computer game. Character is not widely notable; article has no encyclopedic content. Merge to List of Tekken characters. DES 06:26, 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. – ABCD✉ 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Hasagawa's Cats[edit]

I'm normally pretty liberal with my application of WP:FICT. I think most fiction deserves a chance here. But individual cartoon episodes that last 11 minutes are not in any way notable (with extremely rare exceptions, such as Steamboat Willy). A List of Lilo and Stitch episodes might be appropriate, but this article needs a delete. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the speedy variety. JGorton 15:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. Tempshill 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search yields no evidence that this episode even exists. ManoaChild 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JamesBurns 08:01, 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 deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 07:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Matthew Knights[edit]

Was marked as a speedy but for vanity, so IMO not a candidate. I see you can speedy pages that don't assert notability, but I think the phrase "fuckin legend" is an assertion of notability. Like a merciful governor, I'm taking this off death row and sending it to VfD for a trial. I abstain. CanadianCaesar 06:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Under WP:CSD A7. DES 07:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. If that's an assertion of notability, than there is no point to the policy. IMHO, an assertion of notability is not just "CanadianCaesar is notable," but "CanadianCaesar is notable because he has won six national amateur checkers tournaments in a row!" (ie, without a reason, there is no assertion). Then it's up to VfD to decide if the assertion holds up. Here there was nothing to judge, so no assertion made. --Dmcdevit·t 07:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Community/General/WikiPraxis[edit]

This page is allegedly for a newspaper column that never materialized, which should have been on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom anyway. It is also rather non-sensical. See talk page for more.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Fleece and Image:Logo_main.gif[edit]

Blatant first-person advertising by a non-notable shop. -- RHaworth 07:38:12, 2005-07-25 (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✉ 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shane and Wayne Mitchell[edit]

The article starts: Twins P. Shane and D. Wayne Mitchell are the leading figures in youth theatre education in the state of Alaska. This is a PoV. PoV can of course be neutralized, but here the linking of the two people seems intrinsic to an article having this title. How are they claimed to be leading? Primarily in TBA Theatre (Anchorage). But in TBA's own staff intro page (temporarily unavailable; I got it through Google's cache), they're named as two of four directors. What else is there about Shane or Wayne? Very little that Google can find me. The article is unverifiable as a whole, and in particular unverifiably implying an article-worthy linking of the two Mitchells. -- Hoary 07:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable and in any case about two non-notables. -Splash 18:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. Tempshill 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:02, 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✉ 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rabbit Games[edit]

Probably advertising. A Google search gives 0 hits. Not notable. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 08:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:32:35 Z
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Yahoo! search turns up some hits; something about doing demos at local conventions. So apparently this is a real company, albeit a small one. This is no more advertising than the similar (and longer) pages already listed for big companies. Tygertyger 17:09, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, by big companies, do you mean notable ones? Being real doesn't make it notable. --Dmcdevit·t 20:15, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 23:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Mcfly (band)[edit]

Marty Mcfly is quickly gaining popularity as a unique thrash band local to Fargo North Dakota. Formed in January 2005, the band is known for their energetic live show, quirky between song banter by lead singer Matt Gatzke, and their aligator microphone. Google offers a total of zero hits for the combination of band name and vocalist name. Unverifiable. Perhaps we'd better wait till the band has gained popularity, and has issued an album, etc. -- Hoary 08:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Shipley[edit]

Blatant vanity. I'm not comfortable speedying this though, as it does make an assertion of notability (having won the 2005 "Miss Sexy Australia"). But that claim, as far as I can tell, is patently untrue. A google search turns up nothing, even when I look for variations. As such, hoax and vanity, so delete. --Dmcdevit·t 08:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. --TheMidnighters 08:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was a "Miss Sexy Australia" contest, every pimple-faced blogger on the net would be drooling over it. Since Google only gives 1 irrelevant hit, I say it's bogus. -- Visviva 09:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity -Harmil 11:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either vanity or hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Hosting information on a minor's "sexiness" is a bad idea for Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm an Australian and I've never heard of the Miss Sexy Australia awards which suggests that they either don't exist or aren't very widely known. Capitalistroadster 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gross nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "People with a crush on someone should not be allowed to edit articles". I'd swear there's a policy about this somewhere. . . . . . Soundguy99 14:21, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wodie Crew[edit]

Original research/not notable/no real sources. I see a few google hits of a metion of a Wodie Crew in www.kentuckysportsreport.net forum. No other references.

  • Delete --Cool Cat My Talk 09:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A school sports-party group is not notable -Harmil 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found one result with a yahoo search - not notable. Athf1234 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly, this needs to stay. The original request comes from a bitter old man. UKChamps2003 11:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (unsigned comment by 208.8.97.219)[reply]
  • Keep Cool Cat is just trying to raise hell. No way should this go. kyfanbigblue 13:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (unsigned comment by 208.8.97.219)[reply]
  • Keep Wodie Crew extravaganza's are a staple of UK athletic events, they grow every yearUser: mphdtd 14:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (unsigned comment by 68.53.59.72)
  • Keep So, cataloguing the ranks of officers of a science fiction TV show is much more wiki-worthy? (unsigned comment by 140.180.0.67)
  • DeleteThese guys are a bunch of gutless punks. TC (unsigned comment by 208.226.184.166)
  • Delete. Jaxl 18:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Idiots DEEBOOY 18:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (unsigned comment by 208.226.184.166)[reply]
  • Keep Cool Cat is a fag. kybigbluefan|link]] (unsigned comment by 208.226.184.166)
  • LOUD NOISES (unsigned comment by 208.226.184.166)
  • Keep Anyone looking for a nice used car? TC (unsigned comment by 208.8.97.219)
  • Keep Deebooy - you and Rupp's Runts are idiots. I thought you were going to call me the other day? BBdK (unsigned comment by 208.226.184.166)
  • Keep (unsigned comment by 68.53.59.72)
  • Keep (unsigned comment by 68.53.59.72)
  • Keep Texas, Law School, MBA, Lord of the Rings, hot sauce, under the table, yellow teeth BlueBubbles (unsigned comment by 208.8.97.219)
  • Keep If Wodie Crew gets deleted, Cool Cat gets banned from TCP. (unsigned comment by 199.15.61.5)
  • Keep (unsigned comment by 153.2.246.30)
  • Keep They helped me get laid in a skybox!!!! cincycooper (unsigned comment by 140.180.0.67)
  • DELETE The woody crew, on average post 17.6 posts per day - all of them meaningless. Between 2003-2004, the Song Game was a much better thread. Love, SmokeyPearl (unsigned comment by 208.226.184.171)
  • Keep What else would the haters have to look at all day. "Gyero is for a bunch of wussies. Yea then why do you lurk all day, pussy" (unsigned comment by 12.220.149.233)
  • Keep I think its great that UK has a transgendered support group. Love, brudjazz (unsigned comment by 12.222.232.121)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was TAKE TO IfD. Which I have done, and notified the uploader of that fact. I've listed it as a possible copyvio as a result of the nom here. -Splash 17:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ogadai.jpg[edit]

Is this picture really in Public Domain? But there are simplified Chinese characters printed on the picture, which is surely less than 50 years. I doubt if this picture was taken from some of the Mainland Chinese websites, or was scanned by somebody from a Mainland Chinese publication. -- 218.188.0.150 09:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was drawn by court artists in imperial China. I have a set of playing cards which have the pictures of various Chinese emperors. This picture is a scan of one of the cards. The Chinese text is a just a short description on the cards, and not part of the original portrait. --Yuje 09:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Should WP:IFD be used instead for this purpose? — Instantnood 11:13, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes — mendel ☎ 20:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete as copyvio. Deletion carried out by nixie. android79 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mount Wilson Observatory Association[edit]

