Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 26 July 28 >

July 27[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 REDIRECT. There is no consensus to delete, and among those retaining the article, there is consensus to redirect. -Splash 01:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trafficking[edit]

Dictionary definition. Topic is already be covered in smuggling, illegal drugs trade, etc. - Centrx 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to smuggling. Article is not encyclopedic as is, but it's possible someone could find value in a redirect. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Blu. Mmmbeer 23:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested. Antley 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is trafficking? Is it forced prostitution? Drug smuggling? Gun running? Yes and no. It’s a term increasingly used but often to one thing or another. The term is not widely understood. For example, people trafficking is not the same a people smuggling. --Chwyatt
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Joyous (talk) 16:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Peluca[edit]

Peluca is just a short film that has no potential of becoming a full article and it is just a stub.

  • Redirect and merge to Napoleon Dynamite. --SuperDude 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a short film is not a grounds for deletion, we have others, and this one is certainly notable, spawning that movie. Keep. CanadianCaesar 22:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I learned something by visiting this page, and that in itself should call for retension. KeeP. [Bencejoful] 10:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As mentioned, various other short films are on wikipedia and it is too distinct from Napoleon Dynamite to be merged. -- Judson 03:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Distinct from Napoleon Dynamite, although it would be nice if we could make it a little longer. Karmafist 16:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gopalapuram[edit]

Not notable. It's a locality in Chennai. The only fact that is at least distantly notable is that M. Karunanidhi has his residence there. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've copyedited the article a bit now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all real places with real communities of interest including Indian villages. Capitalistroadster 10:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above. Agentsoo 10:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real locality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously Lectonar 13:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the presumption that this can ever be more than a stub. I have no idea whether this is a sizable neighborhood or just a local name for a particular intersection. Robert A West 14:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 10:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Bible and homosexuality[edit]

Hopelessly POV article, laid out in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic US vs. THEM style. Subject is already addressed at Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and Judaism, and numerous other locations.

  • Delete ~~~~ 00:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' but article needs desperately to be cleaned up. Contains some interesting information the other articles mentioned do not have. Antley 00:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. --Vizcarra 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Homosexuality and Christianity --malathion talk 01:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Can't merge with Homosexuality and Christianity because the size of the article is already large. . This article was already a section from Homosexuality and Christianity, so the topics are not the same.
    • It is a WE vs. THEM article because both sides use the bible to justify their views and as long as each "we" and "them" are sourced, it is not POV. --Vizcarra 01:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The material is valid, albeit POV. The real problem is the pro/anti structure, which isn't standard Wikipedia practice. Binadot 01:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Gateman1997 01:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can..? we delete the bible itself? that would be nice--172.163.188.163 01:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What is wrong with the redirect? ~~~~ 23:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Duplicate material is either for deletion or redirection. I have serious trouble with the very idea, however, of The Bible and homosexuality, as it implies that the Bible as a whole can be said to have a view on "homosexuality," which is a 19th century cultural construction. Further, everything in this is "uses of the Bible by proponents and opponents of homosexual intercourse." If no passage in the Bible says "homosexual," and none does, then everything is interpretation, and therefore the subject is really "what people say is sanctioned by passages in the Bible." Geogre 17:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term homosexual does not exist in the Bible, but it does reference homosexuals ith both the Old Testament and the New Testament (as the article explains). The fact that you an educated man think that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality whenit does explains the need for the article. However, condemnation is up to interpretation, I agree. But it cannot be denied how big of an issue it is with governments allowing gay marriages and religious groups condemning it because it is unnatural according to the Bible. There is a need for an article that discusses (or at least lists) the verses of the Bible they refer to. Otherwise the Homosexuality and Christianity, Homosexuality and Judaism, the godhatesfags.com articles (and several others) should be removed as well.
I largely agree with Geogre, but I still think that, since many people believe the bible discusses this topic it merits an article. That article, I think, should include the fact that the whole discussion is comparing ancient writings with a modern day cultural construct. I don't think that fact invalidates the article though. As the unsigned person says this is debated even at the governmental level, and providing a resource to help people more intelligently discuss the topic is valid in my opinion. I am not retracting my statement that the article needs a complete rewrite though. cohesion | talk 18:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, my point is that same-sex sexual acts are discussed, somewhat, in the Bible, but it takes interpretation to even make that so. On the other hand, "homosexuality" is a construct (the idea of a life-long same-sex pairing) and derives largely from a clinical setting. We're dealing with apples and shotguns, here. It's quite true that governments and shrill folks are speaking of The Bible as having something to say on the issue, but, honestly, I see that as addressed elsewhere already. E.g. the fundamentalist attack on homosexuality is discussed in the Christianity and article, while Judaic disquiet is in that article. I.e. the "what they say about them" is already covered in the various 'they' articles. Other than that, there really isn't a need to offer up a prescriptive group of prooftexts for folks. Geogre 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this article is not "what they say about them" but "what the bible says about them" which has affected how christians (and societies of christian majorities and even organizations like "the boy scouts") think of homosexuality (and same-sex marriage, and adoption by homosexuals, etc.). This article is supposed to be a collection of the verses that talk about same-sex relationship (whether they are sexual or long-term non-sexual). Christians are being accused everywhere of bigotry when the Bible itself talks about same-sex relationships. Homosexuals are attacked everywhere when the Bible may not even condemn explicitly their relationships. This article is supposed to show the foundation of the positions. --Vizcarra 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup for reasons already listed. --Idont Havaname 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously valid topic, somewhat different from main article, and balanced, even if not in standard format. CanadianCaesar 20:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge if needed, but in it's current form very little is encyclopedic - and if people want to know the underlying question (does the Bible condemn homosexuals), they should 'read the Bible'. Wikipedia is not a priest. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. extremely NPOV nearly completely unreferenced and already covered, I don't think it is worth cleaning up. Pandaman
  • Keep This is a break out article, and should neither be deleted nor, due to its size, should it be merged. CalJW 21:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV essay; topic presented in an unnacceptable manner, it tries to break down the issue as pro-gay or anti-gay. (hate edit conflicts) -- Joolz 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A horrible article, for all the above reasons. However it seems to have been spun off from Homsexuality and Christianity, presumaby to keep the size down, and certainly there needs to be some coverage of this subject. So 'keep, with enormous misgivings, and please cleanup. DJ Clayworth 21:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a bad essay. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre. Also, even with "two sides" represented 50-50, the article will still violate NPOV by its representation of this issue as a simple dichotomy, presenting an "Anti-homosexual view" and a "Pro-homosexual view". / Alarm 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think that there are more than two views, then I suggest that you add them to the article in separate sections. --Idont Havaname 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork. Also as per Geogre. JFW | T@lk 23:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Poorly-written article whose material is covered elsewhere in WP. Giddytrace 00:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't merge and delete, as it violates the GFDL. Merging requires we keep the redirect. -Splash 00:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This smells of being a POV fork. -Splash 00:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Represents pro & anti POV reasonably fairly. Geogre is wrong to say the Bible has no view, and it is clearly an important and topical issue. I am somewhat sympathetic to saying it is a false dichotomy, but it is a useful presentation that should be cleaned up, not deleted. --CJeynes62.252.0.4 00:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs a much expanded introduction, explaining that these are all modern arguments, and it probably needs a new title as well—something like "The Bible and homosexuality—modern views" or some such title, with the current title remaining as a redirect. Each of the sections also should be further expanded, but this being a Wiki, that will happen with time. BlankVerse ∅ 15:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep but really needs merge or vast rewrite. Yeah, I'm feeling bi today. The idea here is OK, it could be informative, but boy!(girl?) are there problems. What is "pro homosexual" anyway? The article shouldn't be just quotes or weak statements: Bobo X:11 says "men screwing men is bad!" "No it's not." There need to be actual quotes from biblical scholars (not politicians) saying "this passage condemns this behavior" or "this passage has been misinterpreted to push discrimination." Wish I had the balls...uh, guts...to wade deeply into this mess. DavidH 23:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand An important article that can serve everyone's ends. The pros and the cons have their say, and those in-between get mightily informed. I scanned it briefly and found it very interesting, even enlightening. I have no problem with the pro-and-con layout, I think it works very well. For those who think it is too polarized, perhaps we can add a neutral viewpoint which may, in time, emerge as the backbone of the article. So, fix, but under no circumstances delete. Haiduc 01:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I did considerable amounts of work on Christian views on homosexuality, while it was still alive. To be honest, now that I've grown up a bit, I think it's a bit wasteful. Wikipedia is a place to get information. It's not a place to get converted, it's not a place to listen to the latest arguments for or agaist a certain Christian point, et cetera. The topic is almost never given proper citations and references, and, largely, they are the opinions of Wikipedia users. Wikipedia should not be cataloging all of the scripture used to make a point or not to make a point; it should link to the people making the points. They can cite their own scripture, and do their own apologetics, however they please. If this page remains, I would like to see it reduced to a list of citations, possibly with included text, with each quote followed by a link to a non-wikipedia site, and that's it. Since there's no consensus, Wikipedia shouldn't jump to conclusions, and Wikipedia definitely need not present the arguments that prevent a consensus. 128.253.110.167 03:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - it's a POV fork of Christian views on homosexuality. Merge any useful material (virtually none IMO) into that article. Insofar as useful discussion of individual passages takes too much space for that article, create individual articles, as already is the case for Leviticus 18. Rd232 16:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and cleanup. The POV problems can be fixed. This is encyclopedic and noteworthy: these issues constitute a huge amount of the public debate on the subject. This is the sort of information that needs to be in Wikipedia. Nightwatch／respond 22:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional clinical labs[edit]

Delete WP:Not an advertising tool--Zxcvbnm 00:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete advertising/spam ~~~~ 00:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure if this is a popular lab, but even if it is, this article isn't need unless more significant information is added. Antley 00:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete written like an ad, and no notability established. --TheMidnighters 01:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spam. the wub "?/!" 08:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement and for reasons of non-notability. --DrTorstenHenning 15:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising and misleading title. Mmmbeer 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pintele Yid 18:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Alex.tan 03:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Herbal[edit]

Delete. Started as wikispam. Has been toned down, but it's a non-notable company. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 00:14, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Creede Silver Strike[edit]

Delete. This is nothing but an ad for QVC.Gateman1997 00:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Antley 00:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Gazpacho 01:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Eclipsed 04:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement. Weak delete. One might consider that this is a "television show" (or a "special") on the QVC channel, and that television shows are notable and encyclopedic. However, in its current state it is advertising, and reads like it. I'm not sure that anyone (besides those with a ve$ted intere$t in the program) would go to the trouble to rewrite this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • More advertising from QVC. However, the introductory bit about the discovery of silver at Creede, Colorado seems to be lacking at the page on the town, although apparently fundamental to its existence, and Nicholas C. Creede would also be worth an article (see [1].) Move this to Talk:Creede, Colorado, remove the ad part (=most of the article) and merge the rest with Creede, Colorado. --Uppland 05:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, changed my mind... we might as well get rid of this completely along with the rest of the QVC garbage posted by User:Denim&Co., and hope somebody else will add the silver mining history of Creede from better sources. Uppland 03:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Uppland. the wub "?/!" 09:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pintele Yid 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPOV and Advert Pigeonshouse 18:22, 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✉ 23:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghpness[edit]

non-notable double entendre. DS 00:28, 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✉ 23:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolateyness[edit]

Delete nn website (less than a month old). TheMidnighters 01:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just advertising of a non-notable website. Fbergo 01:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the most pointless thing I've ever seen. It's non-notable, and its a waste of an article. --Mjvan12 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, I've seen many things a great deal more pointless. Delete, though (and if we could somehow prevent the page creator from deleting the VfD notice, that'd be lovely). DS 02:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Eclipsed 04:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website, extlinks to it don't actually work. the wub "?/!" 09:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Website vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and in the meantime stop them removing the notice. Rob Church 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pintele Yid 18:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Free ad for a non notable. Moriori 23:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising.Alex.tan 03:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. The disposition of content should be worked out by discussion, but there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff[edit]

Users are attempting to remove information from the article so that they do not have to discuss it on the bio page.

This entry should be deleted and the content remain in the Harry Magdoff article with talk remaining there as well. --TJive 01:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. If there is going to be an edit war over these ridiculous allegations, it's better that it be on this page then mucking up Harry Magdoff's web page. I should note that a Google search for "Magdoff", "Venona" and "Kant" (Magdoff's supposed Venona secret spy name) yields four results currently. One is Wikipedia. One is a white supremacist site. One is John Earl Haynes web site - Haynes is a far right author who makes accusations of Soviet espionage by name of hundreds of US Democrats and liberals, never mind people to the left of them. As I said - a Google search turns this up as the fringiest of fringe things, yet they want to fill up three quarters of Magdoff's article with these fringe accusations that he is a Soviet spy. I should note User:Nobs01 is editing the Wikipedia articles for half of the liberals and Democrats in the early/mid twentieth century and accusing them of being spies. Keep this article, Nobs01's fringe conspiracy theories do not deserve to take up 1/2 to 3/4 of Harry Magdoff's article. Ruy Lopez 02:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that Ruy's faux objections here have been duly refuted at the aforementioned talk page long ago. --TJive 02:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just to give a sample of where Ruy Lopez is coming from, his far right author works for the Library of Congress - which is hardly a log shack full of people in white sheets. Noel (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC) PS: Haynes' books are published by Yale University - hardly a right-wing think tank. Noel (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge nobs 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Theory that accuses the United States government of conspiring against Harry Magdoff should be on the Magdoff bio page.[reply]
  • Delete. Just in case that wasn't clear. The article title is also POV. Merge. For clarity. --TJive 02:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Gamaliel 02:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is verifiable with Harry Magdoff.Capitalistroadster 02:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that there's no agreement on what's "verifiable", other than the original source documents. Ruy refuses, for example, to even concede that the "Magdoff" mentioned in the VENONA decrypts is this Magdoff, so you can't say "he was mentioned in VENONA", you basically have to give the decrypt as released by the NSA. Noel (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable material to Harry Magdoff; sort out the wheat from chaff on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Magdoff article. Rangerdude 02:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all content to Harry Magdoff, don't create POV forks. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Magdoff article. ObsidianOrder 04:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until discussion is settled Note that instead of waiting for the outcome of this vote that TJive initiated, the material being debated was unilaterally merged back into the main article, where it now forms the largest block of text on a biography page. --Cberlet 12:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I have now found misrepresentation of the underlying documents cited to justify the conspiracy claims made against Magdoff. See the talk page.--Cberlet 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cberlet, you are the one who unilaterally moved all of the text from the main article to a POV fork without consensus and without even asking anyone's thoughts; I was simply correcting this move. It was already the largest section (by text) on the page when you got there. The reason being the section was challenged factually so we backed it up in the most concise manner possible. Also, this page is not for the purpose of debating the merits of the claims but whether this page as it is should exist. --TJive 18:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cberlet. 172 | Talk 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until discussion is settled Viajero | Talk 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but renameDithering. This material is way too lengthy to put in the Magdoff article; if he was a source, it was a relatively minor episode in his overall career, and putting all this stuff in his article is poor stylistically - it needs to be in a separate article. (I would suggest something like Harry Magdoff spying controversy.) It has to be covered at length, alas, because this whole issue of whether or not Magdoff was a source for the Golos network is apparently a bete noire for those on the left, which has resulted in this becoming a big go-round. It seems that to simply say "he was a source" is deemed unacceptable (although all reputable historians of the period of whom I am aware now agree he was one), but the inclusion of material from offical archives, excerpts from sworn legal depositions, etc is harder to question, so that has become the default path. As such, it's necessary to extensively cite all the relevant documents (VENONA decrypts, Comintern archives, etc), and as I explained, that sort of lengthy material is not appropriate for his main article. Noel (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I think about it, whether this page is encyclopaedic, well, I'm somewhat dubious - it's really a bit too detailed; this is really devolving into a level of detail where it's more like a journal article on the issue at this point, giving all the original sources - not really encyclopaedic. On the other hand, given lack of a consensus to say in the main article what contemporary secondary sources say flatly (that he was a "source"), I don't know what to do. Noel (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I totally agree that the main article should indicate that several published sources stat flatly that Magdoff was used as a source of information by the KGB, as long as there is also text that explores the dispute over what that actually means. For too long the large amount of text and illusrations were designed to imply that Magdoff was a Soviet spy. That was just unfair.--Cberlet 16:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge--MONGO 20:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge POV fork. Ultramarine 20:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until dispute settled Well researched article and should not even be called 'conspiracy allegations', but 'espionage allegations'. A good title would be 'Harry Magdoff - Espionage Allegations'. I wouldn't call it a controversy until we have another side to the issue. It simply documents the allegations based on solid secondary research. In any case, the article is convoluted and off-topic as I see it with the main article and so it probably should not be merged with the main article unless consensus says otherwise. Cyferx 21:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dwain 22:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until discussion is settled. Per Cberlet. El_C 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somehow I doubt this is going to be settled anytime before the next coming. Some people consider any mention of this McCarthyism of the worst sort, others think it's basically proven that he was a source (note, not a "spy" - "source" is a quite different thing). Hard to see any way for those two point of views to co-exist. Noel (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Magdoff has no claim whatsover to being a "victim of McCarthyism"; there should be no reference whatsover to Joseph McCarthy or McCarthysim on either page. That clearly has been been demonstrated to be POV now. nobs 17:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop making demands that privilege your point of view and try to find a reasonable compromise on the Talk page. Jeez!. Be constructive. --Cberlet 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MergeTDC 17:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge UNless there's good reason to separate them, seems to be a duplication. Coqsportif 02:30, 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 16:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies featuring May-December romances[edit]

