Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2 July 4 >

July 3[edit]

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 no consenses, but a merge may be in order. 4 votes to delete (including the nominator), 3 votes to keep (one of which is weak keep, but that does not discount the vote), 2 votes to keep or merge, 1 vote for a straight merge... and a partridge in a pear tree. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Forest metal[edit]

This is an imaginary, non-existent genre, marginally discernable from black metal and/or other styles only by lyrical content. Spearhead 3 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)

  • Merge into Heavy metal music if this exists. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again, only difference appears to be lyrics. And there are only a few bands who the writer can even claim to be anywhere near 'Forest Metal'. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably a nonexistent genre (has less credibility than Tolkien metal, which was sarcastically redirected to Mithril in its VfD), and most of the first several pages of Google hits have nothing to do with any style of music. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Google finds about 1000 matches for "forest metal", once you filter out the furniture[1]. Appears to be a semi-legitimate genre. Pburka 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lyrical content is a valid basis to distinguish musical sub-genres.--Pharos 4 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
    • Comment for Pharos, Pburka, and whoever else might know. I'll agree to that. Christian metal is one notable/controversial case of this, and I'd say Tolkien metal is too, to a lesser extent. But are there any bands that claim forest metal as their genre, rather than as a label indiscriminately slapped on them? Or is the term used often by metal magazines/ezines/publications? If there are, then I'll change my vote... but it doesn't appear to be in common use in the metal scene... I follow metal somewhat but have never heard of this genre. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
      • Comment. I admit I do not follow metal myself; but I wonder how closely you follow metal coming from Scandinavia, where this genre is said to be based.--Pharos 4 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
      • I'm no expert, but accoring to an epinions member, Opeth has self-identified as forest metal. Pburka 4 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • Delete, not every band has its own genre. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
  • Going to stick my neck out and go for a Keep... this is a fairly well written argument that passes the google test, and I've heard of this somewhere before (although I can't remember where). Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:04 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Maybe I'm a sucker, but there's just enough here to convince me it's not vanity. I've certainly seen worse. RoySmith 4 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
  • Keep (or merge). There's no such thing as too many subgenres in metal. Bollocks. Bobsky 7 July 2005 23:27 (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 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

J-Hizzle[edit]

Non-notable musician. Scanning hits for j-hizzle only one seems to be music related[2], and its info doesn't match this article. Zero hits for "Jonathan Hong" j-hizzle or "Jonothan Hong" j-hizzle or j-hizzle "street Legend" or j-hizzle erial. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

  • Delete not-notable with only one album which "was not a success". -Splash July 3, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
  • Delete Urod 3 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not successful at this time, hype among high school students (at his own HS, I gather, which surely has a Wikipedia article all about it). Geogre 3 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
  • Delete: Searches on Google came up with little/nothing: [3] [4] Jaxl 3 July 2005 03:27 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Friday 3 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  • Delete There are thousands. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)
  • Delete nn -- DavidH July 3, 2005 15:43 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Anser 3 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
  • Delete nn rapper vanity. "not a success" says it all. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:03 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)

Quality monitoring[edit]

Text used with permission, badly named discussion of quality monitoring in call centers, not-encyclopedic, delete--nixie 3 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)

Since it says they retain the copyright, I'm not sure it's GFDL compatible, but IANAL. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
  • Delete. Copyvio or not, this comment from the talk page explains why it reads as it does: "I removed all mentions of Mercom to make this an informative article and not an advertisement." Um, it's still a bunch of 'biz school 101'-ish hype for a technology/process, just no longer attached to a specific company. Not particularly encyclopedic tone, overly broad name, kind of a mix of POV and original research--in other words, even if there is an encyclopedic topic buried in here, AND it's not already covered under a better name (redirect suggestions are welcome--I'm just too dead (and disinterested in the topic) to go a-huntin' at the moment), I don't see anything salvagable here--better to let someone start fresh. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
  • Delete While perhaps educational, not encyclopedic. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Delete - with headings such as "The Impact to Your Business" (I don't have a business....) indicates the contributor has not made any effort to tailor this into an acceptable format. "Quality Monitoring" has more definitions than just within call centres, so apart from the question of copy vio, it's also overly POV. Rossrs 3 July 2005 14:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic and the comment on the talk page says that Mercom retains copyright in anycase! It doesn't belong in Wikipedia... UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)
  • 'Redirect to something more relevant, like Quality Assurance. Merge whatever can be merged. --Maru
  • Delete not encyclopedic, promo. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
  • delete. Advertising marketroid-speak. Robinh 4 July 2005 12:04 (UTC)
  • Delete, in agreement with the above comments. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:02 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

PageTutor[edit]

(and accompanying Image:Html for common man.gif)

Linkspam for non-notable HTML tutorial. Fawcett5 3 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

  • Delete: Advertising for a pretty cool dude. Geogre 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
  • Delete as the owner created the page. Obviously advertisement. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:15 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Non notable topic. Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • Delete page and image. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)
  • Delete page, and Delete image. PageTutor.Com is owned and run by Joe Barta, article created by User:JBarta, thus advertising. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:01 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Al hounsell[edit]

Delete non-notable, vanity. I don't think this meets the criteria ar WP:CSD, so I've brought it here. -Splash July 3, 2005 00:48 (UTC)

  • Delete: A conversion narrative, but the conversion is at the age of 5. Geogre 3 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of any notability. Isomorphic 3 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
  • Delete: A simple search for a biography with his place of birth turned up nothing. [5] Jaxl 3 July 2005 03:40 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-relevant personal information
  • Delete If he was notable, his last name would be capitalized. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)
  • Delete- so obviously non-notable. It annoys me that this type of article even needs to be voted on. Rossrs 3 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
  • Keep Piece of Art. It would be foolish to delete. --Webmaster 5 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
    • This vote is actually by 66.96.21.98. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
    • As if this guy didn't make it obvious enough already that his vote is a hoax...vote made by page creator. Is impersonating another user grounds for suspension? Hmmm? --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)
      • A vote to keep by a page creator is never an hoax - it is a perfectly valid vote. Failing to identify oneself as a page creator and vandalism, those are sins. -- RHaworth 2005 July 4 09:23 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity and not even in the same time zone with neutral POV. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. To 66.96.21.98: vandalism and posting copyvios is the reverse of promoting the gospel - it gives evangelism a bad name. -- RHaworth 2005 July 4 09:20 (UTC)
  • 'Delete NN. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Reduced Gene Pool Argument[edit]

this user is creating MULTIPLE articles on ONE author's views of homosexuality. And this author is not even within the science field. See Either_Or_Argument and vote as well. And also see Homosexuality's section on changeable and permanent and talk page discussion to see how much of a fringe minority this view is. NARTH being 1000 psychologsit while APA, China, EU, representing hundreds of thousands contradicting their view. 67.41.236.211 2 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