Clubs are not notable with no importance stated. Also some advertising in the article. feydey 09:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm fan of MWO and its work in solar astronomy (a friend used to work there), but unless someone can produce an NPOV article out of this drek that makes it clear that MWOA is actually notable in some way, I'd have to say that this might even be a candidate for speedy. I'd have to check the rules on advertising (which this clearly is). -Harmil 11:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mount Wilson Observatory. 23skidoo 12:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — it's either pure advertising or a copyvio straight off: http://www.mwoa.org/about.html The page would need significant cleanup even to do a merge. — RJH 15:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio, verbatim from the website. Tagged and listed. -Splash 17:58, 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 redirect to Kill (Unix). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kill -9 -1[edit]

Keyboard shortcut? Console command? I'm not familiar with tricks for this OS, but either way we're not a user manual for it. GarrettTalk 10:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yeah, WP:NOT per Garrett (not to mention, it's a really bad idea to use "kill -9" under Unix or Unix-like systems (e.g. Linux)). -Harmil 11:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the fact that the one sentence in the article is untrue (what flavour of init is being used and whether one is the superuser are two important factors), this is an exceedingly poor title for an article. (It's the kill command with two arguments.) The title isn't even necessarily itself correct, as 9 is not necessarily the number of the SIGKILL signal. Nothing to merge anywhere, and a title that is inherently misleading. At best, this is Redirect to kill (Unix) simply to prevent an article like this growing again. Uncle G 12:23:37, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
    • Comment: SIGKILL might not necessarily be 9, but I can't think of a *nix still in wide use that doesn't define it as such. I'm curious, can you site an example? -- Plutor 16:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Uncle G. — JIP | Talk 12:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to kill (Unix) --malathion talk 13:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, agreed jamesgibbon 14:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one's going to search for this, so a redirect is unnecessary. -- Plutor 16:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect. -Splash 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Plutor. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:34:35 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete both. There have been a number of "keep" votes from anonymous users and entirely new users. Such votes are not always discounted, but due to the sheer number of them, I think that almost all of those votes come from the same person (for instance I cannot assume that it's a coincidence that at least three of the anonymous votes are from Jacksonville, Florida?) All those votes have therefore been discounted as possible votes from sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Graham and Brian Graham[edit]

Note. If kept, one title should be moved to Brian_Houston_Graham and the other becomes a redirect.

Doesn't sound particularly notable to me, but, um, yeah, might as well get a second opinion. GarrettTalk 11:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete under the new criteria as an apparent vanity article making no assertion of notability. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 11:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a speedy. He has a claim to notability (important position in three Florida political organizations, endorsements from U.S. congress people), but I would argue that he falls short of the bar. Google hits are quite low, and a more open-ended search makes it clear that he's not even one of the better-knonw "Brian Grahams" out there. -Hermil 11:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly not a speedy, but delete nevertheless as per Harmil. Meelar (talk) 13:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is part of article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Republicans why in the world would you delete it and make the article incomplete?
  • Speedy keep It would be unfair to delete based on the Google search. This is clearly a common name. He is also found as Brian H. Graham and Brian Houston Graham. He is a national political figure with the Young Republicans and Fix Our Future. His father is a prominent Republican Party leader. He's the finance chairman for multiple political organizations. He's been endorsed by US Senators, Congressmen, candidates for Governor and he's only 21 years old. That sounds like he's worthy to me. Blueyez941 06:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has four previous edits, three on this page.
  • Delete. The articles do assert notability, but I assert otherwise. Being an officer in various political organizations does not make someone notable. Aspiring politicians and minor political organizations are a dime a dozen. The Young Republicans are well-known, but does that make their assistant treasurer notable? Not quite. Isomorphic 06:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, notability not established. JamesBurns 08:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as the publisher of the of the Clay Chronicle newspaper in Clay County, Florida and political leader of many organizations he has established notability. The thing that makes Wikipedia worthwhile is the extra information found here. We will set a very bad example by deleting this article. There are hundreds of "less notable" article on people in Wikipedia, if we delete them we are doing an incredible disservice.JasonRecore 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has two previous edits
  • Speedy Keep I agree with JasonRecore. Without lesser notable people, Wikipedia is not worth going to. Why are some attacking this one when there are SO many others of similar value?EdDean 11:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users first edit
  • Speedy Keep There is no legitimate reason why we'd even consider deleting this article. It sounds more personal(or should I say political) than anything else.TruthSquad 12:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has one previous edit
  • Keep I agree with EdDean above.Citely 13:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above vote by 68.218.201.16, not by Citely as signed.
  • Above vote is by me! I am not sure why RHaworth is so passionate about this site. There are many more important things than people I don't know. RHaworth, please leave me out of your attacks. Citely 03:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP In case you want to say my vote doesn't count before. Citely 03:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:The above two entries are this User's first 2 edits. --Ragib 01:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:User's first edit. --Ragib 01:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. All keep "votes" so far are from registered users whose only contribs have been or here or related to here. The anon's contributions are only a little more diverse. -- RHaworth 03:52:35, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only because non-notable but because BHG and his supporters (or sock puppets) have shown themselves by their behaviour unworthy of being in Wikipedia. JasonRecore vandalised this VfD page thus. An anon vandalised it thus. Zebolany (who, strangely, has not voted here) removed the VfD notice from one of the articles and then, when I re-instated the VfD tag, Zebolany vandalised several pages that I have created. And they could not even manage to link properly to Young Republicans - which might have helped. (Incidentally, did you know that "Brian … has raised over ,000 in less than one year for the Florida Federation of Young Republicans". [13]) -- RHaworth 03:52:35, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • Userify, ie. move to User:BrianHGraham. It is unusual, but there is no reason why Young_Republicans should not link to a user page. -- RHaworth 06:45:48, 2005-07-29 (UTC)
  • another comment. I am not sure why poor old Brian was singled out for the VfD grilling - possibly just cos his article was a bit too stubby. If he gets voted off, then it casts doubt on the other articles created so far for the YR officers: Nicolee Ambrose, Tim Kolpien (copyvio), Zack Scrivner, Glenn Murphy and Heather Harlow. -- RHaworth 07:06:59, 2005-07-29 (UTC)
  • keep not eveyone is as skilled as others with this site. That does not mean they do not use this site and certainly doesn't mean this article should be deleted. 66.157.230.18 20:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the first time I have ever made a comment. If that makes what I have to say worthless, I wanted it to be out there on the table. However, I often use Wikipedia! It is my number one source of free information. It seems as if this has become too personal on both sides. I have added some of the information I have found on the web. Clearly when a 21 year old man is publisher of a major newspaper, he is worthy of an article. He's been endorsed by every major political figure in the South and has been recognized by numerous organizations for his ability to raise large sums of money. I am nearly 3 times the age of this young man, and I have not accomplished half what he has. 68.218.158.180 21:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep this article but move to Brian H. Graham. Notability has clearly been established. My only concern is how common the name Brian Grahamis. Changing it to Brian H. Graham is the best solution. 68.154.239.90 21:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I made an error so I had to edit my previous comment. Since that seems to create some sort of controversy, I wanted to apologize for not being perfect. 68.154.239.90 21:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Graham is vote off then there are hundreds of other people that need to go too. There are many barely notable people on Wikipedia. In fact, that is one of the reasons Wikipedia is so popular. If we take that away then this site will be seriously lacking. 68.218.133.3 03:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nother note. IP addresses for all the anons that have contributed so far are all registered to: BellSouth.net Inc., Atlanta, GA. Note to Citely above. I am a staunch supporter of the apathy party - I do not actually give a [expletive deleted] about BHG. I do however get very annoyed when people vandalise articles and try and make what is probably just one person, look like a crowd. Members of a political party, should act like grown-up responsible citizens. You are not presenting a very good image of the GOP. -- RHaworth 09:19:10, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity, NN. Also the author's attempt to use sockpuppets to manipulate this vfd is noticeable. --Ragib 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Vandalizing articles is completely unacceptable, but so are the insults. Both sides are wrong on this issue. I do not know Mr. grahm and do not really care what you do with the article. I am very disappointed in the "keeps" as much as the "deletes". If I were the gentleman we're talking about I would not want anything to do with this site. And for all we know, he may not have a clue about the site. As for Ragib's insult. Isn't that a violation of the use of this site? Citely 01:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Internet search shows Graham lives in Florida and not Atlanta, Ga. Why is someone across the sea so involved? Could this all just be political?Citely
  • Keep I'm not going to join the childish comments. This has become far too personal. This is a witch hunt and needs to stop. GROW UP 64.12.116.198 01:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete someone poke the sockpuppets. Dunc|☺ 21:30, 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 speedy keep: bad faith nomination. Nominator has been blocked for multi-voting and vote tampering. — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Database[edit]

This page should be purged from wikipedia, because It is inaccurate. The IMDb is a very low quality site, often containing inaccurate or false information. Therefore Wikipedia should no longer associate itself with such rubbish.