Delete. Dubious definition SD6-Agent 01:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Kill it with fire. Redwolf24 01:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Set aside the issue of the slang in the title, the intro even says such romances are "ubiquitous" in pre-1950s movies... which makes the list nigh unmaintainable. Beyond that, there's the issue of "What positive contribution does this make to Wikipedia?" I believe the answer to that question is "none." The Literate Engineer 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This type of list entry is of considerable value to screenwriters, aspiring screenwriters, critical theory students, film buffs, etc. The entry, however, could use some work, both in content and formatting. As far as "positive contributions to Wikipedia" -- Wiki is a reference tool. Wiki has at least 162 movie list entries, based on the category link in the article. How is this list entry less relevant than the other 161 film-list entries? David Hoag 05:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't believe any of the 162 film-list entries make a positive contribution. 162 articles that actually said something about 162 categorizations of movies would be a positive contribution. 162 lists, though, are just 162 wastes of server space. The Literate Engineer 06:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree. Lists like this are valuable to film professionals. Comparative archetypes are very valuable, but it can take a long time to create such lists. There are actually books of "movie lists" used by film writers; however, those books are quickly outdated. A list of romantic comedies, for example, is arguably of greater value than a list of Oscar-winners. The latter is simply a laundry list. Wiki has episode lists for many popular television shows. Are they worthless or valuable? Wiki has lists of first basemen. Shortstops. Name the position in sports and there's a Wiki list for them. Is that worthless or valuable. Just because something may not be of interest or value to you doesn't mean it's not of value to someone else. I could care less about seeing a list of forty famous shortstops; however, that doesn't render the list of no value. David Hoag 06:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless and unmaintainable list. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, makes a valuable contribution to wikipedia by enabling users to find movies featuring May-December romances. I can't believe how little deletionists seem to care the ability of people to actually use wikipedia for research. Kappa 06:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See nothing wrong with this. Unwieldy length doesn't seem a valid reason for deletion. Agentsoo 10:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For my part, I can't believe the eagerness of my learned friend Kappa (two votes above) to look on the bright side of any article. Look, if we're going to have an article like this with a metaphorical title, the need for an immediate explanation of that title should ring alarm bells -- a metaphor should help explanation, no? But OK, let's not argue against the notion of a year-cycle metaphor (or complain of "hemispherism"), but instead examine how it's applied. December: this isn't the coldest month in the northern hemisphere, but it's the one with the winter solstice, and all the leaves have been shed by many trees. When I think of a May-December romance, I think of the pneumatic Anna Nicole Smith and her wizened nonagenarian (Image:Anna_Nicole_and_hubby.JPG). In movie terms, I'll stretch that a bit and count Harold and Maude. But Roman Holiday? I suggest that one important issue might be whether the age difference is one that raises eyebrows (or worse) within the fantasy world of the movie itself: by contrast, when we coolly consider Cary Grant's late films, his successes with the chicks may seem somewhat surprising, but within the films, they don't. Lists of the usual are impossibly big; this must list the unusual. So what's the unusual factor here: age differences that raise other characters' hackles within the movies, or age differences that improbably don't even raise eyebrows within the movies, or something else again? At this point, I'm inclined to vote "delete", but I'd be happy to see and vote to keep a carefully rethought list. -- Hoary 10:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 10:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is the kind of list that can only happen on wikipedia :-) . Wikipedia is not paper. Kim Bruning 12:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It might come in useful...although Hoary is kind of right; but then it's not the list that may be up for deletion, but (some) of it's contents Lectonar 13:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but change the title to May-December romance, define and then list movies having that attribute. Mmmbeer 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per mmmbeer. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pintele Yid 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mildly interesting although I am a little queasy about the possibility of a POV motive behind it. Do not like the title. I think the list ought to indicate the approximate ages of the characters involved. I want to put a stake in the ground saying that whatever the outcome we definitely do not need one hundred and thirty-one other articles on May-November romances, July-March romances, October-June romances, etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable list. If it's kept, someone please rename it. --Tothebarricades 20:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: First, it violates the naming convention, as we must use the most common name. Second, it is a list that cannot be maintained. Third, it is inherently POV, which kills lists dead. Why inherently POV? Well, if I date a woman 10 years my junior, and I'm 40, is that May-December? What if it's 20 years, and I'm 50? What if it's 20, and I'm 30? At what point is this a May-December relationship? The metaphor refers to death's-edge and youth's-bloom (i.e. Harold and Maude), and yet the list gleefully flops all over. I can never believe the inclusionist trolls who are so injuried in their personal egos that they cannot tolerate anyone asking for quality in articles. Geogre 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're 30 and dating a woman 20 years your junior, you really need to get your judgement checked. --Carnildo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, unmaintainable list. --Carnildo 23:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is a list of films that feature relationships where one party is older than the other? What's the point in that? Although I agree that the topic might be worth discussion, a list is not, in this case, the correct way to go about it. Why does this list exist when we don't even have a May-December romance [it's a redirect] article? Flowerparty talk 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It probably needs to be cleaned up, but could be useful for research and discussion . Giddytrace 00:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re name. Googling to see if I could find the origin of the phrase "May-December," I found www.maydecember.net, a "dating service for individuals seeking age-gap relationships." The home page shows... what would you say? A man in his seventies and a woman in her fifties? The slogan is (gack) "Years apart, coming together." Well, the Internet is always educational. So should this be moved to List of movies featuring age-gap relationships? You know, I don't believe I want to sign this comment... Not me, no way 02:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment: arguably "May-December romances" is more in the common vernacular than "age-gap relationships." The latter sounds like a rather contortionistic euphemism. David Hoag 15:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikipedia is not toilet paper. And I thought from the title that a "May-December romance" meant a romance that lasted 8 months. So this also has a stupid title, and therefore if it does (sadly) get kept (more listcruft), the title has to be changed. Proto t c 11:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to a less misleading definition, maybe like "age-gap relationships". --Vizcarra 22:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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✉ 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation 4[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete complete speculation. I don't think it qualifies for speedy (?). TheMidnighters 02:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nominator reasoning. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... --Mjvan12 02:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe this would qualify for speedy.--Kross 02:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No meaningful content and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Pagrashtak 02:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. K1Bond007 03:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — JIP | Talk 05:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A waste of space err memory. Srcrowl 05:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the obvious reasons. - Thatdog 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation. JamesBurns 10:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no please!--April12 10:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a tad premature jamesgibbon 12:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reminds me of Ali G's claim that he had the original idea of Playstation 2, because when the first one was released he said they should make a new one that's even better. -R. fiend 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or we'll have the XBOX 540 articles, the GamePyramid and god knows what else. Rob Church 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - short article with little or no context, and speculation. --Idont Havaname 19:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as pure vandalism and speculation stub. --SuperDude 22:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Will the article remain in this state for the next 5 years? Perhaps. - Longhair | Talk 03:52, 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 no consensus to delete. Joyous (talk) 19:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

DINO Attack[edit]

Individual LEGO sets are non notable. humblefool® 02:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is about a line of sets, not a single set. Weak keep if expanded. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems notable. And we still have quite a bit of not paper left, so keep for now. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 06:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs work, but definite keep. Agentsoo 10:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - verifiable and it is about a whole range. Needs expansion though -- Lochaber 11:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Ashmodai 12:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do notability established. SYSS Mouse 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Legocruft. I doubt any expansion is possible. --Carnildo 23:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I had to restore the vfd tag on this. What is a "fictional toyline"? Do these things exist as genuine, real-world, plastic lego or do they only exist on the website? If the former, keep, if the latter, delete. Flowerparty talk 00:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found [2], which would appear to suggest they exist but are not widely available. I'm in the UK, where Lego remains 'popular', and I'm unable to buy it according to the site. I think the article is just confused about a lego set having a fictional story line to it, and being actually fictional. -Splash 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm inclined to think we only need articles on the 'notable' Lego lines e.g. Lego Technic, not all of them. Do not merge to Lego since that does not currently detail the minutiae of each line that has been produced. -Splash 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some individual Lego sets are notable (mmm, Super Car). Lego lines are also non-cruffty. Almafeta 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just restored the vfd tag a second time; it was absent for two days. Flowerparty talk 21:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sasquatch. I had to restore the vfd tag a third time, btw. Punkmorten 09:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the theory that information has value. Ankles 08:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Mikkalai. Joyous (talk) 19:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

6 o'clock in the morning[edit]

More number-cruft by anonymous user User:62.252.0.6. While the information presented is true, I can't imagine anyone looking for this, if they want to know about the liturgical meaning. They'd search for Prime, and get the list of possible meanings that exists there. Delete. Ken 02:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per --April12 10:51, 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✉ 23:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Southan[edit]

NN amateur filmmaker. Appears to be using wikipedia as a means to achieving notoriety. Delete JeremyA (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think Jeremy Coon is going to win this one. Agentsoo 10:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 10:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Derekian 19:36, 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 no consensus to delete, I have redirected it to Science fiction fandom -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gafiate and Fafiate[edit]

a science fiction and fantasy fandom jargon term -- a humdrum dicdef of a term of trivial significance in the English language, and one that has already been transwikied. Superfluous to WP. -- Hoary 03:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --malathion talk 06:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and also delete Fafiate, a redirect I created yesterday. Wasn't thinking. Tualha (Talk) 09:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've requested speedy deletion for Fafiate. Tualha (Talk) 10:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For some reason, that's been removed. It remains a speedy, however, since you are the only editor. You might reinstate it, saying you are the only editor, and citing whichever CSD it is that allows this. -Splash 00:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Science Fiction Fandom; which may need to have a discussion of fannish jargon, since these are widely used terms among fen (fanspeak plural for fan). Neither word (not even the two together) merit a wikipedia entry, even though I used a variation ("state of FAFIA") on my user page.- WCFrancis 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Get A Life. The meanings have more in common with the term than with science fiction in general, though smaller references could be made at the Science Fiction Fandom page.--Mitsukai 19:27, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmy's Land[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic vanity. Zpb52 03:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and build a Motörhead based theme park in its place. the wub "?/!" 09:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn mariocruft. JamesBurns 10:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A burning question and a hot topic only for insiders. I.e. it's a celebration of a shared interest rather than an explanation of a cultural signifier. Oh, and I really did think of the Motorhead bass player's trailer park. Geogre 21:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn -Ichabod 02:18, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sarag Day[edit]

Dicdef at best, neologism at worst. --Alan Au 03:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Short with little or no context. The Literate Engineer 05:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Not-notable, neologism. Srcrowl 05:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Page was Speedy Deleted while I was adding the VfD tag. I suppose it now qualifies for Speedy (only editor requests deletion). Hmmm, I should really start typing faster... --Alan Au 06:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 Cent Quest[edit]

Non-notable Flash cartoon, and from the level of personal details, probably self-promotion (the anon contributor's sole contribution). 8 displayed hits for "20 Cent Quest". It apparently can't be viewed anywhere (a newer cartoon is on the school's website), so this ends up being mostly just an ad for some kid's Geocities website. Niteowlneils 03:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Eclipsed 04:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Won two national awards for student animation in 2003. This is notable--the award presentation was a very prestigious affair at the Australian Centre for the Moving Image. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as TS. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 06:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though the page doesn't mention it's only claim to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsoo (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 July 2005
    • Comment. Oh even the first version mentioned the two ATOM awards, though this was buried in the text at the time. Since then I added references to the awards in the opening paragraph. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable student animation. Only 6 Google hits. The ATOM Award itself might be notable. If someone writes that article, this can be mentioned briefly in the list of winners. jni 13:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I can see this being of interest, although it's borderline notable. --Scimitar parley 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: User:Jni is right: it can be mentioned in the list of winners, after an article on the award exists. This article for its own sake is not needed, as the animation's low Google hit count shows that, at least at this point, it has not proven very influential, successful, or unusual. We don't assess the value of the comic; we report on things the rest of the world has assessed for us. Geogre 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well the point is that the world has assessed something for us. The animation won two prizes in a prestigious national competition. That it didn't go on to sweep the internet is immaterial. To set internet success as a criterion is like moving the goalposts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, until we get an ATOM Award article, then merge. -Splash 00:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the awards are not "a prestigious national competition". ATOM is an acronym for "Australian Teachers of Media", and usually less than 1000 people enter. The very grand sounding "Australian Centre for the Moving Image" also functions as a hothouse for experimental and contemporary art. Thus while ACMI does host some notable works, merely being given an award inside it does not make you notable. Considering the very high internet profile that works of this type have, the fact that it didn't "sweep the internet" is material. If and when these young men make some larger mark, this can go into their article under "First Steps". Until then (despite it being someone's pet project) it is not encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That is very misleading. While it is organised by Australian Teachers of Media and has a strong focus on education, ATOM awards are also awarded to, and are prized by, the Australian independent media [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I am not sure what "Australian Centre for the Moving Image" also functions as a hothouse for experimental and contemporary art is supposed to mean, but perhaps it is an attempt to argue that experimental and contemporary art lack notability and by extension an organisation holding its awards ceremony here is in some way a lesser one for that. You say that it's significant that a work by two twelve-year olds didn't "sweep the internet." Were this the case then there would be no way of judging the excellence of the work of younger people, which cannot possibly compete against the work of more experienced, more capable adults. This is precisely the kind of problem that awards such as the ATOMs exist to remedy. The same panel that judges the general documentary categories also judges the K-8 categories. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irritated Comment Yes, misleading indeed. Misleading to juxtapose the location of the award (the "very prestigious affair at [ACMI]") with the prominence of the award itself. Misleading to provide a list of links that fails to demonstrate the prominence of the award. Misleading to spin a statement of fact into a slag of contemprary art in an attempt to discredit. I am very disappointed.
      brenneman(t)(c) 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm totally mystified. I don't understand your response but you're clearly yupset. I apologise for this, it was inadvertent.
        1. I do happen to believe that the prestige of an award-giving ceremony is good evidence of the prominence of the award--your opinion may differ on that but this doesn't mean people who do not share your opinion are intentionally misleading anyone.
        2. I said I didn't know why you mentioned that ACMI promoted contemporary and experimental art, and I meant it. What is the relevance of this? I hazarded a guess and got it wrong and seem to have offended you--my apologies for this.
        3. The list of links that I gave illustrate precisely what I said, no more and no less, that: "While it is organised by Australian Teachers of Media and has a strong focus on education, ATOM awards are also awarded to, and are prized by, the Australian independent media". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saying, "You're clearly upset" has the connotation that I am overly emotional or mentally disturbed. I have respect for "people who do not share [my] opinion". Please:
        1. Demonstrate that the presentation was a very prestigious affair.
        2. Demonstrate that this is a prestigious national competition.
        3. Demonstrate that the award is prized by the Australian independent media.
Because these are the claims. To date the facts presented are:
  1. That the awards this year were presented at ACMI.
  2. That this is a national competition.
  3. That people who win or are nominated note it on their websites.
Please see: Google:prestigious "ATOM awards".
Nearly all these links are by people who have won the award. I examined every link in the first four pages and found exactly one that was from an unbiased party.
brenneman(t)(c) 15:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(This comment has been changed from it's more aggresive original version. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, non-notability not established. Furthermore, nominator's assumptions are based in original research. —RaD Man (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this in not encyclipedic.--nixie 01:49, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Bale and Homer Bale, folk artist North Eastern US, b. circa 1930[edit]