  • Delete, user appears to be acting in bad faith. If these truly are Matt Ridley's arguments (something I tend to doubt), it can be discussed in the Matt Ridley article. No need to devote a separate article to every position that Ridley, or more likely this user, holds. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 00:57 (UTC)
  • Delete if it's just one guy's argument, it's highly unlikely to be notable. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
  • Delete complete rubbish. No Google hits except this article, and a search inside Ridley's book cited shows that Ridley didn't say what this guy claims he said (see pages 116-118 of this edition: ISBN 0060932902). --Calton | Talk 3 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, original research. -- BD2412 talk July 3, 2005 02:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've read this book, Ridley gives this as something to explain rather than a blanket statement. This article misleads the reader into thinking Ridley is actually arguing for this view. platypeanArchcow 3 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, POV fork. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 3 July 2005 07:51 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not one Google result. Not notable. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:20 (UTC)
  • Delete: This user is well-known for the creation of homosexuality-related articles that advance his political agenda, and this page seems to have been created with that goal in mind as well. He is also known for making arbitrary edits or removing NPOV/VfD notices altogether. It's clear he has a political agenda is mind, as well as the suppression of opposing viewpoints. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 17:12 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research, non-notable, bad-faith edit. Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:21 (UTC)
  • Keep:I cannot force anyone to open their mind, I can only hope to encourage it.Intellectualprop2002 3 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Delete original research and bad reference. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
  • Delete orig research. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable original research. CDThieme 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
  • Delete; scientifically flawed, with no addressing of inclusive fitness at all, and does not deserve a separate article. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
  • Delete, scientifically flawed, fake reference, not supported in Ridley's work, offensive, POV pushing, failure to address nature vs nurture arguments, failure to pass the google test, NN, abusive user. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:13 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:06 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV pushing - Skysmith 4 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable neologism, original research and POV pushing. Axon 4 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
  • Delete--Dejan Čabrilo 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Dr. Venus[edit]

Google count distorted by many ppl sharing the first name and title. Same contributer to this nominated article also inserted weblink in an unrelated article. Probable vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 3 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

  • Delete. Kind of a tough google, but venus "greater than one society" gets exactly one hit, which is enuf for me to say 'buh-bye'. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable, etc. User also created another useless page which I just VfD'd: Harry Stinson. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising, and very unlikely to be based on anything more than yet another website. Geogre 3 July 2005 13:05 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. CV-type stuff. And that is one strange mix of memberships. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
  • Delete painful self-promotion. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 03:02 (UTC)

Jonathan Witte[edit]

Looks like a self-promo to me. Could be notable, though, if he set a world record or something (I doubt it...) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 3 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. Hedley 3 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
  • Speedily deleted - no hits on Google for that claim of fame. Fuzheado | Talk 3 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Giant Red Seasnake[edit]

A VfD notice was added to this article on June 1 but the nomination was not completed. Article seems to be about some sort of monster in a game. Does not establish notability, or even context. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

  • It's Yu-Gi-Oh fancruft. Weapons that are neither used by any real-life people (e.g. any military weapon) nor bear significant notability in the work in which they appear (e.g. Excalibur) do not deserve their own articles... maybe a mere mention in some sort of "This is what all the weapons are" list. I'd say that writing an article on this is like writing an article on the "battle muffin" in the Neopets Battledome (and by the way, Battledome redirects to Neopets, as it should, rather than getting its own article). Having such ridiculous detail on animecruft topics when compared to the amount of detail we give to significant historical figures (pre-20thC) is probably one of the things that causes academics to have a poorer opinion of our project than it deserves. Strong delete. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 04:02 (UTC)
    • Well improve those articles then! Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 08:00 (UTC)
  • Delete Individual Yu-Gi-Oh cards (or any other game's cards) should not be allowed separate articles. — unsigned vote by Joelr31 (talk · contribs)
  • I have seen a number of these articles recently. A Merge may work. Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 08:00 (UTC)
  • Delete - fancruft JoJan 3 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
  • See this category: Yu-gi-oh! cards. Shall we be deleting all of these then? Merge with other individual card pages in a new or existing page. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)
  • Delete: Merging every card into a big table works for me. Merging all the items to one big list also works. No, I do not think the information in any individual article like this is sufficiently difficult, obscure, or useful to put the article into the merge queue. Geogre 3 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)
  • Merge. A list of minor parts of Yu-Gi-Oh is quite acceptable. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
  • Delete cardcruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
  • Merge, WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
  • Delete Whilst I regularly contribute to Yu-Gi-Oh!-related entries on Wikipedia, this card is neither important OR contributed majorly to any storyline. DrachenFyre July 4, 2005 18:51 (UTC)
  • Delete too many of them.  Grue  5 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Republican Party Nominee[edit]

Unnecessary article. MisfitToys 23:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep No reason to delete it. Can be expanded to discuss some history... --Wolf530 00:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry... we would have accepted List of Republican Party presidential nominees... if you had written one. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 02:45 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline dicdef, and this topic's already covered in the various election articles, e.g. U.S. presidential election, 2008. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
  • Delete no use --IncMan July 3, 2005 04:13 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with Republican Party or another relevant article. -SocratesJedi | Talk 3 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, because I see no way this could be turned into a useful article. It should be obvious to many people, even if they have not heard of the "Republican Party" that a "Republican Party Nominee" is someone nominated by/for the "Republican Party." As Idont havaname said, it is a borderline dicdef. Ben Babcock 3 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is a dicdef, aside from completely obvious. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  • Delete --Yooden
  • Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. If this were allowed to remain, wikipedia would need Democratic Party Nominee, Libertarian Party Nominee, Labour Party Nominee/candidate etc, ad infinitum. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:07 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I'd usually vote for something valid to be expanded rather than deleted... I can't see much scope for this one... Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:09 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

Robert Dean[edit]

Local criminal defense attorney. Unless hes some big time guy, which doesn't seem to be the case, this should be deleted as both vanity and advertising. Hedley 3 July 2005 02:39 (UTC)

  • Delete, "Robert Dean"+"Defence Lawyer" only turns up about 13 hits, and not all of them are relevent [6], "Robert Dean" on it's own turns up signifigantly more hits, but most of them seem to be about other people with the same name [7]. Not notable Cyclone49 3 July 2005 04:21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Um, since he's in the US, I'd be quite surprised if "defence" found any hits for him (not that "defense" does much better). That said, looking at his site's 'biography' page[8], he looks to be quite local and not notable. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)
  • Delete nn advert vanity Friday 3 July 2005 07:34 (UTC)
  • Delete: NN. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity --Joelito 3 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
  • Delete nn self-promotion. Irrelevant trivia: this is also the name of the labor lawyer played by Will Smith in Enemy of the State. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  • Delete --Yooden
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Dudtz/Kardos Productions[edit]

More self-promotion from Dudtz (talk • contribs). Not notable—Delete. JeremyA 3 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 03:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 04:40 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity JoJan 3 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
  • Delete: Someone needs to put the lid on this guy. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
  • Delete - and it's also badly written. Rossrs 3 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
  • Dudtz I suppose you're a better writer. How many books do you have published hmmm....none...let's see....I have one
    • BTW, "Dudtz" is not a recognized voting shorthand. Please sign your posts at the end with ~~~~. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Someone needs to make sure that all the images associated with these articles go away, too. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and self-promotion. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity from teenager. Promoted film is copyvio/fanfiction. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)\
  • Dudtz:those Images are not your's to delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

Hercilio Luz Bridge[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand, Google turns up about 780 hits, most of them relevent.[9]. It's also supposedly the longest suspension bridge in Brazil and the oldest hanging bridge in the world (not sure how true that second point is though), which means it has some degree of notability. I've gone and added some relevent information to the article. Cyclone49 3 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand; good stub; notable. Antandrus (talk) 3 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It is a good stub. Carioca 3 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Keep revamped stub. Original entry was nearly nonsensical. I'm the one who tagged it for speedy...but I never abstained from anything.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  • Keep. New stub clarifies things considerably. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - I've added two pictures from the Commons JoJan 3 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Needs to be expanded, sure, but it belongs. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Well done Cyclone49 for rewriuing the article and to JoJen for the pics. This is a notable bridge. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, notable bridge. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:33 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and would be nice to expand it a little too. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:19 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)

Animal Farm Movie Differences[edit]