  • Strong Keep. Content and accuracy disputes belong on an articles talk page, not VFD. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Blu Advark and ban the anon IP for persistant vandalism. Close this pointless VFD ASAP. The JPS 12:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This page must be deleted as inaccurate articles degrade the overall quality of Wikipedia. Get rid of it! User:84.65.124.160 12:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Clearly a bad faith nomination from an anon with an axe to grind. There is no debating the notability of this website. 23skidoo 12:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the bloody f*ck? IMDB is one of the most notable websites out there. The nomination is clearly in bad faith. Whatever next, nominating eBay or Sourceforge for deletion? Or why not the US Government website? Strong keep. — JIP | Talk 12:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give him ideas. The JPS 12:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - the IMDb page has been subject to an inordinate amount of vandalism lately [14]... -- Lochaber 13:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and kick the ass of the person who posted this --malathion talk 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As said above this is an easy one. --Tony Hecht 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Questions of accuracy do not detract from its notability. --Pagrashtak 13:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I don't know exactly what the nominator is trying to get at here, but even if it were true, the accuracy of IMDB's contents does not have any bearing on whether it gets an entry. It's in the top 50 sites in the world according to Alexa, and has high recognisability all over the web. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, LART nominator. humblefool® 14:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious candidate for speedy keep. Once again, I ask the question. If we don't count the votes of anonymous users in this forum as we shouldn't why are they allowed to nominate articles. Capitalistroadster 17:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, this was a bad faith deletion of one of the most notable sites on the internet.

Gateman1997 17:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This article gives a bad impression of Wikipedia overall, as it is highly biased. I personally believe that the article must be deleted and all links to the IMDb from movie articles on Wikipedia should be removed, and clearly i am not the only one which holds this view. a vote by 84.65.124.160, the same person who nominated the page in the first place - --Stevefarrell 18:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, and anonymous trolls should not be allowed to nominate on VFD. Tempshill 18:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep what a ludicrous nomination. For a start, IMDB is not low quality by any stretch the definition can take, it is a highly informative and accurate site. This is a bad faith nomination, probably from someone who couldn't find a picture of Halle Berry in a tight top. --Stevefarrell 18:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. No doubt that IMdb is notable and relevant. A lot of references in wikipedia, so keep it. Information are not always true (nor in wikipedia), but you can ask them to review false informations (Already done, were wikipedia seem to have right information and IMdb not). -- Cate 19:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep CanadianCaesar 19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep Pointless argument, with the only delete votes on here coming from the person who nominated it. I understand the keep or delete debates over random blog enteries, but over one of the top sites on the internet?--Johnsoqj 19:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy keep - bad faith nomination, the only contributions of the nominator are vandalism of the page in question and of this page. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. WTF is wrong with this nominator? This is one of the most popular websites on the internet. Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it yesterday, infinity nominated by vandal & troll, no further discussion req. ∞Who?¿? 21:03, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yugpurush[edit]

Google results - the combination of the author's name and this title yield no Google hits. It appears the editor is in the process of publishing his entire book in that entry. Wikipedia isn't a book host. lots of issues | leave me a message 12:23, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Achluophobiamusic[edit]

nn band, fails to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. the wub "?/!" 12:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No googles beyond Wiki and mirrors. Delete. humblefool® 14:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above and no presence on allmusic.com -Splash 17:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on the above grounds. IINAG 20:13, July 25, 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 08:08, 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 or merge with Tony Blair. I will call this a keep for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Blair[edit]

He may well be Tony Blair's son, but, unlike his brother, he has yet to be found face down drunk and disorderly in Leicester Square. Indeed he is less notable than his OULC comrade, the Ex-Treasurer Extraordinaire, Lincoln. Delete.

User: Uncantabrigian forgot to sign.
  • Merge to Tony Blair. humblefool® 14:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Tony Blair the wub "?/!" 15:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has appeared on numerous photocalls with Tony and Cherie. And there was controversy over inadequate security at his Oxford college on his arrival. And the Tony's hush hush over his A-level grades. (Unfortunately hard to count google hits because there is a film director with the same name.) 80.229.160.150 22:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appearing in a photocall hardly makes someone independently notable, and random members of the public have no more right to know his A-level grades than they do anyone else's. Whether Blair shows off his family in photocalls or tries to hush up details about them is a matter for the article on him, it does not make the children notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Children of the current leader of an important country are always notable because of their visibility in the media. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Lotsofissues. DS1953 03:36, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, people would want to look him up. Kappa 13:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of Blair's children should be in an encyclopaedia, although it might be worth listing their names and ages in his article. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not inherently notable on his own. JamesBurns 08:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per the wub Saswann 18:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasons as given by lotsofossues. Evil Eye 01:49, 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 redirect to Sellotape. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Selotape[edit]

Article on an indy band from Birmingham. Googling for Nick Adam Dave Selotape reveals 67 hits, many of which seem to not be pertinent. Given today's music industry and online community, any band that has truly had 3 "hits" should be better-covered than this. I say non-notable, delete. jglc | t | c 14:53, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Green Thing[edit]

Does this really belong on Wikipedia? JGorton 14:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nope. Delete. Non-notable game. Sounds like fun, though. android79 15:20, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent vanity CDC (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see your vanity and raise you an unverifiable and an original research. And a factual inaccuracy, since I've played a different team sport that allowed grappling. It was another vanity game, Braveheart Wrestling, that my high school wrestling team played. Object of the game was to get the other team across the goal line.The Literate Engineer 17:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds fun, but it's hardly encyclopaedic. If every sport invented by and played by a handful of college kids is worth an article, I should add Kozaktiball to Wikipedia. As for grappling in a field sport, it says it's partly based on rugby, both forms of which involve just that. Grutness...wha? 11:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn student game. JamesBurns 08:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this becomes a world class sport sometime in the future the article could be reinstated... Tonywalton 15:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical celestial bodies[edit]

No content and no real potential for content either - I am an astronomer and I can't think of anything that would go in this article. Worldtraveller 14:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mentioning every "hypothetical" object of any type is unlikely to provide anything coherent. It'd be better to have individual pages for any theorized celestial bodies. --Several Times 15:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See above. JGorton 15:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the individual articles are 'better'. -Splash 17:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No information content. ManoaChild 21:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might work as a category but not an article. --Etacar11 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 16:49, 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 no consensus to delete (three votes either way ignoring the multiple sockpuppet votes) -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fitnesse[edit]

Dead link, nn advertising. humblefool® 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete though the link is now working, it is still nn advertising. Difficult to Google for (they're not the only ones to think of this 'word'), but their Alexa rank is 395,000. -Splash 17:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Keep the rewrite, but give it an expansion tag. -Splash 17:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ad; but not necessarily nn. It's technically notable for automating acceptance tests in a format accessible to non-programmers (Ward Cunningham's FIT framework), and then organizing those tests in a Wiki format (Fitnesse), and it's generating interest by being featured in the "Apprentice" series of articles in Software Development. I'd suggest adding a reference as an external link to the extreme programming page, similar to JUnit and NUnit links elsewhere. (new user) Leifbennett 21:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's open source software, so it's tough to call it an ad. Fitnesse is a word in the agile development community. If you don't want it on the wikipedia, that's your choice, but it's something that the software community needs to know about.
  • Above vote by 67.185.81.16
  • This is why we have VfD: I'd vote to keep if someone who knows this can rewrite it so that the article has more than mild-advertising in it. -Splash 01:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a brilliant framework and has really started changing the way developers, testers, and customers think about project development and requirement gathering. A terrific addition to the Agile community.
  • Keep This is a very important tool for agil software development. Thus it should not be deleted!
  • Keep FitNesse is one of the best frameworks for customer tests and is wildly admired within the agile developement community.
  • Keep FitNesse is a really interesting concept for testing software and I can not see how this article is an ad. If you think this is an ad, why keep articles about Linux or even Microsoft (with a trademarked logo and a "mission statement", which sounds like sth. from Scientology BTW)?