Delete Unverifiable, likely hoax. Google returned 4 non-relevant hits. I came across this article on RC Patrol and assumed good faith, so put a query for sources out in the article discussion as well as on the anonymous user's talk page requesting clarification. It's been 3 weeks with no response to either. Also please get the link I've added to this VfD that was the location of the original article Wikibofh 04:40, 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✉ 23:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Imperial Guard[edit]

Finishing this old nomination. --Dmcdevit·t 04:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Complete nonsence. Such "article" doesn't fit to Wiki. Regards, --Klemen Kocjancic 19:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Something that is supposedly going to happen in the future? There are also no links to this article. Only search engine hits for this term are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. John Barleycorn 05:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ________cruft. You fill the blank in! This is a straightup WP:NOT violation, of the Soapbox type: Wikipedia is not an online publisher of fiction. If this is part of some commercially published fictional world I don't know, it needs to say so and be re-written as an article about fiction, not as fiction itself. This, though? Do violence unto it. The Literate Engineer 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uvaduck 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per The Literate Engineer. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only reason this is not speedy is that it might be part of some bizarre work of fiction (one can't help wondering if the MIG are permitted to turn right on red lights and speak English when interrogating suspects. Eh?) DJ Clayworth 21:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn contextless fiction. --Etacar11 23:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps the author should recreate this imaginary article on the imaginary fictionipedia. -GrantNeufeld 19:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rubbish. --Sleepyhead81 19:18, 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 Keep --Allen3 talk 10:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Moran[edit]

This article gives the definition for a different word. It should not be wikipedia's place to give new definitions to different words. 64.109.253.204 06:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What, no vote?

Delete - dicdef. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 15:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - --Sneeper 06:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - legitimate disambiguation page now Av 00:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read a few years back that there were about 16,000 people with the name Moran. These would surely be unhappy to see that their name only means "moron" in wikipedia. The name is an english adaptation to several Irish names similar O'Moran, Morrigan, Mograine, and similar names. One family Moran was mentioned in Sherlock Holmes "The hound of Basqerville"). The family arms is a black background with three stars, and the motto is "Lucent in Tenebris", which might roughly translated to "A shining light in the darkness".


I do not know if such a short description as above might be a suitable replacement. If yes, then replace it, if not, then please delete.

I just googled the word "Moran" and got about 5 million hits. The first page , at least, was from people with the name, starting with congressman Jim Moran.

DanielDemaret 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to replace this page with a history of the Moran family surname.. I wasn't sure whether the "moron" misspelling was worth splitting into a seperate disambugation page with Moran_(Surname) and Moran_(intentional_misspelling) or something like that. I completely missed that 'famous' photo and the "sub-moronic" that followed. But in a short time, nobody will even remember it and that picture link is broken anyway. I vote we get rid of it entirely and create a surname page. But since my last name is Moran, I might be biased on it.  :)

By the way, "Lucent in Tenebris" more accurately translates to "They shine in darkness".

--Sneeper 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely strong keep - There are so many Morans in Wikipedia. Legitimate disambig page that I'm currently expanding. -- Plutor 13:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:No personal attacks :) Gazpacho 01:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Legit disambig page. --Scimitar parley 14:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the first to start changing this into a disambiguation page, the results are great - there is no longer a reason to delete this article. — Wackymacs 15:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:NOT a genealogy database, but this is evidently a very 'popular' surname. -Splash 00:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should I remove the VFD? 64.108.212.56 06:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Punkmorten 09:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movies about sports[edit]

I suggest deleting this page and redirecting it to sports film. The "sports film" article contains a far more comprehensive list. Dale Arnett 06:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect this larval list. And then put something into sports film besides a list. The Literate Engineer 05:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sports film. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did you bring this here? You don't need a vote to redirect. Kappa 06:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he wants it to be deleted? Delete: The article is not about "movies about sports" but is, instead, a list. Lists are lists, and this is misnamed. Were sports film to be listed on VfD, I'd say that's a clear delete, too, as it is also misnamed. Neither of these is an actual article about sports films, the generic expectations, the reception, the eras of popularity, etc. Neither of them is a valid article. Geogre 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phank[edit]

MMOcruft. Non-notable guild. Possibly vanity. Take yer pick. Nifboy 05:08, 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. -Splash 01:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mundane[edit]

Delete : Mundane topic. Should be part of some larger article if authors find that it should be wiki-relevant.

  • keep I can see the argument for merging into wiktionary:mundane or perhaps into Babylon 5. Though with respect User:Xtreambar, merging is not the same as deletion. On the other hand, I think the discussion of the derogatory use of the word is outside the scope of wiktionary and it is worthy of splitting from Babylon 5. MGSpiller 00:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It would be preferable to keep the expression as a separate article, but with primary mention of its older fannish usage (from science fiction fandom), with linkage to Babylon 5 only in recognition that the television series derived the usage from SF fandom. Frankly, mundanes deserve to be treated in a derogatory manner, as in the commonly seen SF convention button "Save the Mundanes! We Need Them For Breeding Stock." SJ Doc 01:44, 19 Jul 2005 (unregistered)
  • Merge with Babylon 5, don't redirect. The term "mundane" is not specific to Babylon 5 only. Babylon 5 also used the word "and" on several occasions, should that article also be redirected to Babylon 5? — JIP | Talk 07:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Babylon 5 say anything specific about "and"? Kappa 13:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We cannot merge and not redirect. The GFLD ties our hands. If we merge, we must redir to maintain the history i.e. the author attribution list. -Splash 00:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term. Stirling Newberry 23:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- used by many groups to tag outsiders (SF fandom, SCAdians and pagans off the top of my head) Saswann 14:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Science Fiction Fandom along with gafiate and fafiate (see VfD also opened this date). Transwiki definition. - WCFrancis 18:08, 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✉ 23:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kittian Fantasy[edit]

Not notable. It's some sci-fi world that isn't completed yet. Kages and SilverKittians are related articles which I'm also nominating for deletion. 148.78.243.50 05:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kages[edit]

Non-notable vanity. 148.78.243.50 05:12, 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✉ 23:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SilverKittians[edit]

Non-notable group of characters in Kittian Fantasy, some sci-fi world that is itself non-notable (and nominated for deletion above). 148.78.243.50 05:15, 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✉ 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Kwan[edit]

Claims to have the NBA in his sights... but he is not there yet. A google search on "Simeon Kwan" and basketball produces exactly three hits. NN vanity—delete. JeremyA (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys just don't know that much about international superstars overseas. He is a promising young prospect with loads of potential. I vote to have this entry NOT DELETED.

  • Delete. No claim to notability yet, and the username suggests probable vanity. Agentsoo 10:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Recreate this when he becomes a star, if he does. Based on the rewrite and on the contributions of Sime0n (talk · contribs), it's clear that this is a vanity/hoax article, and that Kwan is not a basketball star, musician, astronaut, intergalactic time-traveler, or anything else Sime0n chooses to invent for himself. android79 18:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • None of those three pages on google are particularly official either- compare to a very unknown hockey prospect, Troy Bodie- on google, "Troy Bodie" + hockey gets over a 1000 hits. Delete. --Scimitar parley 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • International superstars overseas is fine with me, but if his notability is derived from him aspiring to NBA, then he has to measure up with US standards of notability -- Delete for reason of non-notability, and if it's speedy for suspected vanity, no objection from me. --DrTorstenHenning 15:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "International superstars overseas" are fine. Folks overseas who are wishing to become superstars are not yet notable enough for a biography in an encyclopedia. Geogre 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can have all the potential you like, and still be utterly non-notable. -Splash 00:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. the article was totally rewritten by the same contributor, but describing totally different things. This makes me think it is a hoax. mikka (t) 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect the page to prevent recreation. Definite hoax by known vandal. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:46, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Love BEn[edit]

Either a hoax or not notable at all.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, as none of the usual AV sites have heard of this. - Thatdog 06:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this was a real virii, wouldn't the name show up at least ONCE on google? Or at least even on List_of_viruses ? Eclipsed 22:05, 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. Splash 01:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Otte[edit]

I tagged this for speedy deletion on the grounds that it does not assert notability. JYolkowski removed the speedy tag, saying it does assert notability. All the article says about him is that he's a professor, and makes no claims as to what he's done to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, since he's one of the main proponents of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory people interested in this theory would wish to be able to look him up. Kappa 06:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable archaeologist prehistorian.Capitalistroadster 07:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Have expanded article including information on Paleolithic Continuity Theory and list of published works which is sizable. There is certainly room for more expansion in the future given his large number of publications. Capitalistroadster 10:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; published (non-vanity press) authors are prima facie notable. Nandesuka 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So everyone who's ever published anything that was subject to peer review is ipso facto notable and Wikipedia-worthy? Really?? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all 4 comments above. Eclipsed 22:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on current article state. Looks natable to me. - WCFrancis 18:10, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. Splash 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth[edit]

Delete Vanity Srcrowl 05:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete indeed. Just a nice guy who doesn't realize that this is an encyclopedia, not a who's-who of everyone in the world. Isomorphic 05:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. JamesBurns 10:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Am I missing something? I've tagged it for speedy. -Splash 00:43, 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 --Allen3 talk 10:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Koushik[edit]

This was marked for speedy, but it definitely doesn't apply, since the article cites an album release, a clear assertion of notability. The article is defintely written like vanity, but if true, may qualify under WP:MUSIC. I'll leave it up to the community, no vote. --Dmcdevit·t 05:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • 2 google hits... and nothing relavent in those 2 hits. Delete due to unverifability. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep If you check the history I even put a vfd but then removed it after some research. A search of Koushik "Be With" returns enough results and reviews in notable media like Pitchfork Media. The reason the full name doesn't get a lot of results is because that isn't his recording name. But the article is written like vanity and he's not that notable so it's pretty borderline. --TheMidnighters 06:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And he does have an Allmusic page, under Koushik. --TheMidnighters 06:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the article sans vanity. And I think he satisfies WP:MUSIC on the grounds of a)two albums released on a notable indie label, b)has a national tour coming up (opening for somebody else, not sure if it counts but not too bad), and c)has been featured in prominent media. --TheMidnighters 06:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what needs to be done is to copy the content to Koushik, and redirect this page to that one. --TheMidnighters 06:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth, I had moved it there since that's what the original article said his name was. I've moved it back just now because I don't think it is controversial. Amending this VfD's heading too... --Dmcdevit·t 06:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 10:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep recorded two albums and soon to undertake first US tour. I think he's done enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 11:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Keep--allmusic, two albums with notable reviews. Meelar (talk) 15:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. NSR (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. allmusic entry. I think we can keep this one. Punkmorten 09:42, 5 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. Joyous (talk) 19:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Humorous Chain Email[edit]

Article is really about "Burlap Body Boy" chain email, which by itself is not notable.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User Bmicomp:

I created this page. I am impressed that you read it so quickly, but not with your analysis of the page, which is not fairminded. I would note that any attempt to write anything serious and complete about spam cannot help but also contain examples of it. To criticise the article solely on that basis (that it has spam in it), is quite simplistic and inconsequential.

So I disagree with your opinion about what the article is really about. The article is not about "burlap body boy" specifically , but about Humorous chain emails, as a distinct type of chain email. The main part of the page is a discussion of what exactly is a humourous chain email, and how it distinguishes itself from other types of chain emails. I will admit that the page is as yet incomplete, and perhaps not even very good. The discussion could go deeper, and contain other points common to such emails, perhaps with other example (which undoubtedly will spur more ire from certain users). It would be fair minded Criticize the page on THOSE MERITS.

Certainly many types of chain emails (humorous, fake charity scams, etc) can be categorized and described, and this endeavour is exactly what this very site is for. They are a part of the culture of the internet.

The Burlap body boy was used only as an example of this type of email because it illustrates (as described on the page) the salient characteristics of such emails. Which are that it is a humorous story, which asks to be forwarded, and part of its humour is derived from the attempts within the story itself to forward it. I vote to Keep the page, and Improve it -- CRF (page creator). 27 July, 2005 207.216.12.220 07:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Merge. Chain letters are a valid topic, but it seems there's already an article about them. I suppose someone (CRF perhaps?) could attempt to merge the content in with that article, although quoting the entirety of the "burlap body boy" email is probably a bit much. I mean, it's bad enough I have to wade through that stuff in my inbox, much less here... --Alan Au 07:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is apt to bring the Chain letters page into the discussion, for I had not known about it. However, after reading it, I am not yet inclined to think merging the Humorous Chain Email page into that page would be wise. This particular subject (humorous chain mail) is very well defined and contained as a subset of the chain letter, and as such, is best on a separate page, in my opinion. A link from the Chain letters page, to this new one, could even be considered.

The point that it is a 'bit much' to quote the entire story is valid I suppose. But the analysis on the page would suffer if the links were completely external. Also, any external links could not (will likely not) remain valid. Therefore, it made sense to me, in the absence of my knowing of a persistent, reliable copy of this story (and, perhaps, examples of its evolution) being available, that I would quote it in its entirety. One might argue that "Burlap Body Boy" could have a page on its own in the wiki, so as to have some reliable record of its existance, and so avoid the need to quote it extensively -- but I really don't think -that- is necessary. I cannot think of another wiki page where "burlap Body Boy" would be mentioned, let alone need to be quoted.