  • Non-encylopedic essay. Rmhermen July 3, 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. One can also read POV into it, given how diehard fans of other written works (*cough* Lord of the Rings *cough*) argue endlessly over movies' not staying 100% faithful to the book. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)
  • Cleanup to limit article to facts rather than opinions/speculations, and then merge into Animal Farm or redirect to Animal Farm (movie). Dcarrano July 3, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete: Grade-C classroom work. Could be used, perhaps, im Animal Farm, but we don't need this sort of index. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:46 (UTC)
  • Cleanup' and merge/move per Dcarrano. Kappa 3 July 2005 11:08 (UTC)
  • Delete: First, it's original research. Second, there are multiple "movies" of Animal Farm, and not just one. Third, the topic is unsearchable. There are always "differences" between a novel and a film adaptation. Geogre 3 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated by Geogre above. Also most of the "Reasons" contain a "probably" which makes the whole thing questionable. There's also one "Reason" which contains an "I have no idea" which is kind of unusual in an "encyclopedic" article, which this definately is not. I can't see a way or even a point, in merging. Rossrs 3 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-encyclopedic, beyond cleanup. Barely an outline. -- DavidH July 3, 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  • Delete bad original reseach. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)
  • Delete Reason: I have no idea. Perhaps... is original research. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)
  • Delete, orig research. If there's any valuable content, then merge it as per Dcarrano. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
  • Merge. Trim the minor differences, and add it as a subsection to the movie section (if'n it exists) in Animal Farm. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • This would have been useful when I was studying Animal Farm at school! Keep but Merge the pertinent information to Animal Farm. Somebody would have to volunteer to convert this into a readable article 'tho, I'd say the cleanup patrol would do that. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
  • Delete, orig research. Merely lists trivial differences to no purpose. carmeld1 6 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to Cascadia. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)

Republic of the Pacific[edit]

non-notable, vanity IncMan July 3, 2005 04:10 (UTC)

  • Keep. This seems to be legit (per a quick Googling), and if so, is a bit of history we should cover. I don't see how this could possibly fall under WP:VAIN, as Lewis, Clark, and Jefferson are all long dead. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cascadia, where this is mentioned. platypeanArchcow 3 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cascadia, where the topic is fully covered. JoJan 3 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Stand in agreement with the above two. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as per PlatypeanArchcow. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cascadia. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

Weihua Sheng[edit]

Is this comp sci professor particularly notable in his field? This article is mainly just POV about how he annoys his students. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 04:36 (UTC)

  • His work in robotics has contributed to the devlopment of the current computer science curriculums currently in use throughout the United States. unsigned comment by 68.61.120.116 (talk · contribs)
  • He's responsible for some pretty notable financial management programs/algorithms -- most widely known in Asia, however. unsigned comment by 69.216.134.68 (talk · contribs)
  • True, the number of Google results is low, but what is there appears to be, maybe, notable. I'm really on the fence here, but I vote to Keep and Expand. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established, so fails the professor test. Has not published with IEEE so needs to be given more time to become notable before being given a WP article. -Splash July 3, 2005 15:05 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like an average hardworking professor. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, possible attack page. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't establish any special notability. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone shows anything he is notable for. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was redirect to prepositional case. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

Postpositional case[edit]

The article does not explain what a postpositional case is. It doesn't even mention it. If someone knows who to write a proper article on this, fine! If not, this article should be deleted. -- Robert Weemeyer 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

  • Delete content and redirect, as Gwalla suggests. Don't merge any part of it anywhere. (As it stands, the article makes no sense: it purports to discuss what happens in passive sentences, but what it manages to say about this coherently applies just as well to active sentences. Moreover, what it says about "prepositional case" shows us nothing, thanks to the author's choice of the morphologically impoverished English language and avoidance of pronouns, which, in English, would demonstrate the accusative.) -- Hoary July 3, 2005 06:33 (UTC)
  • Delete nearly patent-nonsense content and redirect name to prepositional case per Gwalla and Hoary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 3 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
  • Delete: Article is not about its subject, as odd as that sounds. If this exists, let someone who knows it write the page later. For now though, delete existing. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:58 (UTC)
  • Redirect — Chameleon 3 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
  • Redirect to prepositional case as Gwalla suggests. CDThieme 3 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect. Reasons as above. Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

"Sucker Train Blues"[edit]

Delete - It is song lyrics, not an encyclopedia article. -Mysidia 2 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

  • Finishing/formatting Vfd nomination. My vote is delete if it doesn't get turned into an actual article in time. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. Those lyrics are under copyright to Velvet Revolver. List on WP:CP. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)
  • Delete: Copyvio, not encyclopedic. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. Might be worthy of an article if it was a charting single but looking at Allmusic.com shows that it seems to be an album track from Contraband. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic and copyvio. Sietse 3 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)
  • Delete, this isn't a lyrics database, and this article is surely a copyvio. No encyclopedic potential, delete. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. As i said before Wikipedia is not a lyrics site and it is probably a copyvio Jobe6 July 3, 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • Delete Is copyvio - see notice on page. Denni☯ 2005 July 3 22:25 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)

Matthew Montgomery[edit]

Seems to be hoax/vanity. Google for "Matthew Montgomery" hula finds nothing. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)

  • Delete - NN JoJan 3 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity, Google returns 0, the end is almost pure nonsense. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity --Joelito 3 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN + Vanity - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teenage nonsense. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense nn vanity. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Josh Chalmers[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason given was "page seems to be a personal page of a non-notable person". Seems to be a local clown in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 3 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not a notable person—and on the page that links to it, it already specifies that he is a clown in that town. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 05:32 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN and non-encyclopedic JoJan 3 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN Dejvid 3 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)
  • Delete: NN, vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)
  • Delete - oh! When I saw the "a local clown" reference above I thought someone was being insulting, but he really is a local clown. A non notable local clown with a photo.Rossrs 3 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Delete nn clown vanity (there are oh-so-many flavors of vanity). And there's a picture, always an indication of vanity in my book. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)
  • Delete - a clown's vanity. bless. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
  • It would be a speedy deletion candidate (biography of a 22-year-old that cites no sources) were Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/2 to gain consensus. ☺ Subject does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Delete. Uncle G 4 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

RAPCONians[edit]

Neologism, POV, etc. func(talk) 3 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 3 July 2005 08:09 (UTC)
  • Delete: If there really is such a specialized group of air traffic controllers, it should be noted as appropriate on the ATCs page. The page in question, simply stated, is crap. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:12 (UTC)
  • Delete - obviously garbage PeregrineAY July 3, 2005 10:14 (UTC)
  • Delete; I asked an air traffic controller, and he'd never heard the term. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

ELASTICOS SELECTOS[edit]

Corporate advertising AND IT'S ALL IN UPPERCASE. Ugh. Delete. -- Hoary July 3, 2005 06:23 (UTC)