*Expand, merge or delete as it doesn't say much now and all these anonymous votes for keep suggest a bit of self promotion is going on... however I now vote keep following recent edits. Garglebutt 13:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I use FitNesse (built on Ward Cunningham's Fit testing library) to help test an application. I think the entry should be kept (as should entries on Java, Perl, JUnit, etc.).
  • Keep. I wrote very basic description of what it is (more and better info is welcomed). It should be renamed to FitNesse. Pavel Vozenilek 17:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's much better! I'll change my vote. -Splash 17:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very handy tool. Important to agile development


  • Keep. FitNesse.org is a legitimate software testing tool Wiki site. It however has been spammed recently and needs cleaning up - Barry Gaunt (Moderator at http://www.javaranch.com)
  • Delete sockpuppet-bait Saswann 18:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The tool is free so the page cannot be considered an advertisement. The is a very popular open source project that has a wide distribution and an active user community ([email protected]). Robert C. Martin (Contributor to FitNesse)


  • Delete. Just because the framework is good and open-source does not mean it should be added to Wikipedia. The article and the votes on this page clearly shows this is promotion for this software. --Sleepyhead81 19:05, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 20:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mario Party 8[edit]

short text, makes no sense (to me). Perhaps add info to Mario Brothers? Austrian 16:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP, but needs to be expanded. Gateman1997 17:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if at all possible, merge to Mario Party series if you must, but Mario Party 7 hasen't even been released yet! This is speculation and rumor, with no spaces added. humblefool® 17:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Deleted by an admin at least two times. The game does not exist. -- A Link to the Past 18:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not exist. Tempshill 18:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, article is unsubstantiated speculation. --Pagrashtak 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been deleted six times in two days. So I deleted it and then protected it from recreation. --Dmcdevit·t 20:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. Already listed there, so VfD tag removed and debate here closed. -Splash 17:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kings transport[edit]

Advert for nonnoteable transport company. Text copied from their website. Chatoyant 16:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyvio as nominator points out. I've tagged it. -Splash 17:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:12, 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✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Begins 2[edit]

Delete. Article is nearly all speculation – even the title of such a sequel is unknown at this point. As much as I'd like some concrete information about this sequel (please please please bring Nolan and Goyer back) there just isn't any available, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If this is kept, it should be moved to Untitled Batman Begins Sequel. android79 17:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --Dmcdevit·t 20:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Jackoff[edit]

Vanity, vulgar, semi-nonsense. Delete. Chatoyant 17:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, not just semi-nonsense. Leithp 17:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC
  • Speedy delete. Attack page, fake name; originates from WWE Championship when a vandal changed wikilink to Chris Jericho to this. HollyAm 17:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as no assertion of notability (+ possible attack). -Splash 17:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Vanity. McPhail 19:30, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrer oliver salvador[edit]

Vanity, nn. Full name recieves no Google hits at all. Delete. Chatoyant 17:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. I tried various permutations of the name and added in finance & banking etc, but failed to find any relevant hits. Leithp 17:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails the WP:PROF test, and WP:NOT a memorial. -Splash 17:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. Deb 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 08:14, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Know-It-All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World[edit]

No vote. This was restored (I presume) as a result of the VfU debate, where most voters requested it be listed here. -Splash 17:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Real, non-vanity-press book. Given the stubbiness of this article and A.J. Jacobs (who appears to be a notable journalist), it might be best to simply Merge this into the author's article. I wouldn't oppose keeping it outright. android79 17:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Interesting description, not in A. J. Jacobs. Septentrionalis 17:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or failing that, Keep CanadianCaesar 19:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I don't see the need to keep what little can be said beyond what is already in the author's article. - Tεxτurε 21:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to A.J. Jacobs.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Keep, or failing that merge. Worth keeping just to cite P.J. O'Rourke's endorsement: "The Know-It-All is a terrific book. It's a lot shorter than the encyclopedia, and funnier, and you'll remember more of it. Plus, if it falls off the shelf onto your head, you'll live." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like people become deletionists because they want to be able to read the entire wikipedia. Kappa 13:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand your horizons. —RaD Man (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is notable enough on its own. --Sn0wflake 00:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's a simplistic stub at present, but I think any book that sells widely is deserving of an article -- there's no reason to restrict ourselves to canon literature, and we certainly haven't done so in the past. Jwrosenzweig 00:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Pavel Vozenilek 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Andrew Denton interviewed the author about this book on his Enough Rope show on ABC. Notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A subject of such special interest to all encyclopaedians , should have an article of its own. Lumos3 13:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would you merge? Books always have their own articles by convention. It allows linking to the book title, adding pictures of the book cover, etc... Stbalbach 13:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; notable enough. --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; Books have their own articles, notable enough. Fbergo 08:20, 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 article speedied for patent nonsense — Gwalla | Talk 20:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage stool[edit]

One-word article, and it's not even a word. Speedy delete. Chatoyant 17:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • {{delete}} is the way to do this, I added the tag. humblefool® 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I was about to catch on... Chatoyant
    • No worries. The speedy deletion process can be confusing. humblefool® 17:38, 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 delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contact efficiency[edit]

Advertising theory cruft? the phrase shows few hits on google, and my be a neologism or adspeak. humblefool® 17:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, obscure, and if someone later wants to write a real encyclopedic article on the subject then they can start from scratch (an improvement). Tempshill 18:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though there isn't enough information to understand even the basics on the theme and there are few google hits, seems like encyclopaedia material to me. Needs to be expanded, of course.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:20, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'll change my vote if someone can cite a reference in the article space. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:47, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimerson Squarehead[edit]

No reference to character in Earthbound page; looks like junk. Formerly VFDed but not properly. Dave.Dunford 17:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Five bucks says this is fanfiction. Delete with Ness's most powerful attack. humblefool® 17:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks fake. Tempshill 18:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Humblefool, although putting the label "fanfiction" on it is dressing it up too much. --Pagrashtak 19:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense/hoax. I played through that game 4 times or so and don't remember any character by that name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Earthbound was a great game. Delete this anyway. Nandesuka 01:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:16, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian_neoteny[edit]

The article is a Neologism, goes against the policy Wikipedia:No_original_research, and basically advertises the author's pet theory. This page, and the author's website were linked-to from Neoteny. Try a google search on "Christian Neoteny". Dosai 18:09, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical incident BC schools[edit]

Soapbox stub not edited for over a month. SEWilco 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research. The giveaway is the use of the first person. Perhaps a use of the second person might baffle us in the future. Tempshill 18:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references, looks like original research.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Tempshill. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:40:24 Z
  • Delete original research. Bearcat 15:46, 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 REDIRECT: 9r, 3d, 1k, interpreting the cleanup vote as a keep. There is certainly no consensus to keep the content. -Splash 17:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lgbtq[edit]