There seems to be, in the other two commenters, a small bias against any inclusion of what could be considered spam, almost as if it were an automatically conditioned response (for example, the good-humoured joke from the ?moderator?, alan au, about again reading Burlap Boy in an email summary). This is not an unwise bias to have to be sure, but I hope I am not being rude by suggesting that it is necessary to temper it on some occasions. I truly mean no disrespect by creating this topic, on an admitedly disagreeable subject. CRF 207.216.12.220 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is not encyclopedic. Nandesuka 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into Chain email, but leave out the body of the email. If you really want a reliable link to it, copy it to Wikisource. android79 12:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Scimitar parley 14:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete really nothing here that isn't already in chain email; one sentence there that says something along the lines of "chain emails sometimes contain jokes" would do the job. CDC (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the page. I placed the body of the Burlap Body Boy Email on Wikisource, as suggested by Android79. This is useful, as this page is not meant as a discussion on solely that particular email, but a discussion upon the well defined characteristics of such emails as Burlap Body Boy.

I do disagree with CDC that there is nothing here that is not in chain email, and, as anyone can note by reading the page, its subject is beyond the simplistic "chain emails sometimes contain jokes" -- everyone can infer that. This is like saying language contains jokes, therefore, all discussions of jokes belong on the language wiki page. It is not wrong to say that jokes belong in the language category, but it would be very inconvenient to place jokes, and everything else to do with language, on language's wiki page. Thus we categorize jokes into its own page, and furthermore, we subdivide jokes into categories that have their own pages (etc). That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. I agree that at some point a subject will become trivial or so small that it doesn't warrant its own page (at least, at that time of consideration). But on this point of contention, I think this page deserves to stay separate, as opposed its being merged into existing pages, where the subteties (albeit, disagreable for some people to discuss) will likely be lost.

I disagree with user Scimitar's cryptic not notable designation. If that is supposed to be a comment upon the subject matter itself, I appreciate his opinion, but ask that he consider the possibility that others might find the subject (humorous chain emails) notable, well defined, and worthy of comment and discussion on their own. Scimitar should explain himself further, perhaps by directly criticizing on how I have written my definition, what is lacking in it, or why it is indistinguishable from some other entry in wikipedia, or ill-defined.

Of course, I claim it is not ill-defined, but I claim it is well defined. And I claim that is is distinguished from other wikipedia entries.

I have heard little in this discussion criticizing my article on those points, which are some valid points upon which to place criticism.

I note again, this type of email is part of our culture. It is a well defined category within chain emails: I've not yet read what I would consider to be a well-argued opinion to the contrary. I think it is best if it had its own page, so that the subject can be elaborated upon futher.

crf 207.216.12.220 17:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Actually, there is already a very nice archive of the original email available at Snopes [8]. --Alan Au 18:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, thank you for reminding me. I had come accross that page before. Incidentally, there are differences between that version on snopes and that one I originally posted. Which, I suppose, is an example of how such chain letters evolve. crf 207.216.12.220 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is effectively a neologism, and certainly POV. There is no such terminology that can be verifiably applied to a chain email. Also, the keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the length of comment required to defend it in VfD. -Splash 00:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not say it any better than Splash. Also, this is at least borderline original research - Skysmith 10:47, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Campbell[edit]

No meaningful information Daverd 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC) This is supposed to go to Matt Campbell but I think I screwed up something in the process. Sorry, first time at this.[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Styles[edit]

Delete Not-notable, vanity. Hoax? Srcrowl 06:16, 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✉ 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impactor weapon[edit]

Article has little content. The content it does have appears to be fictional Megapixie 06:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hoax or cruft, either way it should go. the wub "?/!" 09:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the article does not say in which game the item exists. That makes the article unverifiable. Suggest that such weapons and items be added to the main game article instead of being a separate article, so if the game this is in can be provided, merge this article with that one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what Sjakkalle said. -- Lochaber 11:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable with no info on what it refers to. --Etacar11 23:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Cohan[edit]

Delete. Vanity. That page´s just a silly story about one of over 6 trillions of human beings. 84.146.173.148 03:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability not established --malathion talk 06:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable programmer. Good luck to him though. the wub "?/!" 09:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable programmer. But the population of the world is not 6 trillion yet is it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. Sound familiar...was a similar page deleted before? --Etacar11 23:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability at this moment not established. Sietse 05:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN/Juvenile Vanity. --Ragib 02:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to World of Worlds. I don't think that every human being has started a software company at 15/16. I know of Bill Gates (no, he was older). --Vizcarra 20:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it remains to be seen whether it is a *Real* company or not. Any 15 year old writing a software can claim to be from a company and set up a website etc, but that doesn't make either the software or the person notable. Bill Gates did it 30 years ago. If Zac was a 15 year old opening a company in the 1970s, he would have been notable too. But in the 2000s, that doesn't count. --Ragib 20:46, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 07:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Margeson[edit]

No content, probably an attack page --malathion talk 06:31, 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. The content of the article has been deleted, and recreated as a redirect to Maximilian. Joyous (talk) 19:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Maximillian[edit]

Band vanity. No Google hits, nor any hits at [Metropolis], Tokyo's local English-language guide, which might be expected to take notice of this group. Doesn't seem to fit WP:Music guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Barbie Star Travellers & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Richardson Calton | Talk 06:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 10:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this really needs to be a disambiguation; we have Maximillian of Mexico, Maximilian I of Bavaria, and others (as well as the robot from The Black Hole). -R. fiend 15:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with disambiguation. Pavel Vozenilek 19:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. Go with the disambig. --Etacar11 23:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maximilian as a possible typo. Martg76 21:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. Until now I didn't even notice the typo, and thought it strange this wasn't such a page already. Amazing how one can overlook such things. Redirect. -R. fiend 13:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Maximilian. Most of the people who voted delete seems to be content with a redirect. Punkmorten 09:47, 5 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbie Star Travellers[edit]

Band vanity. No Google hits. Doesn't seem to fit WP:Music guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Richardson & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maximillian Calton | Talk 06:32, 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Richardson[edit]

Band vanity. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Barbie Star Travellers & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maximillian Calton | Talk 06:32, 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 KEEP. Splash 01:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zero to Hero[edit]

Non notable tv program. Vfd was originally created but never put in properly. Woohookitty 06:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn program. JamesBurns 10:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thought all TV programs were considered notable? I don't think this would be on VFD if it were on American TV at the same time of day. Agentsoo 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the author would have put in a bit more information -- what type of program, some discussion of the theme. I would like to try verifying this. Robert A West 14:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, adequately notable jamesgibbon 12:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bit of quickie research indicated that this is an inane comedy in a supernatural/horror setting, and stars Francis Ng, who is a notable actor. 208.20.251.27 15:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. British reality TV show. Produced by Simon Urwin and Rob Wade. American spinoff series is due in 2005-2006 season. Source: Variety.
  • Keep and expand. --Ragib 02:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ne-Yo[edit]

May not be notable. Has released a few tracks on other albums, but none of his own. Clarification and expansion (also to preclude a vanity deletion) would be required. Icelight 5 July 2005 23:59 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. — JIP | Talk 8 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, co-wrote a #1 hit. Kappa 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I believe the assertion of co-writing the hit. There is nothing about the supposed artist that the supposed hit belonged to; the link goes to the video game character called "Mario". My vote is Delete unless actual existance of the co-written hit is verified. OOps, I see it now. Fixing the link in the article. Friday 17:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Pburka 01:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. His album was released on August 2, the article almost needs a "current event" tag :) Punkmorten 09:59, 5 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flisp[edit]

Advertising. Same user added links to Flisp in Michael Jackson and London Pride. Rhobite 06:47, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn website advertising. JamesBurns 10:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leading comedy site? Now that's a joke. Agentsoo 10:40, 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. Splash 01:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neda[edit]

Neda---This is not suitable for a Wiki article. The phrase is not known in the west. Delete. Decius 00:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and change to a redirect page. "Neda" is a genus of ladybirds, a river in Greece, and a mountainous region of Spain. Also, there's NEDA, the National Educational Debate Association. I learned all that from looking at "What links here". GTBacchus 07:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation page. Capitalistroadster 07:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I changed it to a disambiguation page. I couldn't find any evidence to support the original content, so I removed it. --Alan Au 07:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alan Au's rewrite. Capitalistroadster 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 merge and redirect to Tweed River. – Alphax τεχ 10:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tweed River (neé Tweed River (disambiguation))[edit]

This has an identical article at Tweed River. Tweed River is a more suitable article name for this topic. Tweed River (disambiguation) is redundant. Alan Liefting 11:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment. This was never put on the vfd page. So. Here it is. :) --Woohookitty 07:15, 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 VfD doesn't seem ever to have been properly completed, I'm afraid — that is, I can't find any sign of its having been posted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I've now added it to today's page, and the VfD will have to run its course from now. (VfDs are being cleared rapidly; if you know of another that's not been closed and should been, check to see if it was properly formed.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 01:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized I voted in this and should not have closed it. The decision is clear however, and I've already done the legwork on the article and its talk page, so I'm not going to revert myself. If someone else wants to re-do or challenge the closure, feel free. -Splash 01:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjas in Pyjamas[edit]

Delete This page refers to a group of videogamers who have an online association. While its content may be of interest to some members of the gaming community, it really has no place in an encyclopaedia and simply serves as advertisements for the video game manufacturers. This is equivalent to adding an entry for my Tuesday evening bowling league team. I say delete due to its non-notability. Nrets 21:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep They are paid, professional team. No, I have never met any of them, nor do I watch them play, but if you look at the history of professional gaming, they are at the top and have been for several years. --Habap 21:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are a lot of paid teams in obscure leagues. This doesn't argue for their notability. Nrets 19:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about the fact that they won $170 000 one year? Keep.DS 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep As Schroet Kommando They were the de facto undisputed world champions (2003 - probably the year DS is referring to) and are probably the most consistently successful Counter-Strike team in the major international tournaments (see the CPL article and see how many times they appear under the names NiP or Schroet Kommando. I do agree most gaming teams do not belong on wikipedia, even most "professional" ones due to their tendency to be short-lived but this is one of the few notable ones in my opinion. The articles do need cleaned up though. --FlooK 06:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are not only a paid team, but they are one of the best teams in their business. They have contracts, salaries, and should be taken very seriously. In comparison, they would be more like the New York Yankees, not a Tuesday evening bowling league. --andersoft 04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • user's only edit, thus far.
  • Keep They're apparently very well-known in the gaming community and have won major international tournaments. See also the vfd for one of their members (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Emil Christensen), the result was to keep the article. SpuriousQ 06:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gaming clan/group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Counter-Strike is the most popular competitive computer game outside of east Asia and the members of this team are some of the most successful and well-paid professionals in international competition. The comparison to the Yankees is sound. --malathion talk 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems. Although I struggle to verify the monetary claim. -Splash 00:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please but if the monetary thing cant be verified it should be taken out Yuckfoo 18:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    rewrite - Tried to make it more a little more accessible to those unfamiliar with the subject, added more background information and removed the section on player movements since detail on every player is probably extraneous. comment: Regarding prize money money: In 2003 NiP (as SK Sweden) won more The WCG worth $40,000, placed third at the E-Sports World Cup worth $15,000 and every CPL event that year adding €5,000 in Cannes and another €5,000 at Copenhagen, $60,000 at the summer championships, $30,000 at the winter championships. Making for a total of $130,000 and another €10,000. Given that they also won a number of other events that year. $170,000 is probably fairly accurate. --FlooK 20:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons above. I've heard of this group for a long time now. --Dan Granahan 15:15, 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 Keep. NSR (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No-Grain Diet[edit]

  • Delete. Commercial BS. Ink 13:20, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten article. wasn't meant to be commercial in any way, it was just sort of a stub. 210.213.141.1 14:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mercola is undeniably a quack but this is a relatively neutral article about his diet. Rhobite 08:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good article, bad subject. Keep. Agentsoo 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --DrTorstenHenning 15:55, 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsss kk k kk[edit]

Individual items of onomatopoeia don't deserve their own articles. Delete. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agentsoo 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bizarre. Leithp 12:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no one's mentioned vanity yet? --Pagrashtak 15:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — could be merged onto onomatopoeia, but why? — RJH 18:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Obviously non-notable; likely vanity. Just plain ol' dumb. kschhhh (the onomatopoetic sound of another crappy article being VfD'd). jglc | t | c 20:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleeeeeete00:55, July 28, 2005 (UTC)~
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Joyous (talk) 19:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

North Sydney Girls High School[edit]