  • Its not corporate advertising it dosent even give current locations or phones and it all in uppercase for a purpose ......added at 07:13, July 3, 2005 by 66.68.202.116
  • Ah. I quote: "THIS IS A COMPANY TO ADMIRE" -- would you call that advertising, NPoV, or something else? And what might the purpose of uppercase be here? -- Hoary July 3, 2005 07:23 (UTC)
  • If it is not advertising, then it is also non-notable and poorly written. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This anon IP keeps removing VfD and speedy deletion notices from his ALL UPPERCASE advertisement article. Can't this finally be deleted? If the anon IP recreates it he can be blocked. — JIP | Talk 3 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. --24.107.227.12 3 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - advertorial JoJan 3 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)
  • NOT DELETETHANK YOU ANYWAYS FOR NOT LETTING ME HONOR MY BEST FRIENDS GRANDFATHER FOR THE GREAT EFFORT HE HAS DONE.I GUESS I'LL FIND ANOTHER PAGE WHERE THEY DO UNDERSTAND ME ....added at 08:10, 3 July 2005 by 66.68.202.116 —who thereupon removed a number of "delete" votes.
  • I propose that the above vote be nullified as it was logged by the page creator, who might I add is also interrupting VfD proceedings. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable and it hurts my eyes. Please fix the caplocks button on your keyboard. Cyclone49 3 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though it's not like any corporation I've ever heard of, :) ("THE CORPORATION IS STILL OPERATING AND IN CONTROL OF THE SAME FAMILY.") --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)
  • Delete crap. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
  • Delete: NN, PoV, poorly written. Also, everyone, keep an eye on the article and the VfD page, as the creator is belligerent. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article as written does not establish notability. Besides, shouldn't it be Elasticos Selectos. Capitalistroadster 3 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
  • Not an encyclopedia article. And, you know, "this is not spam" is a sure sign of spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 3 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete spam — Chameleon 3 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
  • Speedy as nonsense. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, advertorial. Anser 3 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising crap. AND ALL CAPS IS TERRIBLY ANNOYING. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
  • DELETE: SOCK-SUPPORTED NON-NOTABLE VANITY ADVERTISING IN ALL CAPS. CDThieme 3 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, sock-supported, spam, advertising, and Wikipedia is not a free webspace provider (as the author seems to think it is...). And by the way, only 13 Google hits for this corporation. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
  • Comment Author just made Alfredo naim, about the guy who apparantely formed this company. VfD is further down. Hedley 4 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
  • Delete - I AS THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE ACCEPT THAT WE CAN DELETE THIS ARTICLE BUT PLEASE DONT VOTE AGAINST THE "ALFREDO NAIM" ARTICLE THANK YOU. ... added at 02:44, July 4, 2005 by 66.68.202.116
    • Thank you for the comment -- but the more CAPITALS you use, the less persuasive you are. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 03:06 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the capitals I will not use them anymore.
  • Delete andy 4 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a marketplace. JYOuyang 7 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

December 13 1979[edit]

Nonsensical, short, there's no real way to edit this into comprehension. It might be vandalism? Janet13 3 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)

  • Redirect should be redirected to either December 13 or 1979 --- Jtkiefer July 3, 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Delete (no redirect necessary IMO), vanity. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 3 July 2005 07:55 (UTC)
  • It probably deserves a Speedy Delete, but Redirect to December 13 Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 07:56 (UTC)
  • Delete - in best case : vanity; otherwise : a hoax; Google gives several hits, but they concern a Mumbai gangster killed in a fight. JoJan 3 July 2005 08:05 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Google on the name mentioned turns up 0 (with quotes). ALL CAPS, PoV, poorly written...most of all, nn. No redir either, unless we want to do that with every single date page. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even need to explain why it needs deleting... you can tell just from looking at the article! Deskana 3rd July 2005, 11:29 (GMT)
  • Delete. Nonsensical, probably vanity. Sietse 3 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
  • Delete, makes no sense. I see no reason to redirect to anywhere - who's gonna try viewing this article? UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:50 (UTC)
  • Delete, NO redir.. Normally, I favor redirects to aid in searching, but given that no single redirect seems most appropriate, deletion is in order. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
  • Delete birthday of non-notable - vanity run wild. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
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 keep but move to St. Andrew's School, Brunei. -- BD2412 talk 01:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

St. Andrew's School Brunei[edit]

NPOV - contains accusations JoJan 3 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

  • Delete Notability not established. Possibly an attack page. Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 08:04 (UTC)
  • Keep, see wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. This article improves coverage of education in Bandar Seri Begawan. Kappa 3 July 2005 10:18 (UTC)
  • Keep: Note that, since the VfD was placed, the article has been greatly expanded and the accusations removed. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)
  • Move to St. Andrew's School, Brunei. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
  • Keep and yes move if necessary. The accusations seem to have been removed (which should have been done in the first place rather than VfD). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 3 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
  • Delete: The article does not establish any notability of this school, any particular character, any given aims, any measures of success, or anything, really, except that it is a box of paying students. Those things should be added, really, rather than accusing people of bad faith when they make VfD nominations. Geogre 3 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
    • Well the school aims are rather interesting, at least from a western POV. Not sure if they should be quoted in full or "cherry-picked". Kappa 3 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)
  • Keep (with move to a correct title). Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 3 18:29 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move as per Hedley. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
  • Keep; I see no reason to rm it, nor is the POV apparently there anymore. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
  • Keep; POV definitely gone, but move as Hedley suggests. Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established as per George. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing interesting appears to have happened at this school, plus the article's current content is uneducational, unless for some unknown reason you want to know about a small co-ed school in Brunei. Zzzz, I don't care how many students this school has, I don't care what their goals are, and I don't care if it allows foreign students. Then again, me not caring is not a criterion for deletion, but how could this article possibly be helpful? 24 @ 4 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
    • Well I found it I found it educational to look at their aims and facilities, but I guess not everyone is interested in how people in different parts of the world live. Kappa 4 July 2005 09:12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spoon. Gamaliel 4 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
  • Delete, grapefruit. Oh wait, NN, that is. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:11 (UTC)
  • Keep as per user Kappa: see wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. This article improves coverage of education in Bandar Seri Begawan --ShaunMacPherson 4 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
  • Keep — RJH 4 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I am in general opposed to articles about primary schools (although that seems to be a lost cause), but at least there's something a little different and interesting here, at least from my American viewpoint. RoySmith 4 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)
  • Keep A good start. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Nothing makes it unique in a whole sea of schools. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
    • Not even the fact that the world's richest man sent his son there? Kappa 5 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
      • That's just a barely interesting piece of trivia, not a sign of notability. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)
        • I don't think royalty and superrich people choose random average schools for their children. Kappa 5 July 2005 17:20 (UTC)
  • Delete, schoolcruft Proto t c 5 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bicycle. —RaD Man (talk) 5 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  • Keep. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Unfocused 6 July 2005 04:30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bicycle. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)
Somebody's got to explain this bicycle thing to me RoySmith 6 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

Strangiety[edit]

Appears to be some kind of non-notable neologistic dicdef. Certainly no potential for growth or potential to become encyclopedic. Already been transwikied, and WP:WINAD. Delete. Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

  • Delete: NN, dicdef. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef JoJan 3 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)
  • Delete First used in April 2005! I hope it wasn't transwikied. It's a neoneologism -- no usage. Geogre 3 July 2005 20:54 (UTC)
    • Transwikied, means it's only in the transwiki namespace for now. A kindly Wiktionarian will still be taking a look at it before deciding if its worthy to move to the article namespace or not. --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Delete; dicdef Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
  • Delete - neologisms must go. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to Strange. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:11 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Mech Avalon[edit]

Turns up no google hits and neither does its sister article Bio-Robotic Integration Project, all other links (bar one to National Institutes of Health) only refer to pages created by User:Dasrik. Another related article Soldier Zero contains a rather dubious fact relating to the Apple II. All in all it looks like a hoax to me. --CheekyMonkey 3 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Yeah, they all looked false to me - I wasn't sure how to multiple-nominate pages though, or even if that's frowned upon here. --CheekyMonkey 3 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
  • Delete, seems like a bunch of nonsense, user seems to have had some problems too PeregrineAY July 3, 2005 09:17 (UTC)
  • Delete all, hoax. --Alphax τεχ 3 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: My vote also applies for all the pages listed under Known members. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)
  • Delete all!. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  • Delete all; name came up with google hits but nothing relevant. Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
  • Delete - pure drivel! A curate's egg 4 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
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 disambiguate USS Kalk (DD-170) and Stanton Frederick Kalk. -- BD2412 talk 01:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kalk[edit]

I think it is supposed to be a boat, but the notability is not established.