Soapbox stub not edited for over a month. SEWilco 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a term. Tempshill 18:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up. It is too a term. Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT, which already has a description of this term (under Variants). —PrologFan {Talk} 22:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:10, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. --Carnildo 23:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Poli --malathion talk 23:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect → LGBT as per PrologFan. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:42:04 Z
  • Redirect to LGBT. JamesBurns 08:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per PrologFan. Sietse 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT. Not soapbox; just redundant. Bearcat 15:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Exploding Boy 23:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LGBT. I'm wondering if a vote is needed to change this to a redirect? Couldn't someone just be bold? I've changed several pages that were more substantial than this to redirects without posting them here. Was I doing something wrong? -- Samuel Wantman 10:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is OK to redirect pages without asking for permission here, but if a page is already listed here it shouldn't be redirected until after the vote is closed. —PrologFan {Talk} 20:47, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queerteachers[edit]

Soapbox stub not edited for over a month. SEWilco 18:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bad title, so a redirect isn't practical. Content is not NPOV; it's more like a blog entry mixed with an essay, so I don't believe any of it can successfully be merged. Joyous (talk) 18:51, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even though the theme seems encyclopedic to me, the article has a bad title and the content isn't presently encyclopedic. If it gets rewritten, I could change my vote.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Poli. Same content as Critical incident BC schools (VfD). …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:44:46 Z
  • There's unquestionably a valid article to be had on Homophobia in education, but this isn't it. Delete. Bearcat 15:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Joyous. Exploding Boy 23:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable (the content not the topic), original research. ~~~~ 19:26, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus Derby[edit]

  • Delete As of the writing of this edit, I could not find any mention of this term outside of search engine links to this article. Karmafist 05:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonexistant. I could not find it either. The only time I could find it was its artificial creation inside of Wikipedia. This is a comment on the "Citrus Derby." Win777 13:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BS "rivalry" that doesn't exist. Gateman1997 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proof of authenticity and notability are presented. From the only 3 google hits, two points to this article and the last one to nationmaster.com.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:06, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
    • That just uses a Wikipedia (where this fake "rivalry" was placed) article itself. Win777 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent fiction. --Etacar11 23:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:19, 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✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another Useless Website.co.uk[edit]

It's a small experimental website that has received < 20,000 total hits in the last two years. The entire point of the website was simply to become popular, which it never did, and it hasn't been updated practically since it started.

Hundreds of new media art school projects appear every year, I just don't see how this one is at all notable. Lifefeed 18:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree with the original post; I do not consider the site to be particularly notable enough for an article about it. Perhaps if it suceeded in its 'experiment', it may be more of note, but it did not. IINAG 19:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research to start, vanity right after.-Poli (talk • contribs) 23:04, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Keep - but put in a article with all the other 'joke' websites. --

The Time Killer

  • Delete - not notable, and no reason why we should help it on its goal. Laur 20:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. JDoorjam 19:27, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy[edit]

A veritable minefield under construction, ought to be nipped in the bud, anything legitimate should be dealt with under Holocaust. PatGallacher 19:03, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

  • Comment - What relevance does this have to the Holocaust? Chatoyant 19:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research? Speedy delete as patent nonsense? --Carnildo 23:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, judging by the creator's User:Famekeeper other contributions, there is little hope of this developing well --Doc (?) 00:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is one of two articles by the same editor both of which are intended to be diatribes, and both of which are being considered for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon 11:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with the earlier voters. One rumor of a party meeting reading a letter 'allegedly' from the Vatican in 1932 does not substantiate a WP article about either a Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy or a Pope Hitler Holocaust Conspiracy (which the author apparently intended as a separate article). Flakery in progress, nothing of verified substance to merge into Holocaust. A Google search on CHC found this link (with cited sources) on the Jewish Virtual Library site: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html Barno 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by those above Str1977 20:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense, flame-war waiting to happen. Xaa 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable hearsay. Gazpacho 01:46, 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 non consensus, defaulting to keep. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 07:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of English words containing a Q not followed by a U[edit]