As far as I can see, it's completely non-notable... just an upper-class school. As far as I have seen, Google has no mention of anyone notable coming from here either. [maestro] 14:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I go to this school, and so did Nicole Kidman. There is a picture of her in our famous peoples' wall. As for 'completely non-notable', I would like to add that for a number of years we have come first in HSC results in the state for girl's schools and second in overall, just behind James Ruse. 20 July 2005. (unsigned comment by 220.237.108.74)
  • Please see the Wikipedia:Schools page for the current policy regarding school articles. Thank you. --Alan Au 07:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Schools and note that it is only a proposed policy, not a policy. --Idont Havaname 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • True enough, but I still recommend checking the page. No vote. --Alan Au 04:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable girls school founded in 1914 and top girls school in NSW for 10 years since 1995 finishing second to the James Ruse Agricultural College in HSC results. Capitalistroadster 08:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It seems Nicole Kidman did study there but dropped out to become an actress. Capitalistroadster 08:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because her mum didnt hug her enough.. if you've read the daily papers recently. JamesBurns 10:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 11:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. External link and one sentence of information does not an encyclopedia article make. If the article is expanded, I will change my vote. --Scimitar parley 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it was expanded. --Scimitar parley 20:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is lots of schoolcruft out there that should be deleted, this doesn't appear to be it. Dunc|☺ 14:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if it's expanded jamesgibbon 14:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no useful content CDC (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no useful content, and no reason to belive would be notable even if expanded. DES 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously notable. Kappa 16:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--vote retracted, see below unless useful content is actually added to the article prior to expiration of VfD period. In present form, does not quite meet the speedy deletion criterion of "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link... or rephrasing of the title" but comes very, very close. (As I write this, "present form" is "North Sydney Girls High School is a selective girls' high school in Crows Nest, Sydney" plus a link to the school's website. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. Article now has useful content and is no longer borderline-speediable. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone bothers to expand it explaining why it's notable. -Aranel ("Sarah") 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And someone did. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. — RJH 18:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to with North Sydney Girls' High School. Verifiable and NPOV school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The schools official name according to the schools website hasnt got an apostrophe. I dont like it, its a sad commentary on the debased state of our society, but there it is. O tempora, O mores. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, Dpbsmith is correct. There seems to be a mix of usage. Contact page shows apostrophe but <title>, entry page, and Dept. of Education shows without. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I queried the school about this. There is no apostrophe. I put their explanation (which I personally find unconvincing but what the heck) in the article.
  • Keep - has 2 alumni with articles in WP, which is good enough for me. --Idont Havaname 19:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real place --malathion talk 20:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  • Keep Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is like the 200th school we have kept so why do we keep doing this still Yuckfoo 22:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus on the general issue of non-notable secondary schools. Please do not imply that there is. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, since there is no consensus to delete them, there is no point voting on every single one. Kappa 23:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just yesterday, there was a majority to delete a school article. Progress towards consensus may be slow, but it is not completely absent. There is no reason to pretend that we cannot continue to have the debate over time. After all, isn't that how WP works? School articles are only nominated occasionally, though there has been a bit of a spate just recently.-Splash 00:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • 1. What school was deleted yesterday? 2. I don't consider an average of a school article VfD nomination per day as "occasional". 3. It is not only not useful to nominate verifiable, expandable schools for deletion, it is also harmful by unnecessarily biting a great number of newbies. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • 1.No, I could have put that more clearly: it wasn't deleted, but I thought there was a majority for deletion here. In fact I miscounted, it was 15d, 15k since Lucky6.9 sort-of voted twice by accident. That is still no consensus to keep, however, unlike some school VfDs. 2. Is it really that much? It might be that I just skip over them. But even so, that's less than 1% of the VfD load today. 3. I do not agree that nominating a page for deletion is necessarily biting the author, whether they are new or not. "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it" is right there on the screen as I type. Speedying it might be biting, but I would never condone that for schools. It is useful to continue the debate precisely because there is no consensus; no harm will be done if you expect the consensus to go your way. 3.1. Articles can be written on many things that are verifiable and expandable e.g. an article about the contents of my bedroom; but those attributes alone do not make their topic encyclopedic. Particularly not in the blanket no-consideration case that is made for keeping schools. I personally consider each article I vote on on its own merits and I thus voted to keep this one. Finally, there is no point getting annoyed about this process, as some participants do, since it is evident that schools will carry on getting nominated. -Splash 04:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I think there would be less consensus to deleting if some effort was being made to improve the non encyclopedic articles that are out there. Since that may not be happening, then editors who don't wish to have more low quality articles see a need to add them to a VfD. A side effect of this is to actually get articles that are nominated here improved. Those improvements are why you see so many keeps. If the articles were not improved you would likely see a consensus for delete. Vegaswikian 05:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, there does seem to be a systematic and ongoing effort by school-inclusionists to brings school articles up to some reasonable standard. I'm not sure about this history of this specific school, but in general it is probably a good idea to list schools on Schoolwatch for a while before nominating them for deletion, and I believe I'll add this to Wikipedia:Schools if it is not there already. Articles do not automatically and magically "grow" and improve all by themselves, but they do grow if there is a support network of interested editors for a topic category. I think doing the work on this articles is more or less the obligation of those who want Wikipedia to include these articles. Two years ago I don't think this was happening, but now it looks as if it is. I'm also tempted to say that when a school substub is not showing signs of improvement the appropriate routine might be to delete it but make it a requested article. That is, treat low-quality school substubs as article requests. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • While it has only been three days since listing, I would have expected that if your comments were supported by actions then more work would have been done on the articles listed at Collaboration of the week. I just checked and it appears that only two editors have done anything on these articles. Vegaswikian 17:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I'm not really in touch with the school-inclusionists. Perhaps one of them will opine as to where problem school articles are best listed. I think they are still monitoring Schoolwatch, which was set up for the purpose of rescuing school articles from deletion. I'm not sure whether they watching COTW. GRider himself is, I believe, still prohibited from editing deletion-related pages so he can't respond here, but perhaps others will. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did not know a COTW for schools even existed and, indeed, it appears to have been just invented this week. I think it's a good idea. In the past I have looked through Category:School stubs for articles which I have some ability to expand when I have the interest and time (and not preoccupied with a VfD deadlined school). DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with its alumni, this school actually is notable. -Splash 00:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, indicates notability. Gazpacho 01:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamaliel 01:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good-looking article about a school that deserves one. JYolkowski // talk 01:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- nothing wrong with this article. - Longhair | Talk 03:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely notable school, in terms of not only its alumni and academic success and prestige. Ambi 04:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fucking keep. How notable is this school? So notable, there were not one, but two articles written about it in parallel. —RaD Man (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a fucking keep the same as a speedy keep but with more groaning noises? JamesBurns 06:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep (but not as strong Radman1) - now a very good article -- Ianblair23 04:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--AYArktos 08:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schoolcruft Proto t c 11:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't list schools. Grace Note 00:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that the article has been expanded Salsb 00:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep all enduring institutions. This is an historic institution with many notable alumni. This is obviously either a joke or a bad faith nomination. --Gene_poole 07:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The result is clear. Punkmorten 10:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for an entry.Gateman1997 07:11, 6 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Triage tag[edit]

Delete - offers no information not already in the "Triage" section, image and explanation are also in the Triage article, nothing points to this link.

Delete - agree with original point Richard Allen 09:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - was never added to the vfd page. --Woohookitty 07:33, 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.

Keep A triage tag is a specialized tool and deserves its own page. You don't put a pictures of a horseshoe types on the horse page :)

This is the first time I've been to a vote page. I don't like unsigned opinions. There was some duplication with the Triage page. I did not see a picture of a tag on the Triage page nor do I think there should be one there. I did see at link at the top from there to the triage tag page, which is good. The loud ad copy was not good but it was easily fixed. --Rcollman 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied this obvious hoax with no assertion of notability. Fawcett5 15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment Man[edit]

Reads like nonsense to me. jni 07:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it's (kind of) about a person and there's no assertion of notability, I'd consider speedying this under A7. But I'll wait for others' opinions before doing so myself. --Dmcdevit·t 08:07, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Speedy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 10:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy there are no claims of notability about this person/concept. Capitalistroadster 10:44, 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. After discounting the reduser, there is near unanimous consensus to keep. -Splash 01:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Montana[edit]

Merge with Scarface (1983 movie), and redirect to that article. abelson 17:47, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Comment. This should've been added on the 19th but was not. --Woohookitty 07:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per WP:FICT, the Scarface (1983 movie) article is probably long enough as it is. -- Lochaber 11:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Montana (I seem to recall) will also be in the Scarface video game. Also, the article establishes that the character himself has impacted popular culture somewhat independent of the movie. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:05, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. It basically parrots information already contained in the Scarface article. CranialNerves 18:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:16, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wohoo & Lochaber.--Jpbrenna 17:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the character is a semi-cult figure with multiple parodies. McPhail 13:53, 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tocina[edit]

Advertising a website, in spanish no less on en.wikipedia Akropp 8 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

Comment. Was never properly added here. --Woohookitty 08:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 10:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; advertising and wrong language. Agentsoo 10:43, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEBA[edit]

Advertising. Delete. — JIP | Talk 08:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When will people learn? Agentsoo 10:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Actually its a copy of this, so probably a copyvio unless KEBA themselves added this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If KEBA itself added the text, we have an autobiography issue, however. Uncle G 12:20:11, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
  • When you see an advertisement, check for copyright infringement first. Don't bring copyrighted (not GFDL licenced) advertisements to WP:VFD. Apply Copyright Judo to them.

    This article is a partial copy of a copyrighted advertisement that the advertiser has not licenced under the GFDL. Copyright Judo applied. Uncle G 12:20:11, 2005-07-27 (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. Joyous (talk) 19:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Mental Signal Processing[edit]

Interesting, but it is original research that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. Sietse 09:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, first para doesn't make sense and the rest looks like original research jamesgibbon 15:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday 17:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article explains a process of the brain that is already known. --Vizcarra 20:02, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Grander[edit]

No relavent google hits. Delete as unverifiable. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 09:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting if only it were true. Delete. Agentsoo 10:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified. Would expect to find some relevant google hits, but my search has also turned up with nothing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable hoax or attack page, then recreate as a redirect to Guy Gardner as a plausible-enough misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, unverified/possible attack. --Etacar11 00:16, 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack “Vap” Venooker[edit]

This man does not seem notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. 82 hits for a Google search on Jack Venooker, and about 3 hits if the terms are changed to Vap Venooker. With so few references, there's little that can be written about him anyway. Ardonik.talk()* 09:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn or unverifiable at best. Agentsoo 10:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified/possible attack. --Etacar11 00:22, 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✉ 23:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Howeth[edit]

The (half written) article claims to be about "the most decorated enlisted soldier from the state of Maryland [who] was also the personal driver of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and right hand man of Chiang Kai Shek." Somehow, someone with such a bizarre yet kindof noteworthy career trajectory fails the google test miserably with four hits, three of which are not relevant, one of which comes back to wikipedia. The content of the page, which was created July 23rd and shortly abandoned, was written entirely by anon users, possibly the same one, with the majority of content coming from a vandal, although the IP may be shared. The sentence quoted above coupled with lack of evidence suggests a hoax. Delete, if not speedy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. claim to notability precludes speedy, I think. Agentsoo 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenot notability --April12 11:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:24, 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 person was my grandfather and was a know liar. He had many issues. Yes, he served almost 30 years in the military but his jobs did not deal with what is listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.82.29 (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 00:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox Poetry[edit]

Alexa.com says non in the top 100,000 web pages. Delete as WP is not a link repository-- Sasquatch′↔T↔C 09:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn website. JamesBurns 10:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come back when you're famous. Agentsoo 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Websites with much, much higher (worse) Alexa ratings have survived VfD, but I hope this one does not. Delete. Friday 17:50, 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knave Trub[edit]

Knave Trub is a very well known internet troll on the nvmax community forums etc etc. You can neither troll yourself into pseudosignificance on WP or get your chums to do it for you. -- Hoary 09:56, 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaine Hayward[edit]

I suspect vanity and autobiography, but the article does make a claim for notability as a tenor and I would like the creator to have the opportunity to userfy. David | Talk 10:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a prediction of the future. This article would have appeared with the passing of time anyway.

  • Delete. Seems like a joke, except not funny. Agentsoo 11:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke vanity page. Ken 11:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. 16 year old who apparently became world famous after appearing in a Gosford production of Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. Capitalistroadster 11:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 11:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, he gets 5 displayed Google results to his name, and this article reeks of vanity and nonsense. --Idont Havaname 19:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent joke. --Etacar11 01:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block the editor; all of his contributions - as far as I know - were nothing but nonsense. -- Eagleamn 01:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You have to admit, while stupid, it's pretty funny. Delete

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Hyman[edit]

Not notable. Sad, but wikipedia is not a memorial Proto t c 11:14, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Compton-Burnett[edit]

I'm pretty sure it is a copy vio (but I can't trace it) huglye POV Geni 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It does seem like a copy vio but if we can't trace it then it seems unfair to delete it. Admittedly the article needs work but it's well tagged for that. Agentsoo 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. — RJH 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or shorten it dramatically. Its too long, about an obscure person and very badly written. PhatRita 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no reason for deletion. Kappa 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that the best reason available for keeping it? -Splash 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1) Being dead doesn't make you notable. 2)The article does not make any claim of notability. 3)Having a theory or two doesn't count as notability, anyone can think those up. No reason for keepletion. -Splash 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - badly written but I remember the content from a course I took last year while in a naturopathy degree program. The concept is 'badly' explained, it looks more like someone's notes with some text attached. I noted there is a couple of loose references in the article. --203.12.172.254 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)berniebear[reply]
  • Comment. I believe 203.12.172.254 was the original "author" of the article. See User talk:203.12.172.254. Perhaps he/she could clear up the source of the information that he/she provided but thinks "looks more like someone's notes with some text attached". Edwardian 07:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the original "author" of the article cannot fess up to writing it, it should go. Plus copy vio, VERY poorly written, and non-notable subject as others have mentioned. Edwardian 07:42, 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. Joyous (talk) 19:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

SPACE SHIP[edit]

This is a nonsense part of a series of postings related to Julian Thome Usrnme h8er 12:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • More of these already? Delete. Agentsoo 12:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and block creator. --Scimitar parley 14:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent nonsense James 14:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE as nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 15:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to Spacecraft (Space ship also redirects there), and block creator for creating all of these vanity pages about stuff that doesn't exist. --Idont Havaname 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. This "Julian Thome" doesn't seem to be noteworthy either. ManoaChild 21:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some kid's idea of a joke. --Etacar11 01:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, recreate as redirect to spacecraft, speedy delete all this guy's booshwah and block the IP's. Optional: Reformat the servers and salt the ground around them. - Lucky 6.9 04:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why isn't this vfd closed? Punkmorten 10:16, 5 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo Jellybean[edit]

This article has been tagged for speedy deletion a long time now, and I think that's because I am not the only administrator loathe to delete this as a vanity article not asserting notability. The authorship of a number of game FAQs is the assertion of notability, but that does not seem to be notable enough to me. I will vote delete but I think some backing on VFD might be in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really, this is a valid speedy. Writing some game FAQ's is about the lamest claim of notability I've seen. The rest of the article is vanity extraordinaire. -R. fiend 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the assertion of notability is pretty lame, but it claims some degree of notability in a limited but distinct community. Very marginal either way for WP:CSD A7 I think. DES 15:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Quale 20:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name's familiar...but that's just 'cuz he's a prominent member of a board on which I used to post. Delete usercruft. -- Grev -- Talk 02:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. —Theo (Talk) 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Godshall[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cathy Godshall. This person's chief claim to notability is being a mennonite minister and missioning. Activity in the church seems to give him 166 google hits, but I see nothing which establishes notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt Central[edit]

Band vanity, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria, delete. Jersyko talk 13:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete band vanity - very recently-formed band, no evidence of a record contract, no otherwise notable members. CDC (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this band vanity (love the "obstacles in life" bit in the influences section ;) --Zantastik talk 09:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:26, 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 no consensus, article was redirected -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broadbandit[edit]

Neologism or fictitious. Not in any major dictionary, so not worth transwikiing; best to delete. Agentsoo 13:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Wardriving. I've heard of Broadbandit as an alternate term for a wardriver, but not for anything that currently exists in this article. On the other hand, I find it ironic that one of this article's definitions is one who prevents people from stealing bandwidth from the owner. Um, yeah.--Mitsukai 14:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon single battle[edit]

Delete:Pokecruft.--Zxcvbnm 13:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fan trivia CDC (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of interest to pokemon fans. Kappa 20:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at best, should be merged into one of Pokemon's video game entries. Please also note Smogon. jglc | t | c 20:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge with something else. Mmmbeer 21:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pokecruft and subtrivia. And request a search that determines how much of WP Pokemon fans currently own. -Splash 01:06, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 00:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

DJ Pandable[edit]

Google search does not show that this person is a particularly notable disk jockey. I think it should be deleted unless the author of the article wishes to show otherwise. –Shoaler (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This should have been a speedy, by the looks of it.--Mitsukai 13:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD A7. DES 15:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Goertzel[edit]