I found this page, which verifies that it is real, but does not give any reason to keep the article.

---Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 09:16 (UTC)

  • Delete She's a US Navy Destroyer. I'd say keep a page on her, but that article needs to be destroyed: definitely copy+paste. A real article on her should be at USS Kalk. (Unsigned vote by Alex12 3, 3 July 2005 11:50)

*Keep, rewrite, and move... this article really is appallingly badly written (or should that be copied...). However, USS Kalk is probably notable enough to be given an article, so I propose a rewriting (allbeit that it remains a stub for the time being). The article should then be moved to USS Kalk, with Kalk made a redirect. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

  • Keep, rewrite and move - I concur with UkPaolo JoJan 3 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  • Delete: Please, folks, look at what you're suggesting. A complete rewrite and a move = delete. Why on earth put it off for some unspecified someone to write a page on it and maintain this junk C&P until then? Do we actually want to misinform people and look bad in the process? Geogre 3 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
Because if we delete this info first, before the new article is written, then it is lost. Believe it or not, the data, dates in particular are still note-worthy. I've created a basic stub at USS Kalk, which I encourage anyone interested to add further to. There's plenty more info at that link from Sonic Mew, which could be included, but I don't have time to do so just now. My vote would now be to Redirect Kalk to USS Kalk. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
At this point, then redirect only is perfectly fine. However, going to extremes to prevent deletion is a bad general idea. If it needs a total rewrite, that means that nothing is worth keeping. In this case, the only things actually worth keeping came from VfD voters! I.e. VfD was being used as a Requested Articles, in effect. I'm all in favor of good information going in, but why not just go ahead and write the good article and then argue for redirect or delete from the start? Presumably, this ship was named after a person who will be bio-worthy, and now this redirect points to the ship, rather than to the person. Geogre 4 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
  • Redirect to USS Kalk. Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
  • Delete both Kalk and USS Kalk. If somebody wants to write USS Kalk, fine, they should write it. This isn't it. Tell me something interesting about the ship and/or the person it was named after. The hastily written USS Kalk stub isn't any of those things either. In fact, it's misleading, "Kalk later sunk off the coast of Florida" makes it sound like it was an accident; in fact, it was used for target practice. RoySmith 4 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
USS Kalk is at present surely a valid stub. I agree it could do with expansion, and if there are glaring omissions such as the one you pointed out - wouldn't it be more appropriate to change the article accordingly? UkPaolo 5 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 01:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Stinson[edit]

Delete: Non-notable real estate agent from Toronto. Google count increased because he shares the name with a musician. Alex12 3 3 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity article. Some dude. Geogre 3 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:51 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
  • Article revised. Keep. Actually, this guy is notable in Toronto both for his projects and for his aggressive marketing. I have revised the article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards and remove the vanity aspect of it. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Maybe redirect to Glengarry Glen Ross :-) RoySmith 5 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Ground Zero. This guy is quickly becoming a major developer in Toronto and competing with Donald Trump. google It is inaccurate to call him an estate agent. I believe that this article is definitely expandable. The Wall Street Journal Online had an article on Stinson copied here: Trump's Toronto Competition. DoubleBlue (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
  • Keep. --NormanEinstein July 7, 2005 01:32 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think...he's pretty notable in Toronto itself anyway. He's not just some real estate agent, as has been explained. He also has amusing late-night infomercials...it would be funny if we could get a picture of him, he's really squirrelly. Adam Bishop 8 July 2005 05:38 (UTC)
  • Keep, He is actually becoming somewhat of a cult figure in Toronto. He's also in direction compeition with Donald Trump for Canada's tallest tower.
  • Keep Ground Zero's rewrite, notable enough in Toronto. --Deathphoenix 21:49, 11 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Benmore Peak Observatory[edit]

This article was incorrectly nominated for deletion November 2004 Talk:Benmore Peak Observatory/delete. It has been repeatedly sniped at by some editors who say that it is a non-notable amateur astronomy observatory. I have no opinion about it and am simply nominating it to settle the matter, one way or the other. Willmcw July 3, 2005 09:44 (UTC)

  • Delete: Vote changed, in light of more recent research. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • Delete: New Zealand's professional observatories (Mt. John and Stardome) already have Wiki entries. This one is just a playhouse for wannabes and dreamers. Why not include entries for everyone with a little telescope? We have enough trouble getting funding here as it is without clowns and charlatans diluting the available resources. Delete! (user:210.55.81.1)
    • Though this is the first edit made under this IP, I believe that this editor has previously made other contributions of a similar nature, and so their opinion should be given more weight than for a first time user. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 10:47 (UTC)
  • Delete: Website empty, nothing on other websites and if you look way back in the article history someone claiming to be from the site edits and tries to get rid of the article. It sounds like a small setup with a person or two and their friends, not run by a major organisation or even a public telescope others can rent. Unless somebody has information to the contary. SimonLyall 3 July 2005 11:36 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've had this on my watchlist for a while, and have seen nothing to indicate it's anything more than someone's personal setup; someone who'd rather not have an article. According to its website, it may no longer be available to the public, and there doesn't seem to be an authoratative third-party source to report its status (many, if not most, hits are Wikipedia mirrors). Personal weather stations are a dime-a-dozen nowadays[10], and that's all this seems to be. Niteowlneils 3 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • Delete since notability not established (nor establishable). -Splash July 3, 2005 14:57 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, nothing in a goggle search to indicate otherwise. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sadly, I'd have to agree with this. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: The people who run this mickey mouse outfit are incompetent and there's not an astronomy or physics degree to be seen among them. They are bad even by the standards of amateur astronomers. (user:222.45.22.15)
    • There's no need for obnoxious personal attack concerning this observatory. Disregarding statements by anon. user, however, this page has nothing detailing their instruments, the types of observations they make, or any discoveries of note. The web site gives no details So, unfortunately, I vote to delete. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:34 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have no respect for the anonymous user who's been creating editorial havoc on this page in the past few days, and has already voted above to delete this article twice (both IP's point to dialup.xtra.co.nz). This is a person with a very polar non-negotiable opinion that the only thing that matters in any astronomy at all is professional research by people with whom that particular person is affiliated. The same anonymous user has been trolling and vandalising a variety of NZ-related astronomy pages in the past few days, wiping some and putting glowing-sounding factual errors on others, in most cases hypocritically. All of that said, this particular article doesn't seem to be wanted by anyone, so I'll reluctantly support its deletion. Izogi 5 July 2005 13:43 (UTC)
  • Please delete this entry: As one of the "incompetent" people from the "mickey mouse outfit" known as Benmore Peak Observatory, I am all in favor of the removal of this entry from Wikipedia. It has been nothing but a source of trouble ever since a thoughful visitor created it on our behalf. People such as this "anonymous" assailent (Gee, can't imagine who that could be...) have been causing us a huge amount of grief (we've even had to switch hosts to end the DDoS attacks) and we've voted to minimize BPO's Internet presence, and end public access to the physical site for the time-being. Sorry, I don't know how to auto-generate my IP (it's an IHUG DSL account), so I'll sign off as contact AT observatory DOT co DOT nz. (vote by 203.173.148.113)
    • Comment: It may have been a typo, but note that the .co.nz address is not Benmore Peak. The Benmore Peak contact address (based on DNS lookup registration details) is contact AT observatory DOT org DOT nz. Izogi 7 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)
      • Comment: Oops, my bad. Should have been DOT org. Apologies for the typo. Shaun, BPO.
  • Do Not Delete: Nothing here indicates that anyone is able or willing to offer the slightest bit of actual, real, verifiable information on this observatory--who does the thing belong to anyway? There is evidently some strange personal crusade going on and my guess is that others have simply logged on to vent. By the way, my IP is xtra.co.nz which along with IHUG is as common as fleas on a yard dog here in NZ. Can we get some real information here? So what if the observatory and the website is staff only--hell, Hubble is staff only. BP is listed here and there as an observatory (just ran into another one at absoluteastronomy.com). malangthon
    • Edit actually by anon IP 210.54.78.149. If you are really Malangthon, please log in before voting. --Etacar11 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)
    • Absoluteastronomy.com uses material from Wikipedia. The article on BPO there is simply a copy of our own. At the bottom it says, "The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." [11] -Willmcw July 7, 2005 23:16 (UTC)
    • Not actually by anon. Which leads me to wonder why on earth is it possible to edit without logging in? In the meantime, what shall we do, sue absoluteastronomy.com? "Red Wingleader to Luke Skywalker, 'Stay on Topic.' "malangthon
  • Delete: Vote changed. I picked up the phone--they are listed. I spoken to one of the group (who has also spoke to one of the Wikipedia people before). The Benmore Peak group prefer to be left alone--astronomy is the point of it all and they prefer this nonsense be dropped if it means being dropped from Wikipedia. They are dealing with people outside their group who have problems being reasonable and would just as soon be left alone. Software indicates I am still logged on. malangthon
  • Delete: I'm the manager of BPO. The submitter has made a very good point; BPO is no more notable than any other mostly amateur-run observatory, and there's no real reason why we should have a Wiki entry. The article was not even created by us. Remove it, we have no objection at all. Gary, BPO Manager. 203.173.148.113