This is not an encyclopedic article. It might, possibly, be transwikiied to Wiktionary, and I previously added a tag for that, but it was removed by the author. Uppland 19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: Wow, what an interesting battle going on here! As a studier of Chinese, I am particularly interested how Chinese has merged into other languages...the three most common being Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese. The names of these countries in their repective languages all come from the Chinese...does that mean that they are not real Vietnamese, Korean, or Japanese words? Of course, the assimilation of Chinese into English is a bit different, being that we deal with romanization. Therefore, the word meaning "energy" that is described in the list would at one time have been known as Ch'i, or Chi, has become Qi in the official Pinyin system. This word is becoming more common in English usage as more and more people become interested in Asian culture. Other good examples are Qin and Qing, the names of two Chinese dynasties. Perhaps, though, these problems could be solved by naming the article instead, "List of Words in English containing a Q not followed by a U". The current title does lead the reader to believe that the words listed will be of English etymological origin.Iluvchineselit 18:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think renaming would be a bad idea, but I'm not convinced it's strictly necessary either. Nevertheless, there is hardly such a thing as English etymological origin. Almost every word in English ultimately originates from another language, so it's just a question of how recently they migrated. Still, the article has benefitted greatly just from being on VfD, and a lot more people have read it than otherwise would have done, so really it's all good. Agentsoo 18:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Scrabbletionary. Joking, just delete as an unencyclopedic list. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete: Unremarkable list. "qwerty" is the only one that's not a loan-word (and "tranq", but that's slang). Peter Grey 19:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these words aren't really related at all, except for their spelling, I don't think there's really a point in putting it is Wiktionary either. Just delete. --Dmcdevit·t 20:04, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am the author so obviously I will vote keep but let's discuss this reasonably. I think this is more than a dictionary entry, because it attempts to explain how we end up with such words in English when most people believe they do not exist. Admittedly this bit needs expansion but that's exactly what I'm working on at the moment. After Uppland added the transwiki tag, I posted my reasons for keeping it on Wikipedia to the Talk page. Ten days later, neither he nor anyone else had replied, so I assumed that everyone was satisified with my reasoning - apologies if that was not the case, and I'm quite happy to have the transwiki debate again. To address some of the above concerns: they are mostly loan words, but are considered naturalised according to at least one major dictionary (Collins). As a list of words, it is no worse then any of the other articles in the 'Lists of English words' category. As I say, I'm sorry if I caused any confusion by removing the transwiki tag, but this article really doesn't deserve to be deleted. Agentsoo 20:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not have noticed, but Category:lists of words, which is Category:Lists of English words's parent has a "move to wiktionary" tag on it. While we can't and wouldn't just transwiki whole category and its contents, the symbolic meaning is that there has been a judgment that whole lot of them don't belong here. Maybe I should list some today. --Dmcdevit·t 20:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry for missing your talkpage comment. I just feel that the connection between these words is trivial, basically just the result of certain conventions for transcribing from various other languages. It might be worth mentioning somewhere (in the article on English spelling or in a general article on loanwords in English, which might exist somewhere under some title) that there are words in English with a Q not followed by a U, that this is a result of borrowing, and proceed to give an example or two from each language with an explanation of why this or that particular phoneme has been represented by a Q in English. I just don't see the need for a comprehensive list. Uppland 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether a particular list of words are connected in a trivial or non-trivial way is totally a matter of opinion, so if you disagree on that then fair enough. I hadn't noticed that the parent cat is up for transwikiing; thanks for the info. If a judgement has been made that these articles belong on Wiktionary then by all means move them, but I don't think deletion is the answer, and would be disappointed as I have put quite a bit of time into this article. Agentsoo 20:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with this list? I found it very interesting, so i want to keep it. I think one of the better features of Wiki is disproving commonly belived facts, which this list does. Jono 20:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The title is a misnomer. At first, I would have said keep. But upon reading, I say delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 20:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what is misleading about the title, but I'd be more than willing to listen to suggested improvements - please elaborate. Either way, it doesn't seem right to delete an article purely because it has the wrong title. Agentsoo 21:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The words aren't english, persay, just romanized. Delete. humblefool® 21:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are naturalised in English, at least according to the Collins dictionary. In that sense they are as English as any other word lifted directly from other languages, i.e. the vast majority of English words. Being more recent naturalisations may make them not 'true' English words in your eyes, but the dictionary has to be the authority here. Agentsoo 21:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rule of thumb: If the only reference you need is a dictionary, then its not an encyclopedia article, since Wikipedia is Not a Dictionary. --Dmcdevit·t 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
            • The dictionary is not the only reference required; the opening paragraphs are clearly encyclopaedic. Nevertheless I don't object to moving the page to Wiktionary, at least in preference to deleting it altogether. Agentsoo 21:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • per se, as those Romans would write if they were late enough to use lowercase, rather than "persay". Sorry to be a spelling nitpicker, but it's a VfD on an article about 'spelling'. Barno 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Mainly because the vast majority of these are loan words. There is much scope for differences in spelling anyway because the Q is only used to approximate a particular letter sound in other languages. In the New Oxford English Dictionary at least, they are nearly all listed differently anyway, without a lone Q (some with K, QU, CH, etc). I also agree that "tranq" should be removed from the list whatever happens because it is just a shortening (the OED spells it "trank" anyway). However, it is an interesting article, hence the "weak" and I might yet change my vote because it would be relatively "harmless" to keep. Bobbis 21:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My criterion was for them to appear in at least one major dictionary. The NODE is considerably shorter (fewer than half as many words) and less permissive than Collins, so I suppose it is not that surprising that the alternative spellings are not specified in it. Regarding Tranq, it is a shortened form, but it is not an abbreviation; it is written without a dot, just like 'vet' which I think most people would agree is a word in its own right. Glad you found the page interesting though, and I hope I can resolve your issues with it. Agentsoo 21:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting list. Doesn't belong in a dictionary. CalJW 21:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and educational. But say a bit more about them being loan words, and about the existence of alternative spellings (as in contribution to this discussion from Bobbis. --Hugh2414 21:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, thanks. I've elaborated on this point. Agentsoo 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't see a good reason to delete it jamesgibbon 21:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though expand to include more discussion of history (?), etc... Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Hugh2414 & Flcelloguy. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:49:59 Z
  • Keep, but withold this document from the paper version of Wikipedia, whenever that comes out. —RaD Man (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WINAD. Most of the words aren't English, and the fact that they are loanwords and the pronunciation info is content fit for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. android79 01:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is about the words as much as it is a list of them; maybe the title should be changed. See, for example, fuck - a whole entry about the word itself, rather than the concept. Agentsoo 09:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting and notable. Whether they are loan words or not. hansamurai 飯侍 (burp) 01:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, all bar qwerty are not English words. That would be because...there are almost no true English words to go in this article...so we don't need the article. -Splash 01:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is encyclopedia territory rather than dictionary. If not kept, could be merged with a suitable article such as English spelling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Q. Plenty of room for it there. A list like this is just stupid. And verify that these are actual English words. -R. fiend 02:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The list has no place in a dictionery. DS1953 03:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Q, please don't delete or transwiki... the introductory section could use some fleshing out, but this is basically an encyclopedic treatment of one (arcane) aspect of English orthography. -- Visviva 07:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rarity of such words makes them notable, and such a list interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The list has no place in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic stuff about the QU rule and things that break it might be appropriate under an article on the English orthography or Q. Felix the Cassowary 10:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Interesting. - Longhair | Talk 12:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable to anyone interested in English orthography. Kappa 13:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable list... Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 15:08, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, since the general knowledge (rather than just list-of-loanwords) has been expanded the last couple of days. Still not sure how encyclopedic vs. dictionaric it is, but it's interesting to more than just nuts like us Scrabble players. Barno 23:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is just the sort of information I come to wikipedia to find. --Measure 23:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete these are not english words per se but english translations/transliterations of mostly arabic loan words, arranged into a list of dicdefs - wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBurns 08:24, 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 deleted. Dmcdevit·t 19:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Justin Collins[edit]

Obviously vanity, but I didn't think it nonsensical enough for a speedy delete. Chatoyant 19:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't need to be nonsense. Speedied per CSD: A7, with no assertion of notability. --Dmcdevit·t 19:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard Song[edit]

This article is about a song that doesn't seem at all notable. The article doesn't say anything about the song itself, only the lyrics which may be copyrighted anyway. The few google hits are also only the lyrics. --Moochocoogle 20:03, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Callipygous[edit]

Dicdef, and seems unlikley to expand much. Delete or Traswiki. DES 20:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wiktionary has a sufficient definition. Useful word, but delete. Chatoyant 20:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia's official policies state that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WIN) and such definitions should be sent to Wiktionary. drini ☎ 21:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Contents are slightly different.-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
    • Yes. Wiktionary's are better. Transwiki is, in this case, completely unnecessary and a waste of the time and effort of the various editors who manually perform that task — edits to 6 pages just to give Wiktionary content that is inferior to what it already has. Please find another solution to your problem. Uncle G 23:13:46, 2005-07-25 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef and Wiktionary's entry is already far better than this thing. Xaa 03:06, 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 ALREADY REDIRECTED. -Splash 17:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vbh[edit]

Appears to be an acronym disambiguation page; I suggest move/rename to 'VBH'. --Alan Au 20:27, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fax Information Services[edit]

Delete, the speedier the better. Advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 09:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's also a copyvio. --Alan Au 20:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete drini ☎ 21:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio, and even if authorized, Delete as advertisement.-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 21:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Orla[edit]

Sorry Orla, I don't think your time has come yet. NNV Bobbis 20:39, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EScare[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "not noteable, no uses of term by others, better to add to McCarthyism page". Neologism, POV original research. — Gwalla | Talk 20:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sounds an awful lot like original research/neologism to me. --Alan Au 20:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, neology... Spearhead 21:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a personal essay, a personal paragraph... humblefool® 21:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references presented. The link takes to a CMS site. Possibly POV, advertisement or original research.-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2005 July 25 (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✉ 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful jedi[edit]

Not a speedy candidate. Clearly doesn't belong on WP--it's a fancruftish, unverifiable list (see WP:WWIN). I can't think of anywhere to redirect this to--should probably just be deleted. Meelar (talk) 21:24, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete What a pointless article. Deb 21:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that 'Cruft' is not a deletion criteria. But regardless of the nominator's reasons, I don't see this as becoming worthy of an encyclopedia enty. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:54, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Technically, only speedy deletion has explicit criteria. VfD operates on consensus, which depends on people's personal ideas of what is or is not suitable for Wikipedia and their interpretations of policies such as WP:NOT. — Gwalla | Talk 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently original research, if this sort of thing can actually be called research. ManoaChild 21:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no references it's little more than pure POV.-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Delete --malathion talk 23:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 1) totally unverifiable. 2) Possibly wrong (Anakin was verified as having the most stupid-bacteria-things EVER, as in, more than YODA did, whereas Yoda seemed to be stronger in the Force than Luke was). 3) He freaking misspelled 'Anakin.' Marblespire 20:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 08:27, 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 REDIRECT. I've gone for Capitalistroadster's suggestion. -Splash 17:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1987 in environment[edit]

I don't know if there is a years in environment project or list of pages but this orphan is fairly lost and useless on its own. MeltBanana 21:25, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Newspaper[edit]

Clearly a vanity page written by the newspaper's editor or at least someone very closely related to the newspaper. Not necessary or should at least be cleaned up so it is less partial and only includes necessary facts. 69.72.29.86 21:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect without merge to The Independent, which is an actual notable newspaper. CDC (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (as per CDC) --Doc (?) 09:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Independent, agreed jamesgibbon 21:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Independent. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page used to be quite biased, but it seems that certain objective editors have made the content more relevant. It no longer is so partial, and is quite fact-oriented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-26 01:46:39 UTC
  • Hello. I am the editor of the paper. None of the members of my staff put the page up. It was done by a member of the school community. It is not a national paper, but is important, and has a regional audience. It is neither fair nor right to delete it. It is informative and adds to the value of wikipedia.