Ben Goertzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

According to the deletion log, this article was deleted at VfD, later re-created and speedied, then protected from re-creation, then a Deletion Review endorsed the second deletion but removed the protection. It has now been re-created again; it reads somewhat like autobiographical material and appears to have been copy-pasted from one of the previous versions – Gurch 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It doesn't help to notice that the image was uploaded without copyright status. -Amarkov blahedits 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alf photoman 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as re-creation of previously deleted article. Well-published, but none of his works seem to be widely recognized. --N Shar 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is notable because of research, has been published, etc. but article is terrible. Needs to be cleaned up a lot. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep, has been profiled in WSJ[10], ~100 Google Books results (only a few his own works). Tag for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Believer Magazine[edit]

non-notable, vanity, and unsubstantiated Jdavidb 14:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a remotely helpful article in it's present state. --Scimitar parley 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no context. Dunc|☺ 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no context, I don't see how it could be verified or expanded. Friday 19:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after significant expansion. Redirect to The Believer (magazine) The Believer is a notable magazine made by McSweeney's, Dave_Eggers' publishing house. I'll work on the article a bit later. This is definitely not vanity, it's definitely verifiable (I have a few issues myself), and it's definitely notable. MrBland 21:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC) (changed vote 17:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
If you expand it before the end of the end of the deletion period, drop a note off on my talk page and I'll look at changing my vote. --Scimitar parley 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • .Provisional keep, if this this is more than a sentence by close of play - otherwise deleteee --Doc (?) 22:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Redirect per Pyroclastic (good catch) --Doc (?) 00:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Believer (magazine). This is redundant.--Pyroclastic 08:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Pyroclastic. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'll withdraw my initial vote to delete (does my submission count as a vote) and now vote for redirect as everyone else has described. Apparently the guy wasn't describing his own magazine after all (although that's a generic enough name it still wouldn't surprise me). Jdavidb 15:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate wasSpeedy delete, urban dictionary-style dicdef Dunc|☺ 15:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bumweed[edit]

This isn't urbandictionary.com Isotope23 14:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Should have been a speedy.--Mitsukai 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. –Shoaler (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and i so marked it. DES 15:34, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 15:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Willienator[edit]

Yet another nonsense page from the mastermind behind Effection and Julian Thome James 14:42, 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Duncan Wilmot (poet)[edit]

I am unable to confirm that there was such a poet. There was a Canadian politician of the same name Robert Duncan Wilmot (lieutenant governor), but there is no evidence he wrote poetry. Unless someone can prove that this is not a hoax, it should be deleted. Fawcett5 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. googlong "Robert Duncan Wilmot" poet seemed to get me all wikipedia mirrors. Googling his poems "the farmer's last straw" -wikipedia got me 1 unrelated hit, and "a lost rail tie" -wikipedia got me 0. I'm calling this unverifiable, and very probably a hoax. -R. fiend 15:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. A famous poet from the Romantic age who wrote mainly about the effect of lightning on cattle. How very romantic!Capitalistroadster 18:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CRACK BOOOooommmmmm.. MMMOOOooooooooooooooooooo (plop) (plop) GangofOne 01:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily, as leg pull. Moriori 23:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and to the admin who closes this, please move Robert Duncan Wilmot (lieutenant governor) to Robert Duncan Wilmot. Thanks. -R. fiend 13:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalopedia[edit]

Neologism or non-existent wiki website. Zero Google hits. jni 14:51, 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. R. fiend 17:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (Plymouth pub)[edit]

Just a pub. The article even describes it as a "no-frills" pub. Got mention in CAMRA's "Good Beer Guide", but so do many pubs (and, last I checked, Wikipedia is not CAMRA's "Good Beer Guide") I guess it appeared in some animated TV show, but obviously, being animated, it was not actually in the show. I don't see how this is any more encyclopedic than any other pub in England. -R. fiend 14:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is not any old pub. It is featured in paintings by Beryl Cook who is a very well known artist (despite not having a page yet) MyNameIsClare talk 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "someone painted it" a reason to keep the article? Why not mention it in Beryl's article, when she gets one? -R. fiend 15:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not just any old pub, no reason to delete. Kappa 15:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 15:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; do we really want to set a precedent for every pub deserving an article? Agentsoo 16:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been there for nearly 3 years without that happening yet! MyNameIsClare talk 18:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's still just a little pub, folks. Should we start an article for the footbridge in Monet's Water Lilies next? Fernando Rizo T/C 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The pub is a landmark of the Plymouth waterfront. People all over Britain Instantly recognise her paintings.
    • Yeah, it's just a bridge, I guess no-one needs to know who designed it or what style it is. Ignorance is bliss. Kappa 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a book on English pubs. — RJH 17:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The pub is a landmark of the Plymouth waterfront. People all over the UK instantly recognise her paintings. The size of the pub should not be relevant in making the decision to delete the article. Also, the article is about the pub itself, not about the selection of beers it serves. I thought the goal of Wikipedia was to provide a reference about little known subjects as well as well known subjects. This article could potentially provide a resource to someone who has seen the painting and has wondered whether the establishment featured in the painting actually exists. How about having this article as a stub in preparation for the main article about Beryl Cook? Pigeonshouse 18:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're voting on this pub, not her paintings. And I just looked at her paintings on her website and, man, those are ugly. More significantly I only saw one that indicated any connection with the Dolphin, and really it could have well been any pub. It doesn't even seem to me she painted the pub exactly, but she painted people who happened to be in the pub, in a somewhat generic background. The pub itself is incidental. Most paintings in the world are of real places (if not most than very many) and I'm not sure being painted by a somewhat recognized, marginally talented painter is grounds for including every such thing in an encyclopedia. This isn't exactly Giverny. -R. fiend 18:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well for a start, whether you think her paintings are "ugly" or not is rather irrelevant. And she has painted a lot more pictures than are on the website, including the one shown in the top right of the pub's website - which is an accurate picture of the outside of the pub, and most certainly could not be "any pub". The same site has another picture of hers on the left hand side which features the landlord. I am not an expert on her paintings, but I am sure there are many others that are recognisably this particular pub. In addition, that website has reminded me that many of the Tolpuddle Martyrs were visitors - something which I think is notable MyNameIsClare talk 11:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware that my opinions of her work is irrelevent; I just really thought it bad enough that I felt I had to say something. However, these not exactly great connections to various other things seem somewhat lacking. It's not mentioned in the articles for Beryl Cook (though I have no doubts someone here will add it in the next hour or so), nor the Tolpuddle Martyrs, and there doesn't even seem to be a page yet for Bosom Pals. So these seem sort of tenuous connections to sometimes pretty minor things. I think the Bosom Pals connection might be the best reason to keep, but I'd like to see an article there before I consider that a compelling reason. -R. fiend 22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is established in the article. Themindset 18:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC animated comedy Bosom Pals with Dawn French doing voiceovers set here see website. [11] Capitalistroadster 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable pub and Plymouth landmark. the wub "?/!" 13:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears notable. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:52, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wenlock Arms[edit]

Pretty close to an ad for another London pub (there are a few of those, no?). I see nothing special here. Won some CAMRA awards, but they're not exactly the Victoria Cross. The section on live music and who plays and when really is and ad. If anyone can point out anything about this pub that's at all remarkable I could consider changing my vote. -R. fiend 15:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shame really, because it's a nicely formatted article and even has a picture. Nevertheless, I have to agree on the nnness. So delete, although I could be persuaded otherwise. Agentsoo 16:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than delete, I'd like to see this transwikied to a book on English pubs. But I bet a case could be made to keep this page as a historical site. Is it a protected site, by any chance? — RJH 17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean is the pub a historical site? I don't see why it would be; it's a pub. 1835 isn't even that old for a pub that survived the Blitz. If there is a wikipubs or something then, fine, put it there, but if there isn't one and unless you feel like starting one, I'm not sure exactly how your vote should be interpreted. -R. fiend 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Buildings built before 1840 are Grade II listed by default. CalJW 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what, 500,000 buildings in the UK alone? Are we to practically double the size of wikipedia with articles on individual pubs, houses, etc that are of some slight architectural interest? I've been to many pubs in London, some of which were older than this. I'm really not convinsed this is special. -R. fiend 01:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That isn't true. The oldest portion of the house I live in was constructed prior to 1840 and it isn't listed; there are ca. 20 listed buildings in Cheddar I believe, not all of them date from before 1840, and there are a lot more buildings older than that date in the village. Thryduulf 01:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, failing that merge with Pubs in London or somewhere. Kappa 20:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Old enough for me. CalJW 21:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has enough historical information about the Wenlock Brewery to be useful. It is also very well known in London. I might lose the Jazz and Blues section though, as non-encyclopaedic. There arent that many Georgian pubs in good condition in London either - most are Victorian, so I might add more information about the architecture. Justinc 22:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted attack page. Dunc|☺ 16:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ong[edit]

Vanity page that asserts some vague notability. Delete as non-notable or joke/hoax. jni 15:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as joke (therefore vandalism) or attack page. DES 15:30, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as test. Dunc|☺ 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Fold/sub fold/sub fold/sub fold/sub fold[edit]

Delete - A copy of Yogi Berra. I've marked related pages (Wiki Fold, etc.) for speedy delete. Pagrashtak 15:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have speedied the whole chain as a user test. jni 15:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • how dare you deface such a work of brilliance like this?!--152.163.100.139 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Muhammad Akram[edit]

The current article is just a biography without any notion of notability. (apart from the single fact that his son became a minister later).

  • Delete: non-notable, Genealogy page. --Ragib 15:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bio/vanity. --Etacar11 01:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like genealogy. Gamaliel 01:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a biography linked with important personalities like Liaquat Ali Khan, the famous college/University of Aligarh and the Historical Khilafat Movement event. Faridzenger 11:00, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC) vote from 202.142.184.5
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and, since there was no debate I have not copied this to the talk page. Splash 01:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Psilocyban Project[edit]

Misspelling of the title. All the contenent megerd in Harvard Psilocybin Project pippo2001 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is Harvard Psilocyban Project

  • The last step in the merger of duplicate articles is not deletion. Redirect. Uncle G 16:14:03, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
    • I didn't make myself clear. This page says Psilocyban while it is Psilocybin. It is just a wrong spelling. --pippo2001 19:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did make yourself clear. You made yourself clear that you took the text from the one article and added it to the other. You've merged the articles, thereby preventing the deletion of the one that you merged from. Uncle G 08:11:15, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
  • I just went ahead and redirected it. Pippo - all you need to do is write #redirect [[Article title]] in an article to redirect people to the proper place. :) --Tothebarricades 20:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you mean that you keep all the possible wrong spellings that pop up when you search? --pippo2001 22:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. It makes it easier to use the encyclopedia without having to have your spelling spot-on. I personally am unconvinced by this argument because it gets taken to extremes like Sammich → Sandwich. -Splash 01:14, 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 removed from vfd as article had expanded since nomination -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Meyers[edit]

Delete - Not notable, and few Google hits. FunkyChicken! 16:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, pending further notability. Some famous directors got their start directing music videos, but that hardly makes every video director famous. If he gets to the next step in the ladder of directing he can get an article. -R. fiend 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, director of notable music videos. Kappa 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. notable director of high-profile music videos for many hit singles. Won awards for said videos, and is set to direct feature-film debut for 2007. A Google search for "Dave+Meyers+music+video" returns several useful links (which is how I got this information in the first place). We have articles for Hype Williams, Paul Hunter, and Joseph Kahn; this guy deserves his own article as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he is not notable yet. Perhaps in a few years. . . UncleFloyd 22:16, 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. Splash 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibad Desmukh[edit]

Google gets no results for "Ibad Desmukh", and the reference to farting implies lack of seriousness in the article. Sheldrake 16:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn to put it mildly. Agentsoo 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish this were a speedy, but I'm not sure it is. Well, delete it, certainly. -R. fiend 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN JoJan 18:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a joke. it almost fits A7, but technically those are claims of notability, albiet tranparently false ones. DES 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's a speedy in my books, and it's emminently deleteable. Denni☯ 00:30, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Phillips[edit]

I don't think he's notable enough for inclusion, just because he's a criminal. Deb 16:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of criminals are notable; this one isn't. Delete. Agentsoo 17:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn e-bay fraudster - no idea why the BBC ran a story - but just because they cover trivia doesn't mean we have to --Doc (?) 17:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN JoJan 18:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If anything add an entry to Ebay Fraud. Mmmbeer 21:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn criminal. -Splash 01:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn criminal. (what Splash said) --Etacar11 01:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". He did make news, for unfortunate reasons. --Vizcarra 19:46, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X-Mutants[edit]

Fanon. Non-Notable. The anon editor also threatens to upload these dreadful stories to Wikipedia, which is something to look forward to speedying. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)}}

  • Oh dear, I hope he wasn't serious. If he was we'll certainly have to find some rationale for speedying them. Delete, by the way. -R. fiend 16:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fan-fiction. Get rid of it. Delete. -- Pc13 18:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: Oh holy hell no. jglc | t | c 20:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first sentence explains its NN status and its not encyclopedic nature better than I could. Mmmbeer
  • Delete with prejudice. Then delete all the other stuff he threatens to upload and protect it against recreation. -Splash 01:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fan fiction. --Etacar11 01:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and destroy. (note: also may be copyvio, as much fan fiction is. Marvel may not want this person playing in their yard.) - WCFrancis 18:19, 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glassy Junction[edit]

A pub frequented by folks from India. That's about it. I don't see how that fits into an encyclopedia. -R. fiend 16:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Agentsoo 17:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN JoJan 18:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree does not arrant inclusion (unsigned comment by 193.113.48.11 -R. fiend 17:31, 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 merge and redirect with Klingon -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon_cuisine[edit]

not notable Star Trek trivia --Dv 16:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, because it is imperative that fuck you faggots.

sign your posts. Hosterweis (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive him, it's Klingon nature to be abrupt.. JamesBurns 06:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even worth merging if you ask me. Cruftastic. Agentsoo 17:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. -- user:zanimum
  • Mmm... Gagh. Merge into Klingon per above. — RJH 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Just like revenge, its a dish best served cold. AND ALIVE!!!) -- user:zanimum (sorry)
  • Merge as per above. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam - Thatdog 19:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge to Klingon. That article is already quite big and might get too big with this addition. If this is the case Strong Keep. The theme is often cited in all Start Trek and essential to a right description of the Klingon race.-Poli (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. We list tons of pop-culture crap, and though this isn't something I'm personally interested in, it isn't hard to imagine there's plenty of people who are. --Scimitar parley 21:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Why not? There's already plenty of Klingon junk... Mmmbeer 23:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF is 'cruft'
Based on the following definition, I'd guess crap. Hosterweis (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
cruft: /kruhft/ [very common; back-formation from crufty] 1. n.
An unpleasant substance. The dust that gathers under your bed is
cruft; the TMRC Dictionary correctly noted that attacking it with a
broom only produces more. 2. n. The results of shoddy construction.
3. vt. [from `hand cruft', pun on `hand craft'] To write assembler
code for something normally (and better) done by a compiler (see
hand-hacking). 4. n. Excess; superfluous junk; used esp. of
redundant or superseded code. 5. [University of Wisconsin] n. Cruft
is to hackers as gaggle is to geese; that is, at UW one properly
says "a cruft of hackers".
See Wikipedia:Cruft. Defintion 4 from your quote, I think. -Splash 02:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should be cleaned up. I recommend the Gay Nigger Association of America for deletion next, it's about time someone got rid of that. Pigger 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are kidding, right? Do that and you will get lynched by a large number of people! -Splash 02:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote against deletion -- these are not fanon, or hoax, they are words with which non-Trekxperts will be unfamiliar and which they may well wish to look up, without having to endure listening to the 8-hour Trekkie version, with hand-gestures, convention reminiscences and closest-modern-day-approximations recipes.

has independant value; shopuld be in Wiki somewhere --Simon Cursitor 07:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the original author of this article and have contributed some of the foods and beverages listed. I really wish to preserve the article's contents. Keep or Merge to Klingon. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. There is enough here for an article. JamesBurns 02:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Strongly Merge. If the Romulans article can include Romulan cuisine, the Klingons article can include Klingon Cuisine - raktajino is something a lot of ppl might be interested in. Coronela 03:21, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organon Sixth Edition[edit]