First VfD listing, November 2004[edit]

Benmore Peak Observatory was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was INVALID LISTING - no valid reason was given for deletion - Graham ☺ | Talk 19:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BPO is merely another little amateur observatory. The Wiki entry wasn't even created by us! We have things to build on a mountaintop and no time at all for this idiocy, so I say delete the entry speedily please. Give us some peace! :-( 222.152.120.161 20:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it does not matter at all that this entry was created by you or by anyone. Anyone can create an entry, you, I or anyone. And I see nothing offending, nor being worth of qualifying of being idiotic in the current entry. I do not see how this entry can be problematic. I actually see no valid reason for it to be deleted. What is the problem really ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not see this entry being left in peace now or in the near future. Since it has become a major first-referrer for BPO (check Google), it's better removed. 222.152.120.161 21:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
!this is one of the stupidest things i have ever witnessed on wiki! take it somewhere else!

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Rise of the Hippies[edit]

Unencyclopedic, non-notable, unpublished story by a group of teenagers. Possible userfy if the author can be identified. Alphax τεχ 3 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

  • Delete: NN. Placed a message on the creator's page telling him he could make it a userpage. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, we have user pages for this. Friday 3 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Alphax, totally unnotable. Could be userfied, as previously mentioned. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, promo. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

Infradito[edit]

Originally in Italian. Completely nonsensical. Low number of Google results in English. I vote to Delete. Alex12 3 3 July 2005 11:50 (UTC)

  • Delete... not much of a clue as to what this one's on about. If better translated, I'd reconsider, but as it stands its gotta go. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur- I'd vote rewrite, if I could just figure out whether it is talking about a kind of shoe or not. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)
  • Delete unless translated better. Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
  • Tried my best, but fuckit. Delete.DS 5 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Thong_sandal -Mysidia 7 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 12:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Onyx (software)[edit]

This article looks like an advertising page. Perhaps it could be changed to make it more encyclopedic and less pov, but as it stands, it should probably be deleted. Shoaler 3 July 2005 12:05 (UTC)

  • Keep and make npov - It's POV and looks like advertising, but that's nothing that can't be fixed. It's traded on nasdaq, and a google search shows 9,070 hits on "Onyx Software Corporation". Seems notable to me. --Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
  • Keep Expand and rewrite. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a perfectly notable company after all. If it reads like an advert, then it needs rewriting, not deleting. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. No, UkPaolo, if it reads like an advert, then it is an advert, and that violates the deletion policy. If you wish to rewrite it to make it NPOV and to give it some specifics, then that's well and good, and we can vote to keep. However, saying, essentially, "Because it could be worthwhile, leave it," means ignoring policy and keeping an article that violates the deletion policy. I do not wish to fix this article, and Cleanup won't. Geogre 3 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
comment: I agree, advertising violates the deletion policy. My point was that it is a notable company, in question - as Phroziac said, it gets a number of Google hits, and is traded on Nasdaq. If there's an article on a notable topic, which is not written to a NPOV, then the way to deal with it, in my opinion, is for it to be rewritten. That is exactly what my statement was meant to mean. It's not advertising alone which means it shouldn't be deleted, it's the first part too, that it is also notable. It looks as though Alex12 3 has now done such work, and my congratulations go to him. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you that people cleaning it are to be congratulated. I don't think it's clear of advertising, yet. I prefer Alex12 3's other idea, though: creating an article at Onyx Software Corporation, which is a preferrable location. The cleaning still leaves the total solution, stuff in there, where an NPOV article would just say what they make, how it's used, and facts about success of the company, so I can't change my vote. I worry that some people are campaigning so vigorously and calling names so liberally whenever anyone votes to delete that people are now afraid to cast the vote. An article that breaks the deletion policy should be deleted. If that article gives people an idea for a good article, they should write it. A damaged article should go to cleanup, and a short one to RfE. Geogre 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
Campaigning so vigorously? Calling names so liberally? I don't see that going on in this particular VfD... the thing that could most be construed as "name calling" that seems to have gone on was with your remark directed at myself! Anyhow, I fail to see how people are going to be afraid to cast their vote. And if you were referring to myself as "campaigning so vigorously" then I can assure you I have much better things to spend my time on. I have no particular interest in this article whatsoever, I was merely making my personal viewpoint to keep. UkPaolo 4 July 2005 08:50 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have made edits to the page in question, attempting to remove all promotion and POV. Pending a consensus to keep the page, I will be moving it to Onyx Software Corporation. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Splash is saying. I wouldn't move this page until consensus, but there's nothing wrong with creating a new article with valid information in it, no matter what. Cleaning up an article while it's on VfD is not only ok, it's actually a virtuous thing. At present, the article still seems fairly promotional, so I can't change my vote. Geogre 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)
  • I had interpreted Alex12 3's statement to mean he planned to execute the move (and keep) sooner than the conclusion of the VfD. The more usual way to phrase what was meant would be as a vote to move/rename. Improving an article, to whatever extent is absolutely what VfD is about, I agree, but I thought the comment meant that unchanged article, save for its VfD tag being removed, was going to be summarily moved to a different title before conclusion of the VfD. If that's not the intention, then I have no problem at all, so long as the vote remains uncontroversial-Splash July 4, 2005 11:55 (UTC)
That's how I inerpreted Alex's statement too. Pending a consensus to keep the page surely means "until the decision to keep the page", thus implying that the move would be made now. Anyhow, thats all clarified now, and for the record, if the page survives VfD I would agree with Alex's proposed move. UkPaolo 4 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)
You shouldn't really do that until the VfD is fully concluded after 5 days; there's no formal procedure for a speedy keep even though it is used on rare occasions.-Splash July 4, 2005 00:03 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that edits and cleanups can proceed as usual despite an article being on VfD. It is, however, improper to move the article, which, as I said, I would not be doing until (unless) a consensus to keep the article is established. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. See my reply above. -Splash July 4, 2005 11:55 (UTC)
  • Weak keep notable firm, but article is an ad which has been left largely unmitigated. -Splash July 4, 2005 00:01 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

The Iron Fist Art[edit]

Apparent nonsense. 84.72.2.156 3 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