    This page should not be redirected or deleted. The editors of The Independent simply want the title to themselves, which is selfish and antithetical to the goals of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-26 02:10:10 UTC

  • Delete first, then redirect to The Independent. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst looking for verification, I have found all of these. However, the only thing that I can find about this Independent is this, which is a cached version of the St Albans School News apologizing for "the damages inflicted upon all readers by the last issue of the Independent". That's the entire content, and not even that much remains on the actual site. Uncle G 15:34:31, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Del Playa[edit]

Non notable street. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you've ever been to this historical landmark roadway sdhiit!it you'd think again. This article is legitimate. - DA MF REGULATORThis user has 2 total edits, both to this VfD Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not sure about notability so I shall vote delete for now pending a major rewrite/cleanup. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:37, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete whatever little encyclopedic content is here is already covered in Isla Vista, California. No redirect, for "Del Playa" as a place name is surely not unique to beautiful Isla Vista, whatever its hard-partying students might think. CDC (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Carnildo 23:20, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Group nbt[edit]

It seems to be an advertisment for a company scope_creep 22:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: advertisement.-Poli (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • Copyvio, so I've tagged and bagged it. If it gives a website that it came from, it probably came from that website, so doesn't usually need to come here. -Splash 01:24, 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 No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 01:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Toon Zone[edit]

Non notable, just another webforum, also appears to be unencyclopedic and very POV. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - The whole "notable members" thing started out as a joke that got carried away. Plus, this article's been here for a while without being nominated for deletion. Plus, Toon Zone is not just another webforum. It's where most people go for reliable animation news, not to mention information from professionals themselves. --Beau99 22:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Alexa rank 15,900. Google gives 900 inbound links, Google groups gives 3500 hits. Forums seem very active for their size: 18,000 registered users, 7000 of them "active", 150 visiting the site in the last 15 minutes. --Carnildo 23:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is hardly encyclopedic. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was prepared to vote keep on this, so I went to Google to find information to bolster my vote, but found that, although Google says there are "about 53,600" hits, it turns out that, in fact, there are only 28 unique hits, and, of those, except for Wikipedia there are only 7 sites which mention "Toon Zone" which are not toonzone.net -- and one of those is toonzone.com.au. There are, however, many more hits on Yahoo! search. Over 1000 hits from Yahoo!, which is the limit that Yahoo! returns. Therefore, I vote Keep. John Barleycorn 04:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I forgot to check yahoo search, I've become too accustomed to using google for searching for everything, thanks for reminding me to use more than search engine when checking links, even though I don't agree that a fair number of links on a search engine equals notability. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 07:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Good point, but Toon Zone's forum has many active members (right now, 6,983), and 232 people have visited it in the last 15 minutes. Not to mention they have animation professionals (voice actors, producers, etc.) go there from time to time. Wouldn't that be notable to you? --Beau99 14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT its my fault i did this please dont delete it. Its IMO the greatest website ever!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Roberts[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "patent nonsense", but it doesn't fit the definition; it's perfectly understandable, but seems to be a bad hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete if it isn't patent nonsense, it's very close. Surely an article in which every single word is untrue counts as vandalism anyway. And if Gus Roberts is a real person, making him sound like some sort of crazy James Bond villian makes this an attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete bordering on patent nonsense, if it isn't that then it's a hoax article, and if it isn't even that then it would at least fall under original research. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:CSD clearly states that the patent nonsense criterion is "text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent (e.g. random characters)", which I interpret as meaning of the "fhghgfh" or "atomic radar is good yumyum" variety. This, however, is coherent and has meaning; the meaning just happens to be 100% fictional. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, but sometimes when something is (by Wikipedia terminology) a hoax (ie. complete fiction), in everyday language we'd habitually call it nonsense, which causes confusion sometimes. --TheMidnighters 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wtf? Someone's imagination? Nice new nickname for my cat, though: Mr. Fluffybottom. --Etacar11 23:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly. Sorry, it asserts notability and is no nonsense. No other way. --Dmcdevit·t 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as clear fiction or original research. Sounds like Dr Evil. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crush by sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads. android79 01:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and wonder how on Earth that got through the new CSD. -Splash 01:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fer fuck's sake someone speedy this thing already. Obvious vandalism. I'd love to see someone embarass themselves by bringing it to VfU. -R. fiend 02:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally nominated it for Speedy using the definition of nonsense: Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head nor tail of it. I suppose a slow delete works too... just, er, slower. --Alan Au 04:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an underused definition of patent nonsense; a lot of the time it is cited as having to be specifically unintelligible when the criterion is slightly broader than that. However, few are the articles which it iss impossible to make "head [n]or tail of" which are not also unintelligible; it also unclear, to me at least, how we are to interpret the vernacular phrasing. I wonder if this kind of article would be a good test-case: delete it right now on those grounds, deliberately take it to VfU on grounds that it is not patent nonsense and see what happens. Might be a WP:POINT, though. -Splash 04:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously untrue claims like the one in this article could rightly be speedily deleted as vandalism, but many people are uncomfortable with this, for some reason. Usually it takes a bold admin to just come and wipe it out. (That would definitely be a WP:POINT, BTW. If this legitimately ended up at VfU after a speedy, well, that'd be rather amusing.) android79 04:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but not speedy. This is obvious Fiction or Hoax, but not speedyable under the current CSD. I have no problem "making head or tail" of it. In fact if the firest sentance were changed to "In the james-bond-like novel Dr SoandSo the character Gus Roberts..." I'll bet it would have a consenssus to keep (assuming that such a novel existed). If this were speedy deleted unde the present rules I would be inclined to put it on VfU. The CSD should not be streached or bent, IMO. DES 14:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say this is an obvious hoax – a joke article. Joke articles are categorized as vandalism. Vandalism is speediable under criterion A3. android79 14:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is an interesting idea. But I don't see anything on the vandalism. page that says that a hoax is a type of vandalism, although it might be implied on the grounds that it is a bad-faith edit. However I would be opposed to making (or considering) a hoax as a reson for speedy deletion , because there ar too many false positives. i have seen several articles nominted for VfD listed as "hoax" where it turns out thet they are accurate but unusual. For example, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth Foulstar where someone incorrectly thought the page might be a hoax. Too many pages are inaccurately identified as hoaxes for this to be a safe reason for speedy deletion -- let them come to VfDF where several people can give vbiews, and if somehting is infact not a hoax, a citation will no doubt be provided. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That said, I would not object to a new reason for speedy deletion the specified using wikipedia to publish fiction, which i think might cover this case, but I don't think that A3 as currently written will cover that. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I will point discussion on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion at this page so more people can consider with pages like this are or ought to be speedy candidates, with is really not relevant to whether thsi particular page shoulod eb dleted via the VfD process, as I trust it will. DES 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Wikipedia:Vandalism: Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense. That's what this is, aside from the "plausible" part. "Gus Roberts is known as the most dangerous person in the history of the world" is patently ridiculous, a far cry from the example you cite. android79 18:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
          • I see your point, and I missed that phrase. I agree that this case is far more obvious that the one I cited, or than most hoaxes. A clear "joke" article probably does constitute vandalism, at least it is arguable. But I would not want that used on things labeled "hoaxes" for fear of the kind of situations i discuss above. I raised this point on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Hoaxes and Fiction, care to comment there? DES 18:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The thing is, unchecked fiction is frequently indistinguishable from a hoax, so it makes sense to put it before a greater number of eyes to determine the proper course of action. — Gwalla | Talk 06:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete using the big red "smite" button. — RJH 19:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 08:30, 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✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chermak[edit]