Such an obscure text which seems to have been copied and pasted. Utterly unreadable. Agreed by several wikipedians at Talk:Homeopathy PhatRita 17:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • deleteI suspect it is a copyvio.Geni 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasoning. It appears to be copied from elsewhere, yet I can't make heads or tails of what it is trying to say. Edwardian 17:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little more than nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite -- badly POV, but can be salvaged if converted into a brief article about the origins and history of the book. While homeopathy is quackery, it's very, very notable, and this is far from homeocruft. Haikupoet 02:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite - badly written but I remember the content from a course I took last year while in a naturopathy degree program. The concept is 'badly' explained, it looks more like someone's notes with some text attached. I noted there is a couple of loose references in the article, --203.12.172.254 07:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Berniebear[reply]
  • Comment. I believe 203.12.172.254 was the original "author" of the article. Anyone want to verify this? Edwardian 07:30, 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate Game[edit]

Not encyclopedic, POV, and I'm not even sure this game is common or notable in any way. Malathion 17:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't seem worth keeping. Delete. Agentsoo 17:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until someone proofs that it is really wide-spread mania in the net. Renata3 17:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Google#Games_with_Google with NPOV edits. I have fooled around with this and it is mildly amusing, but in the end it is just playing with "lost in translation" and gets old quickly. I don't see how this could be grown into a full fledged article, furthermore the name is misleading since this can be done with any translation software. Hamstersanonymous 17:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. rbonvall 17:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Hamstersanonymous. --Idont Havaname 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. And misleading since as the Hamster says, it can be done with any translation software. Thus, a redirect specifically to Google would be misleading at best. -Splash 01:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Haha, I personally know the guy who wrote this and I can testify he invented the game himself, which means he is the only person in the world aware of it. So that makes it non-notable I guess. JellyWorld 14:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a pastime, but non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 10:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Jellyworld, i know this guy personally, and, he probably intended it as a joke, but it doesn't really serve any purpose, and i have never heard of the game until he told me about it. Laune 10:24, 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 16:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge[edit]

I think this is original research, it certainly hasn't got anything to do with science, and the few external links given are vaguely on topic but given the amount of server space used for religion on the Internet, I don't think are particularly notable. Perhaps someone more knowlegable about theology (which I can't get my head round at all) can correct me. Dunc|☺ 17:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and move to under Fundamentalism. POV and claims notwithstanding, this topic is not at this point worthy of an entire article, and seems unlikely to become so. Put in a redirect and move. I agree its crap, its silly nonsense, but it is believed by Fundamentalists and used by Fundamentalistic Apologists to bolster their beliefs and position. Outside of Fundamental Apologetics, however, it has no adherents - hence is a sub-topic of same. --216.53.182.148 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (was not logged in - sorry - this is --KillerChihuahua 14:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Delete it seems another nutty joke theory. drini ☎ 17:32, 27 July 2005
  • Keep Whether one agrees with it or not, it is an argument made by some Christian apologists. Similar claims are made by Muslims about the Qur'an. --Flex 17:42, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — the article is fairly neutral as it does not assert that these claims are true. I have read in books such claims going back to the 19th century, so it has some slight historical value. But I would like to see this closely linked into a more general article on the supposed links between scientific knowledge and religious dogma. :) — RJH 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs work, but it's a valid topic, and a prevelant belief among fundamentalist creationist christians. Lots of references on the internet: [12] MickWest 17:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 24 at 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fairly neutral article JoJan 18:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wiki doesn't have to be the home for everything bible, ad this certianly seems like gibberish--172.152.1.161 18:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fairly neutral, and a valid topic. --Idont Havaname 18:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've stumbled across the article when it was very fresh, and was apalled by unencyclopedic style (look in the history), but this can be cured. It's an argument of enough public visibility so that it cannot be ignored. Unfortunately these articles attract contributions which are against our WP:NOR policy, but this can also potentially be kept under control. --Pjacobi 18:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. It's poorly written and wikified atm. Mmmbeer 18:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs clean up. Phoenix prima
  • Keep,clean up, and move under Fundamentalism. If anyone has an issue with its POV, they can update it and provide additional arguments. Unknown
  • Bullshit. Keep, though, as believed bullshit. humblefool® 00:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From original research:
    • The following are examples of allowable claims, research, and views (as long as they are verifiable and sources are cited):
    1. listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C);
    2. listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories);
    3. including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. theological or philosophical theories);
    4. citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether).
    • This appears to fit squarely within those bounds. --Unknown 16:14, 27 July 2005 (PDT)
  • Keep. This is grasping at straws, clearly, but it's cited. Gazpacho 01:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. The title Biblical scientific foreknowledge implies an endorsement that such foreknowledge exists. It should be called something like Claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible, or better yet, Modern Science and the Bible, which could also discuss the instances were the Bible contradicts modern science. COGDEN 23:30, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up and rename. Style is mediocre, there are not enough citations listed in the article which makes it look like original research, and the name should be changed to Claims of Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge or something similar. Overall, it's almost NPOV, but lacks citations and needs more counter-arguments for the various points. Xaa 00:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with the first poster, this should be moved under Fundamentalism. Franc28 03:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename Bollar 14:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it definitly needs a cleanup and a rename along the lines COGDEN proposed. A article about contradictions between the Bible and science would also be acceptable, though I'd recommend making it a separate article, if only because having both on one page would make a very long article. -- Ritchy 29 July 2005
  • This looks like unverifiable original research, unless there's a better name for this. Google on biblical scientific foreknowledge, 22,000+ hits. Put quotes around it, 5 hits, the first two of which are Wikipedia. Strong Delete unless more verifible name is given for this concept. Friday 05:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research. I really can't see the bible's mentions of the water cycle as notable, any more than the bible mentioning that people have sex - i.e. Biblical proof that ancient Israel knew that people have sex ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if rewritten and renamed. IT needs to be copy-edited and it needs some more citations, especially from some more neutral sources. It also needs to be NPOV'd, and should cover some of the text of the Bible that most scientists think are in error, for example. BlankVerse ∅ 12:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's being very kind to call this original research. William Avery 15:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Robert McClenon 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is NOT original research, because by definition it must be, "...any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'..." Since other fundamentalists hold this position, it is not a "new/novel interpretation". It is obviously not encyclopedic, however, as it cherrypicks material which supports a contention (persuasive), both within the Bible and within the scientific literature. This particular user, as it has been shown, has ignored the substantial proof that the OT was compiled at a much later date than he purports, and that it relied heavily upon well-established practices throughout antiquity, such as burying waste and avoiding blood. Not encyclopedia material, this would spread ignorance and confusion rather than enlighten. Only way to preserve this page is to present theories of the origin of information in the OT, and compare to synchronous information in the ancient near east, which would make this a huge page...untenable--skiddum12:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless, POV, unencyclopedic, and irredeemably so. Probably original research, too; plus the article title is a neologism (fully 24 Google hits). Rd232 17:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Research, but not original research. Interesting subject. --Vizcarra 19:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: alleged neologism: doing a internet search on Bible and "scientific foreknowledge" yields 879 hits. I cite: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Bible%22+and++%22scientific+foreknowledge%22&btnG=Search

Therefore, it is not a neologism

128.205.191.60 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

re: re: alleged neologism: volume of usage of a neologism does not preclude its being such. you must prove that, according to Wikipedia's definition, as a neologism, "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" is not, " word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined") —often to apply to new concepts, or to reshape older terms in newer language form. Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context. Neologisms are by definition "new," and as such are often directly attributable to a specific individual, publication, period or event. The term "neologism" was itself coined around 1800. It can also refer to an existing word or phrase which has been assigned a new meaning." I think this title definitively falls into "reshape older terms in newer language form..."; specifically, you have repeated a neologism created by, "...They are often created by combining existing words (see compound noun and adjective) or by giving words new and unique suffixes or prefixes. Those which are portmanteaus are shortened. Neologisms can also be created through abbreviation or acronym, by intentionally rhyming with existing words, or simply through playing with sounds." (from neologism)--skiddum 12:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic. Eclipsed 02:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


author's comment, dated 8/1/05[edit]

I did a search through PubMed and other sources and found some additional material. Unfortunately I have only time to put it in the Pro Bible scientific foreknowledge link section. Also, there appears to be a article which was written in medical journal in another language which I wish to have translated via friends. I also found other material which I did not want to put in the link section until I did more fact checking. Please be sure to examine the link section.

Also, if anyone speaks Italian I would appreciate any input gained from this article:


G Batteriol Virol Immunol. 1960 Mar-Apr;53:197-204. Related Articles, Links


[The "Leviticus", first codex of medical legislation.]'

[Article in Italian]

CORDIGLIA GJ.

additional comment by someone else[edit]

  • Please pardon me while I roll my eyes. — RJH 15:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete Dunc|☺ 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Arterburn[edit]

Self-promotion of two non-notable websites. -- RHaworth 17:16:42, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

  • Delete. When will people learn? Agentsoo 17:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn — RJH 17:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN JoJan 18:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A3 - it pretty much just is the two external links. --Idont Havaname 18:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under A7 or A3. DES 19:04, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pung[edit]

Delete. Neologism (and stupid one at that) Chuck 17:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I seem to have messed up the VfD listing. Pung is the correct page to delete. Can somebody help fix the link above?
  • Speedy Delete Agree. stupid neologism. –Shoaler (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupidity. -Splash 01:19, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out law dogg[edit]

Advertising-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising. Probably could have been speedied. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 17:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertising JoJan 18:12, 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Smuggling Model (DSM)[edit]

Non-notable. Of 5 Google hits, 2 are the article itself and 3 are the source materials referenced by the article. Please note that the article has been smuggled wholesale into smuggling and if the nomination for deletion is accepted that material should be removed too. Johanus 18:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: There is a nearly identical article with the title Developmental Smuggling Model(DSM) which ought to be deleted. - Centrx 22:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how this got under the radar. Delete. Agentsoo 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like original research, surely not in proper encyclopedic form. Pavel Vozenilek 19:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Novel, original research. Looks like it could be vanity too. - Centrx 22:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Original Research. The sad thing is it's a damn good article, too. Xaa 04:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

Chris hodges[edit]

Article on a moderately successful (in terms of church attendance, at least) pastor of a moderately-sized church. A search for "Chris hodges" + church on Google reveals 400-odd hits, most of which seem to pertain to him. I still think it looks non-notable. jglc | t | c 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. The article doesn't make much of a claim to notability either. Delete. Agentsoo 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn pastor vanity. --Etacar11 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above --Mysidia 01:32, 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✉ 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arkles Public House[edit]

I am also adding Black Bull Public House, Hare and Hounds Public House, and West Derby Public House. They have the same content.

It's a pub, and it's a listed building. The latter might warrant an article, but without any sort of further information we have a useless article. If expanded to indicate what's special about it it might be a keeper. There must be over a thousand listed buildings in Liverpool alone, most of which don't have articles. I don't see the point of this one. -R. fiend 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, listed buildings. Kappa 19:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how much you know about listing buildings in the UK, but there are 1,471 listed buildings in Liverpool alone [13]. I would propose that only buildings with a grade 1 listing are notable enough for inclusion purely on this basis. If they are grade 2 or 2*, they should require further evidence of notability. [Many grade 2 listed buildings are private houses] Bobbis 20:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Buildings are listed because they are of special architectural interest, ie they are notable. Kappa 23:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are over 500,000 listed buildings in the UK. Are you really suggesting that every one of them is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia? Bobbis 23:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Only if that encylopedia was not paper. Kappa 23:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There must be thousands of pubs in the UK, many in grade 2 listed buildings. I doubt more than a few dozen of them are notable and these are aren't. Bobbis 20:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grade II listeds aren't notable. Dunc|☺ 20:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps Listed buildings in Liverpool should be considered also, under the criteria that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I would vote a weak delete on this page. See Listed buildings in Birmingham for an example of how this should be done, IMHO. Bobbis 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being Grade II listed is nothing unusual and being a pub is positively mundane; so mundane it reduces any sliver of notability that might be conferred if it were in a particularly notable Grade II building. It basically just means it was built before about 1860ish and didn't get bombed or burnt down. Yet. -Splash 01:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but anticipating that once every crapulent little school in the world has been added to wikipedia, regardless of its notability (or lack thereof), pubs may as well be next. Proto t c 11:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed buildings, and yes I know how many there are. Dsmdgold 15:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete these as they stand. Without further exposition, they're pointless to keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:04, 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. Splash 01:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ironwork[edit]

Simple dictdef, plus a few links. Delete or Transwiki to wictionary, as appropriate. DES 19:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Transwiki, created article as part of WikiProject Missing articles. Listed in both 1911 and 2004 Britannica, so other strong sources indicate that there is encylopedic material available about the topic. Links were included to expedite article growth. Leonsimms 19:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rule of thumb: Any non-proper noun can be made into a decent article. Keep this, I think it could expand to something useful. Agentsoo 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why should this go back to being a missing article? Kappa 19:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also should include a link to Ironworks for those looking for the industrialization topic. Mmmbeer 20:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Great potential for an encyclopedic article with this subject. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable topic. Capitalistroadster 00:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have now expanded this. No Change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 11:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as expanded. I think I may have been too fast on the trigger with this one. But boy does VfD work as a {{fast-expand}} with possibly useful articles :) Thanks. DES 15:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as expanded. (VfD sometimes helps with articles). Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obvious now, but it should have been when it was nominated too. Please at least do a quick google search, or read the links in the article, to see if the subject is worth being covered. This topic is an obvious one that should. - Taxman Talk 16:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

The Prisoner Of Chillon[edit]

This was a candidate to be moved to Wikisource. I now has been moved. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surprised this has to go through VFD if it's been moved. Since it's here, delete. Agentsoo 19:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • T'is process. See Transwiki. -Splash 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CSD criteria A5 says: "Any article that has been discussed at Votes for Deletion, where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded." (emphasis mine). As this hasn't been previously discussed here it cannot be speedied. Thryduulf 01:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of no encyclopedic interest, but fine for Wikisource. -Splash 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it has already been transwikied. Thryduulf 01:29, 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✉ 23:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vines Public House, Liverpool[edit]

Another pub without any indication of notability. I don't see anything that sets it apart from the many thousands of other pubs in Britain. -R. fiend 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nn. Agentsoo 19:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a centre of the community, almost 100 years old. Kappa 19:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your source for the "centre of the community" assertion? Even the article didn't say that. And furthermore 100 years old isn't particularly old for a British pub. -R. fiend 20:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pubs are centres of the community, at least in my experience. Kappa 20:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which would make your observation redundant. Ben-w 21:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well people would nag me about their grandparents if I just said "almost 100 years old". Looks I can't win... Kappa 23:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you basically think every pub in Britain (and perhaps the world) should have an article, then. Is there anything in the world that doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article in your mind? -R. fiend 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your community must have an awful lot of centres.... -Splash 01:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 20:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability; WP is not a travel guide. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just an outlet for beer. And crisps. Oh, and peanuts. Which is less than your local newsagents sells and surely they don't get an article? -Splash 01:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's old enough to be considered historic. Also "Walker was the man who gave us our famous art gallery in 1877. The Vines itself is one of the only pubs in the British Isles that can boast its own art collection" according o the BBC source. That's notable. --Vizcarra 19:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Grade II: buildings of special interest" as defined by someone else. That they are public does make them different from private houses, anyone can visit. The Vines is II * even more interesting. --Jirate 21:32, 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Association Management