This only gets 4 hits on google: the only one to contain the full title as a title the link to here; it seems someone made this edit a little while back. The talk page of its creator appears to support that it is nonsense. Anser 3 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)
  • Meets Speedy Deletion criteria CheekyMonkey 3 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, no meaningful content. Sietse 3 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Not enough to call it an article. Shoaler 3 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)
  • I've speedied this as clear nonsense. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
  • It was recreated. I speedied it again. Since I did this delete and Hedley did the last, any other admin want to create it as a redirect somewhere (like WP:VANITY) and protect it? (Deleting admins should not be involved in protecting.) Geogre 3 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 12:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jello Belt[edit]

Seems to be either an unknown term or a neologism created by the article. Google search for the term finds 119 hits, of which all of the first 20 and about half of the remaining are Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors. (Delete). — Asbestos | Talk 3 July 2005 12:41 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons listed above. Also, shouldn't it be the Jell-o belt anyway? A google search for "jell-o belt" turns up a few pages referring to the jell-o belt, but its not much, and still appears to be a neologism. Maybe mention it in the bible belt article? --Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  • Delete: uncommon. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)
  • Delete , sigh. I like this one, especially with the lovely map, but neologism. Too bad. Maybe it can live on at BJAODN. --Mothperson 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Citations: "“The Work and the Glory” has been able to expand outside the jello-belt only because of its success within it."[12], ""Saints and Soldiers" producer Adam Abel was shown saying, "It has only shown at one festival here in what would be termed as The Jello Belt. The rest of it is on the west coast and east coast, and then in the midwest as well. So, there's been a large reception to it." [13], "Great minds thinks alike, Velynna, or we are both unoriginal? I don't know, but living in the Jello Belt, you see alot of jello used in some great and not-so-great ways." [14] "Location: Armpit of the Jello Belt" [15], "That is a sobering thought! i guess future vacations will NOT include the Jello Belt for this family!" [16] jengod July 4, 2005 01:59 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's also "A whole chapter of their cookbook is dedicated to Jell-O recipes, including a map of the Jell-O Belt, stretching from Shelley, ID, to Snowflake, AZ."[17] from 1993, so it may not be common, but it isn't all that new. I hadn't heard of some of the other 'belt's in the box at the bottom before, either. Also, "Jell-O Belt (Mormon culture region), 217" appears in the index of the Wiley book "Mormonism For Dummies".[18] Niteowlneils 4 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)
    I belive that the reason these 7 citations have been quoted in their entirety is that there are barely any proper uses of the term on the internet, as a search confirms. — Asbestos | Talk 4 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
  • I say KEEP, even if you have to rename it to something like - "Mormons and Jell-O." Mormons and Jell-o get a huge number of google hits. It's a notable subject, not to mention fascinating. Put a hyphen in Jell-o, keep that map, and retitle it "Jell-o belt" if necessary (i.e. the "so-called" Jell-o belt). --Mothperson 4 July 2005 15:20 (UTC) Just keep -- Mothperson 6 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)
    If you want to write an article on Mormons and Jello, go right ahead. That's very different from an unknown neologism, "The Jello Belt". Even with the hyphen, 'Jell-o belt' gets precisely 14 Google hits. — Asbestos | Talk 4 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
  • Jeezum crow. It was only a suggestion. I don't write about Jell-o, as I think it's disgusting, so, POV problems. --Mothperson 4 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I sounded harsh — that wasn't what it was meant to be at all. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 11:27 (UTC)
  • Delete - silly. — Pekinensis 4 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
    • Why is everyone here so intent on being humorless?! Bah! And in further defense of the poor, misunderstood Jello belt :), I think that the fact it's in Mormonism for Dummies is a pretty good proof that it's at least as culturally meaningful as all the other silly junk we have on here. Pokemon geeks, I'm looking at you. ;) jengod July 5, 2005 07:05 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it has now been established that this isn't a neologism. Does the belt really extend that far into Southern California? --Aranae July 5, 2005 07:27 (UTC)
  • Keep. Term does not have an enormous Web presence, as most google hits are wiki or wiki mirrors, but it is clearly not a neologism. Moreover, keep as Jello Belt rather than Jell-O Belt, as the former is clearly the far more common form. carmeld1 6 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not it's technically a neologism, a term with less than 50 actual hits on Google doesn't belong here. 199 7 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since my original question about this jello and Mormons business on the reference desk I've seen enough to be convinced this is an established - if rare - term. — Trilobite (Talk) 8 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tiny number of real Google hits. Madd4Max 20:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As it stands, the treatment of the term in the article is far too colloquial for me to consider it to be of "encyclopedic quality". However, this can be corrected. Furthermore, I do not see this as an exception to other relatively esoteric articles on Wikipedia that have become mainstream over time such as the Heavy metal umlaut and Exploding whale. The article can still be expanded, and we can give it a chance to do so. It is at minimum missing these things:
    1. A description of its importance as a stereotype for a particular group of people
    2. Its influence on marketing strategies within the region
    3. Its role as a form of identity, either as in a colloquial or academic context
    4. Its influence on popular culture and general perception of Mormons by the American public
    Given that all of these can be added to the article in an encyclopedic manner, and that references for these things can be researched in material not on the internet, I will advocate that we give the article a vote of confidence, and a chance for a few Wikipedians to come by and fix it up. For starters, I will volunteer myself to expand the article, and submit it to peer review once it has reached a reasonable level of quality. If it turns out that this decision still results in an unacceptable article for Wikipedia, then so be it. I will place the article on VfD myself if it comes to that point, but I believe that will not happen - of course, provided that the article as it stands survives this current VfD. For these reasons, I'd like to sincerely request a reconsideration on the part of the "delete" votes already cast, and to simultaneously encourage more "keep" votes as well. --HappyCamper 07:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I second HappyCamper's motion, and I volunteer to expand the article, too. --Mothperson 15:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a topic which lends itself to being measured well by Google hits. I'm with Jengod. Denni☯ 21:41, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

List of Megadrive game music[edit]

Point of view list. Its practically impossible to create a full list of game music, and including some would need sourcing or would remain POV. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of PC game music, which ended with delete for the same reasons. Hedley 3 July 2005 12:42 (UTC)

  • Weak delete -- Why do we need a full list of all game music ever made for the megadrive? I also agree with Hedley that a full list would be impossible. --Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV, useless. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, since redundant with List of Sega Megadrive games as they all have music. But I don't think the POV is too much of a problem; it can be remedied by removing just two words from the text, and the title itself is fully NPOV.-Splash July 3, 2005 23:58 (UTC)
  • Delete POV unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 01:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jeff carswell[edit]

Not notable. r3m0t talk July 3, 2005 13:04 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - Google has 798 hits for "jeff carswell". A few are about THIS Jeff Carswell. Re-add when notable, as mentioned on my user page --Phroziac (talk) 3 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could be on his way, but currently NN. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not (yet) notable. CDThieme 3 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
  • Delete At this time, NN Dazza
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE

Dido.2s.ru[edit]

non-notable fansite. Graham 3 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

  • Comment: Article proposed for deletion doesn't exist. Please repair. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
  • I believe this was speedy deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
  • Hey, sounds good to me. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:27 (UTC)
  • The article does exist, I've fixed the link now. I've struck out the comment about the deletion debate being closed: it should be reopened. I had accidentally typed an extra character for the pagename when nominating the article. Graham 4 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. wikipedia is not a directory of obscure fan sites. carmeld1 6 July 2005 23:52 (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 (though I have redirected it to MythBusters since deletion) -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Byron[edit]

Not Notable. There's already been one or two other articles on minor people from MythBusters, they've been deleted too. DooMDrat July 3, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