Delete ad/spam --Etacar11 22:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete made me want to visit, but, unfortunatly, it's advertisement.-Poli (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  • Comment, while this article is a clear delete, the word gets 17000 Google hits. I suspect there may exist a disambiguation page for this. -Splash 01:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The word is English transcription of common Czech surname Čermák, hence the popularity. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:30, 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✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cathe Jones[edit]

Clearly a multi-talented person, but no evidence that she's notable at any of the things described. Strictly local work as a stand-up comedian, and no published books. CDC (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nnanity, getting only 20 useful Google hits, with Wiki and mirrors filtered out. -Splash 01:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autobiographical article, judging by the history. May become notable when her book gets out. But not yet notable. Reluctant delete. — RJH 19:29, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superhobo[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "huh?". Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 22:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is borderline nonsense --malathion talk 23:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. Flowerparty talk 23:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Flowerparty. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:56:37 Z
  • Delete second that "huh?" Nonsense. --Etacar11 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense. —PrologFan {Talk} 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possible hoax, possible attack on "Setanta McKenna" whoever that is, and nn if about that person coz their names scores zero on Google. -Splash 01:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Author and his friend Freeq have done nothing but added nonsense to Wikipedia. jni 09:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:31, 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✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isajeep[edit]

Neologism at best -- a phrase popularized by a questionably notable message board is not worthy of an article. 

gren 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above explanation is at best a lie and at worst, censorship based in political correctness. At the very least, a simple definition and explanation of origin should remain.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mia's Main Index[edit]

No evidence that this is a notable web site; in fact, it looks like it's just a sub-area of a larger site. Website advertising. CDC (talk) 22:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not even an attempt to establish notability. --TheMidnighters 00:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, hasn't even got its own domain. -Splash 01:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No relavence in this website. Moved for deletion. --Ikariotter 15:06, 26 July 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica bay riding academy[edit]

Non-notable business. CDC (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn horse business vanity. --TheMidnighters 00:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, since they only get 180ish unique Googles. However, this is the sort of thing that Google can mistake: I wonder if it could be small, but notable in its thing? -Splash 01:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and a thinly disguised advertisement. --Maustrauser 05:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it reads like an advertisement so that could be why it was created. Not notable from what information is provided. Vegaswikian 05:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn advertising. JamesBurns 08:33, 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✉ 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Boone's Left Hand of God and Cotton Incubus Night[edit]

Probably non-notable, and certainly unverifiable play. I know Google is not the final arbitar but cf. [16] --Doc (?) 23:02, 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, article has been redirected -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Device[edit]

  • Delete-There is not enough information about this to make a full article, therefore this would be considered Stargate-cruft. The entry on the technology page that links to it is alright. If you cannot think of any other "healing device" then this has to go.--Zxcvbnm 23:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hand Device. JamesBurns 06:52, 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 keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abersee[edit]

Small part of a town of 3500 people. Not notable, not even easily redirectable since there is no hook in the town article to mention that a part of the town is called abersee without imo sounding silly. --Tagishsimon (talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Tony SidawayTalk 11:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smeggy[edit]

Single character in a probably nonexistent ([0 Google hits]) video game. Vanity article? Spam? Who knows? Who cares? -- MrBland 23:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No google hits, never heard of it, vaguely biological title. (ewwww..) Fernando Rizo T/C 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red Dwarf Smeg. Flowerparty talk 00:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. —PrologFan {Talk} 01:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Smeg (I'd expected a Red Dwarf reference)? That's pretty weak, though, so I'll go with poke it while saying "Small", if that's the flow of things. -Splash 01:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, I'll go with a redirect to smeg instead. The word, "smeggy", does appear on the Red Dwarf article somewhere, and it's probably the only place it'll ever turn up. However... Flowerparty talk 01:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 08:35, 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✉ 00:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepfister[edit]

Tagged for speedy as "band vanity", which isn't a valid reason, though I wouldn't mind if it was. Anyway, this is band vanity, and should go, though I do like the names of some of the bands mentioned. Delete CDC (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 00:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. —PrologFan {Talk} 01:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Add back once they've achieved some notoriety. Pburka 01:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, their only known 'release' contained 3 songs and lasted under 5 minutes. Nothing on allmusic.com either. They 'king suck, just as the article says. -Splash 01:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proof of compliance to WP:MUSIC is presented.-Poli (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2005 July 28 (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. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India Joy Eisley[edit]

Can't verify this - and don't look notable in any case. 11 year-old girl - daughter of actress Olivia Hussey (that's verifiable). She has alledgedly had a part in a movie now in pre-production, but IMDB does not credit her - and would that be notable anyway. --Doc (?) 23:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of any notable acting roles CDC (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Olivia Hussey Sonic Mew | talk to me 23:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK but her existence is already noted there - and everything else is unverified at present --Doc (?) 00:07, 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. – ABCD✉ 00:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwonka[edit]

Did you ever consider that you were becoming a neologism? --Doc (?) 00:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism. --TheMidnighters 00:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism... Though could get promoted to a dictdef, if it sticks... But a delete nonetheless.Gblaz 01:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. —PrologFan {Talk} 01:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nnneologism that is also misspelt. It would be a wikiwonk, given the 'etymology', or a wikiwonker. -Splash 01:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 08:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism... could be recreated in Wikipedia namespace, together with Wikignome or something.-Poli (talk • contribs) 03:11, 2005 July 28 (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 nomination removed due to clean up -- Francs2000 | Talk 12:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New music[edit]

Delete nn neologism. Even states that it is a "still-in-progress term." Effectively impossible to google, so I can't tell if it is widely used, but... Icelight 00:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY REDIRECTED, but not by me. Splash 17:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Minuteman project[edit]

I believe that this article (The Minuteman project) has a bunch of issues. Someone considered merging it with the Minuteman Project, which is a different page. (Also, note "The Minuteman Project" with a capital P redirecits to Minuteman Project),

  • As some of you know, and as you can see on Minuteman Project, it was a group of American citizens that began in 2005 opposing illegal immigration
  • The article at The Minuteman project starts talking about a "Minuteman Project" as a group of "American farmers" opposing illegall immigration.
  • It says that "The group became infamous during 2000, as The Neighborhood Watch Ranch". When I searched "Neighborhood Watch Ranch" in Google, I found no results outside of Wikipedia/related articles.
  • I could not verify any of the other information about the alleged illegal activities of such a group.
  • The article then jumps to the 2005 T-Shirt incident. This seems to be talking about the recently created "Minuteman Project" as written in Minuteman Project.
  • The reference link at the bottom of the page only talks about the Minuteman Project in 2005, it makes no mention whatsoever of a 2000 group called "The Neighborhood Watch Ranch" or any similar activities.
  • The article is laden with extreme POV and unsourced accusations.
  • In conclusion, I think that most of the The Minuteman project page is a complete fabrication made up to slander the Minuteman Project. The 2005 t-shirt incident is the only information with sources to back it up, and it's already covered in Minuteman Project
  • The Minuteman project should not be merged with Minuteman Project as requested by a user.

--Ar57 00:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appears to be either a POV fork or an accidental duplication. Either way, the claims made aren't referenced, and I can't find anything on Google, either. The Minuteman Project presents a good POV description of this group, AFAICT. If there's any verifiable, useful info in this article (which I doubt), merge it into The Minuteman Project; otherwise, Delete. android79 00:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Err, yeah, I meant Redirect. Really, I did. (Although delete-and-recreate-as-redirect wouldn't be a bad idea, either.) android79 01:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Minuteman Project, appears to be a dupe. —PrologFan {Talk} 01:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the above page, since it is a duplication. Plus, these guys and other protesters are in my area now, so I heard a lot of what they want to do and what they have done so far. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not sure why this needed a VfD. Pburka 01:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, pretty clearly. -Splash 01:42, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_25&oldid=1081092179"