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Splash 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist law[edit]

Neologism. It's an interesting article for what it is but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Tothebarricades 19:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Mild keep This is an interesting article about an intersting topic. It needs more cited sources. Most google hits on the phrase seem to point to mirrors of this article. But this page uses the term in very much the same sense. If there is better documentation provided of the widespread use of the term, keep. otherwise Rename to something like Rules without laws. DES 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though it's a weak keep. Seems a bit like original research; maybe a neologism. Some of the material is questionable.Mmmbeer 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs serious development, but anarchists regularly espouse normative statements of social behaviour, and suggest mechanisms to cause adjustments towards the norm: ie, law. Discussing these normative statements and mechanisms under the heading "Anarchist law" is probably most appropriate. Fifelfoo 23:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better within a larger context? The anarchism article is kind of cramped, though. --Tothebarricades 04:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
"The Future Society of Anarchism" or equivalent title would result in the existing edit wars being played out as a series of normative statements. There's a difference between the normative statements of anarchism that "humanity requires no government to function effectively" and "social taboos would prevent murder." The example of banishment or shunning without trial for socially abstract "crimes" is one that I consider sufficiently like "government" (in its form of mob rule) to be anti-anarchistic, yet many anarchists consider "banishment" to be a sufficient legal system. Similarly, my strong feelings about the need to be confronted with specific charges, evidenced, and evaluated by the community before social sanction take place is considered "government" by others. "Law" is probably the best heading. By the way, "Anarchist economics" was colonised by par-econon supporters, who removed the prior content (mostly about the industrial commonwealth, the example I know best). I predict that even amongst workers-movement anarchists the same would happen to a "future society" article which covered econ, law, gender, family, society, etc. Fifelfoo 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cf. the Anarchist FAQ. -Dv 14:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a neologism. It has been common for at least 35 years, and probably was used by Individualist Anarchists since 1870. The article should however show how it is related to the Natural law and Polycentric law. However, traditional socialist anarchists may not like it because anarcho-capitalists immediately picked up the term when they extended their free-market beliefs to a stateless conclusion. Nevertheless, both sides have used the term anarchist law. Carltonh 22:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't really understand why there's a VfD on this. Saswann 14:29, 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 speedily deleted -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LunchBox (person)[edit]

Appears to be a poorly-written entry about an urban myth that is allegedly widespread. Googling for "LunchBox" + "urban myth" results in apparently no valid results. (On a side note, this entry is quite similar to the Armypants article that was VfD'd a week or two back, and caused quite a lot of vandalism) I say strong delete. jglc | t | c 20:14, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Chen[edit]

The facts in this article don't seem to check out. Possible hoax? If so then delete. JeremyA (talk) 20:32, 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✉ 23:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Zip Pen"[edit]

This was marked for transwiki to Wiktionary, but I don't think it should be on either. It's a little fishy when there's an external link to a business website in the article. It doesn't strike me as particularly notable in its field, and as such is mere advertising. And if all else fails it is only a dicdef. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 21:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Bad title, advertising, not notable, neologism. Take your pick. Mmmbeer 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons above. Nabla 18:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

List of music groups whose songs have been used in advertising[edit]

Annnnnnnnnnnd it's back, less than two weeks after failing VFD. I'm not sure if we can speedy this, though. DS 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note to users of Mozilla Firefox: If you have the Adblock extension installed, you will need to disable it to edit this VfD. -Splash 01:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and can we protect it against being recreated? Since the page creator obviously didn't get the hint. DS 21:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to protect I think. Just make sure to remove the link from Selling out after this is deleted again, as I'm sure this was recreated from that link. The content was originally in Selling out, so actually I was the original creator of the article at this title. Isomorphic 05:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy if this is significantly similar to the previous article, Delete otherwise. android79 21:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as previously. It isn't similar enough for speedy though (different layout and different set of songs listed). Thryduulf 01:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. -Splash 01:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again.  Grue  06:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again - my arguments (see below) have not changed - Skysmith 10:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Edit-War-of-VfD started? -DePiep 10:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as previously. JamesBurns 04:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of music groups whose songs have been used in advertising[edit]

This list is rather pointless since it could never be comprehensive, and it implies a POV just by existing. The material was moved from selling out, where it also caused a POV problem, but it really isn't needed at all. Isomorphic 5 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-comprehensive, not really valuable even if we managed to list them all...-- Natalinasmpf 5 July 2005 05:35 (UTC)
  • Delete, totally unmaintainable. Dcarrano July 5, 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 5 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
  • Delete, there have been some songs that shot to prominence through being in ads but not the place for it. Excession 5 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
  • Delete, all reasons mentioned above DePiep 5 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ July 5, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
  • Keep - if limited to notable instances of notable songs by notable groups used in notable ad campaigns (which the list currently seems to comprise). I could see someone using this to find out, for example, the name of that catchy Sting tune from that sleek Jaguar commercial. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 21:51 (UTC)
  • Delete - unmaintainable list, because advertisers use recognizable tunes for nostalgia value and various other reasons. This list would expand every time some agency uses some tune in in a commercial. Every advertising agency regard their own campaigns as noticeable - and would be in position to include themselves into WP, of course. If this were, say, list of music groups or composers that compose music exclusively for advertising, it would make sense - Skysmith 6 July 2005 10:49 (UTC)
  • Keep per BD2412.  Grue  6 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 13:30 (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✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eflenstray [edit]

Hoax page. --Ian Pitchford 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, said while an electric guitar and violin band plays. Mmmbeer 22:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete joke? --Etacar11 01:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 04:29, 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✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Petulia[edit]

Hoax. This "country" does not exist. CDC (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fairly obvious hoax. Sam Vimes 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should get the author to write a page about Petoria update the Petoria page. --Pagrashtak 21:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the categories to "fictional" cats so it's not mucking up the other cats. I'm mildly surprised that "Fictional Pacific atolls" is not a category (yet). --Pagrashtak 21:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. hoax. Mmmbeer 21:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete admitted fiction/hoax. --Etacar11 01:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 06:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is hoax. 內布拉斯加 01:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An admitted fiction is not a hoax. Septentrionalis 21:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Yeah, but as long as its fictional within the head of one person, it's unverifiable and hardly notable Sam Vimes 21:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Either by vote counting or by being ordinarily WP:BOLD. Splash 02:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Less than three[edit]

Delete. Can never be more than a definition. You wouldn't even search for this under its title. Chuck 21:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emoticon – you edit conflicted me doing so with your VfDing. [[smoddy]] 21:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per smoddy. Mmmbeer 21:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is ever going to search for this under "Less than three". Why redirect if there is no value to the title? Chuck 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Why do people search for anything? Clearly someone took the time to add this entry. Mmmbeer 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. My point is that redirects are pointless to keep if its not something somebody would type into the "Search" box or put into an article (which are the only ways in which redirects are useful). You might type "<3" but you wouldn't type "Less than three".Chuck 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per smoddy. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emoticon, don't redirect. No one will ever type "less than three" into the search box. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I presume that's a "merge and delete", which is impossible under the GFDL. Redirects are cheap. [[smoddy]] 10:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What? Impossible under GFDL? How? Chuck 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The GFDL insists that authors are credited. If you merge content, the only place the content has the original user attached to it is on the original page. If you delete this, the author is no longer credited. Thus, it is not allowed. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 14:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, it's impossible to tell what a person will search for. It is possible that someone might find use out of a redirect, even if it is one you will never use. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I'd like to point out that a search for "Less than three" and emoticon returns on point results[14]. Mmmbeer 17:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and very few. I looked at the hits on the first three pages and only one referred to the "<3" emoticon. — JIP | Talk 12:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Animapromorphic[edit]

neologism. Purge. DS

  • Delete, neologism. It looks like someone tried create the opposite of Anthropomorphic, with an extra R thrown in there. Anyone know off hand what the real word is? I'm curious. --Pagrashtak 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, neologism. The correct word is apparently theriomorphic, although this generally relates to a god in an animal form. [15]. Thryduulf 01:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Xaa 23:54, 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✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Export Nation[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. DS 21:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Not encyclopedic. Mmmbeer 21:56, 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 no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

55th Grey Cup[edit]

This page is entirely useless and an appropriate entry could be handled better by Grey Cup. I hesitated at first because they red link EVERY match on Grey Cup. Individual games are definitely NN and not encyclopedic, in this context. Mmmbeer 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete for the reasons Mmmbeer gives. Thryduulf 01:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into an article about other grey cup matches, perhaps 1960-69 Grey Cup matches or 50th - 59th Grey Cup matches or something. I see nothing in this article that explains why this particular match is notable enough for an article of its own or how it can grow without the insertion of trivia. Truly notable matches where there is chance of more than two or three short paragraphs of encyclopaedic information can have break-out articles, but I don't see this match as one of them. Thryduulf 13:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was all fired up in disbelief for nominating a Grey Cup article until I read the "article" in question. The score is wrong (I suspect the contributor was thinking of the 54th Grey Cup) and that would have been the only encyclopedic part of the entry since the other sentence was POV. Delete [Vote changed below] but let the red links stand since articles on the Grey Cups will be very interesting and encyclopedic and we don't need all 92 Grey Cup games on the Grey Cup page. The long and colourful history of the Grey Cup will be a long enough article on its own. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. NormanEinstein has done the work of creating a suitable stub in place of the previous "article". DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- inaccurate article. However, individual Grey Cup games are generally notable; although admittedly not quite the same as individual Super Bowl games. If someone writes up good articles for them, they should be kept. --Scimitar parley 13:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article in its present form is pretty poor, but the 55th Grey Cup is a topic worthy of an article. If the article contains inaccurate information the information should be corrected or removed. This article should be tagged as a stub and given a chance to grow. --NormanEinstein 16:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've formatted and wikified the article in addition to correcting its factual errors. I think this should sate those that wanted it deleted because of inaccuracies. --NormanEinstein 20:52, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. --OntarioQuizzer 05:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Super Bowls deserve own pages, so do Grey Cups. --Woohookitty 02:56, 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 delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pubcookie[edit]

Advertising. DS 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, ad, nn. Mmmbeer 22:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Being open-source, why would it be an ad? It is used in wikis. Plenty of info on Google. --Vizcarra 18:19, 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 delete. – ABCD✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Love and wolves[edit]

No claim of notability. --malathion talk 22:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, not notable. Mmmbeer 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't even try to claim notability. Chuck 19:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. JamesBurns 04:30, 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 no consensus to delete. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earl_of_Hai_Hun[edit]

The name was based on a mistranslation by me -- it is now properly handled by a redirect from Marquess_of_Hai_Hun.

  • It's a harmless rediredt, and somebody else might make that same mistranslation when searching for an article. So keep. - ulayiti (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Also, requests to delete redirects should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, since they're a kind of special case. -- Visviva 23:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is pretty unlikely that this particular mistranslation will ever occur again. To the ears of a native english speaker, "Earl of Hai Hun" suggests "Hai Hun" is a geographic place. This is not so, therefor a cautious translator would avoid this formulation. "Hai Hun" (海昏) is a derisive nickname, so a clearer translation would be "Earl Hai Hun" (without the "of"), directly translating as "Earl Ocean Confusion". So if we want to keep as a redirect, I suggest renaming it to "Earl Hai Hun" or "Earl Ocean Confusion" (which gets right to the point). But deletion is probably better. technopilgrim 19:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TextOut[edit]

Wikipedia is not MSDN. Delete. — Bcat (talk • email) 22:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was ALREADY MERGED AND REDIRECTED. Given that this was a VfD to merge with no debate, I have not copied this to the talk page. Splash 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rattan_furniture[edit]

Insufficient content; merge with Rattan. Dhasenan 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree and Merge with Rattan. Thunderbrand 22:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but VfD is not exactly the place to suggest merges. Merge and redirect. - ulayiti (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge away, no need for the VfD. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:35, 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✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMOS LARKINS II[edit]

Article is a copy of Amos Larkins, and doesn't follow WP:NC. rbonvall 22:32, 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✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Tea Direct[edit]

ad or vanity page Wookipedia 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

old Vfd discussion about the same page from December 2004

  • Cleanup Delete I'll take a stab.... Nevermind. I tried to do research, but they are just not notable enough. Harmil 23:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They appear to have made little progress since last time. And, if Harmil can't do it, probably noone can. -Splash 01:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here that isn't at bubble tea or simply an advertisement. Basil Fawlty 00:31, 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 redirect to Fat cat if kept. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cats[edit]

This is an article about a band that might be locally notable but don't appear to have released anything. The way that the article is written (and all produced in a single edit) makes it feel like a copyvio but I haven't been able to find the source(s) if it is.

This and the scatter of external links makes me think band vanity. Thryduulf 22:36, 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✉ 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiho the Doujin[edit]

Unfortunately not a speedy. NN h-doujin. humblefool® 21:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. It is ever so close to being speediable as patent nonsense, but not quite. Thryduulf 00:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some kind of porn? Hard to tell what it is, only 2 google hits. --Etacar11 01:53, 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✉ 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crinkle[edit]

Very probably factually innacurate dictionary defination. Was nominated for wiktionary, but the better course of action is probably a delete. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete its demise will not be a great loss --Doc (?) 23:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef of the worst kind: an incorrect dicdef. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 23:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot be more than a dicdef, even when uncrinkled. -Splash 01:38, 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✉ 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LithoLink[edit]

A software program that stores information of kidney stones. No indication of notability, not a breakthrough or radical development in any way. It is also an ad. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the laboratory accomplished what no other clinical laboratory had done. They developed the assays and the statistical presentation of diagnostic testing results for specialists in urology and nephrology. [email protected] 06:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up the stupidness, but no assertion of notability. Mmmbeer 23:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently nobody came along yet to add information. You did delete the content at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LithoLink&oldid=19701514 [email protected] 06:55, 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 if re-written. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STA Travel[edit]

Advertisement. Delete. Thatdog 23:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: This is probably a notable company (international student travel organisation), but the article is a copyvio that I have marked as such. Thryduulf 01:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite Definitely notable, lots of branches across the UK (don't know about further afield). But needs rewriting. Proto t c 11:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rewrite per proto Youngamerican 14:27, 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✉ 23:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cuber[edit]

Completing nomination by User:Matt.whitby - neologism, I think --Doc (?) 23:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - neologism. Thryduulf 00:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - neologism. Mmmbeer 01:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - y, because i love it. it's so funny. i'm going to always use it on my brother.
  • delete. Brought to you by the authors of Pull a jim and the now defunct Pull a brendan. Joyous (talk) 18:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 02:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Miranda[edit]

Delete. Vanity page, 23 unique Google results for "Pablo Miranda"+UNAM, half of which are not related to this person. --Vizcarra 21:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Additionally to the nominator, "Pablo Miranda" "Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas" only gets 10 Googles. Fails the WP:PROF test, if she is even academically engaged. -Splash 01:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn webmaster vanity. --Etacar11 01:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Userfied to User:Jillmcvey/Jack Hound - Mike Rosoft 10:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hound[edit]

Obvious Vanity. This user has a Jack / Greyhound mix. So they created a "Jack Hound" article for their dog. Trysha 16:10, 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 a deletion review). 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_27&oldid=1081092193"