It's not really an article and conbtains no relevant information on her. Besides, it's not supposed to be a "Hot or Not" page. ras 3 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, some twit added that picture and the whole "DON'T DELETE IT!" thing recently.--DooMDrat July 3, 2005 16:08 (UTC)
An older, no longer used VfD template was added. The creator then placed that text and that photo on the page, trying to save it, it seems. The proper template was inserted afterwards. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Delete: Useless. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, not notable/abusive user. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
  • Delete, hottie or not, I don't think she's really notable. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, per Dcarrano --Zpb52 07:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dump Pic, redirect to Mythbusters. humblefool® 3 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Remove picture. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
  • Redirect to MythBusters as per Humblefool. I'm a fan of the show, and her role is hardly distinguishable from several other rarely-speaking interns. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)
  • I'm not a twit!, Keep, Expand, Start an image gallery of her, and collect her personal information Rift14
  • Delete, nn. Not being a twit is not a reason for inclusion :) Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 18:11 (UTC)
  • Delete nn RoySmith 5 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)
  • She's a total hottie Keep , expand, don't be a noob - The_pwnerer
Duplicate vote added by User:Rift14 at 01:28, 5 July 2005 with an attempt to sign as a different user. He's clearly keen on this hottie. UkPaolo 5 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

Keep the picture to, you queer fairies.-- unsigned vote by 203.217.19.179

  • This idiot has already gone and made another page on another non notable person who has the distinction of appearing on a couple TV shows.--DooMDrat July 7, 2005 09:03 (UTC)
  • Expand I noticed Carmen Electra is not VFD... WTF is the difference, except Kari Byron actually has a brain? --Kvuo 05:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Carmen Electra is an actress, having appeared in several movies. What's Kari done? She's a minor person from a TV show. Don't get me wrong, I think MythBusters is great. But she is non-notable. Do we have to make articles on everyone who's been on TV, no matter how minor?--DooMDrat 11:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Keep If only we had a dime for every decent page killed off by these whiny thirteen year-old VfD nazis... 12.215.72.137 11:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While her role in the show is not precisely minor (as all the members of the cast get a fairly equal amount of screen time) this article is unneccessary. This article can be easily incorporated into the Mythbusters article. --Kerowyn 07:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some people watch the show just because of Kari Byron being hot. And she's been on every season 2 episode of mythbusters I've seen so far. User:Rift14
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 keep as a disambig. -- BD2412 talk 18:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Heartbeat[edit]

Is not an article SqueakBox July 3, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

  • Keep but fmt into a dab page. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)
  • Delete, remake into a disambig covering TV program, and heart rate. Child's novel nn, author nn. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
Comment I would argue that if we do delete we should move the programme to the Heartbeat page, SqueakBox July 3, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
  • Keep (it's a valid stub, with possible future expansion), but move to Heartbeat (book), establishing Heartbeat as a disambiguation between the book, the TV programme, and the medical term. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
  • Turn into dab page for TV series, book, heart rate, Buddy Holly song, King Crimson song, and probably about a dozen other songs. Grutness...wha? 4 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a micro-sub-stub masquerading as a disambig page, and a non-notable one at that. RoySmith 5 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm working on an article for it currently, and it was one of this years Carnegie Medal nominees

In that case it should be Heartbeat (book) as it is certainly not more important than the tv prog, which is consistently popular in the UK. I agree with the comments about turning this into a disambiguation page, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 19:02 (UTC)

done, Heartbeat (book) will be up shortly.--Jenblower 17:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has already been changed to a dab page, so keep as is (as a dab page). Seeaxid 05:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Joseph Arvin, III[edit]

vanity, to be deleted Zeimusu | (Talk page) July 3, 2005 14:32 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity Friday 3 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Notability not shown. --TheParanoidOne 3 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity Rillian 3 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. For purposes of closing this vote, I have counted all votes that do not request different treatment for different articles as proposing the same treatment for all of them (and made no assumptions regarding Burr puzzle and Plate-and-ring puzzle, which are the subject of a separate vfd). By that count, there are:

6 straight votes to delete all
5 votes to keep all
1 vote (by Blotwell) to keep (or merge) all except to delete Mechanical puzzle (so 7 delete votes in all for that article)
1 vote to "Keep and Merge as per Blotwell" by Leithp (I am not counting this as a vote to delete Mechanical puzzle, as the only instructions in the vote were "keep" and "merge")
1 vote specifically to redirect word puzzle to word game, as they have already been merged
1 additional vote to delete packing problem (so 7 in all)
1 additional vote to delete transport puzzle (so 7 in all)
1 vote to keep a mechanical puzzle article, but rewrite the content
Finally, 1 vote to keep disentanglement puzzle and merge wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle into it.

By this count, the vote for most of these articles is 6 to delete and 5 to keep, the highest delete count is 7 for the three articles so noted above. No option gets a consensus with respect to any specific article, but I note that several keep votes appear to be premised on discomfort with the multiple-nomination process used here. Some very bold merging and redirecting may be in order. -- BD2412 talk 00:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

More Karl Scherer[edit]

This vfd concerns

These are articles, which on more careful examination than last time, were created by User:Karlscherer3 (who uses IPs User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17, and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58). They are a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of puzzles.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content (except for a picture or two of a puzzle that fits the definition in the text).

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had mistakenly assumed the other editors had added content, and thus that there was something worth keeping. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

  • Delete (obviously) ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per the above. NN and useless. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
  • Question Could somebody provide a link/citation to the 'correct' way to categorize these puzzle types? I'd like to be able to evaluate these articles more on their merits rather than on the credibility of the author. Thanks! Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
    • There isn't one. That is why it is original research, a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
      • Tobycat doesn't want a citation for the disputed classification, but for the classification that you, -Ril- claim is more standard than it. (I want one too.) —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
  • Delete per -Ril-. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
  • Comment: Shouldn't Burr puzzle and Plate-and-ring puzzle be added to this VfD? - Mike Rosoft 3 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
  • I've put them at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/EvenMoreKarlScherer, as the voting here has already started. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

*Delete as before. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:39 (UTC)I'm far too confused to reliably vote on this. -Splash 7 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

  • Strong keep (edit: except for mechanical puzzle). I completely disagree with your claim that these are "not the standard way of categorizing puzzles" and would like to see your evidence. Edit: By the previous sentence I meant that some of the page titles are definitely standard names, whereas I now think you're referring to the content of mechanical puzzle which is a load of unencyclopædic crap. Wire puzzle, burr puzzle (edit: and word puzzle and packing problem) are notable, spam-free and are not original research: even if they were created by KarlScherer, there is absolutely no reason to delete them on their own merits. Mechanical puzzle is a notable concept that deserves an article, but the current article isn't it: it has so little salvageable content that it might as well be deleted. However, the other articles are fine and the only change I would support is to merge burr puzzle, plate-and-ring puzzle, rattle puzzle, wire puzzle, and wire-and-string puzzle into the parent page at disentanglement puzzle. These have nothing to do with the vfd debate you reference, which concerned "over 100" articles about non-notable computer implementations of non-notable games, and I can't imagine why you brought it up. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:22 (UTC) (substantially edited 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC))
    • Comment Mechanical puzzle actually contains a reference for the puzzle classification being used. -Ril-, the user proposing deletion, has tagged this reference as {{dubious}} but has not given his/her justification for this on the talk page. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:38 (UTC) I take it back, the reference is a web page with too many caps and a pretty coloured background. Oh, my poor eyes. Blotwell 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
    • Comment Furthermore, packing problem is an article about the mathematical issue of packing. The disambig page packing even says so. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)
      • Comment The disambig page would have been created when someone typed "packing" in on the search bar, or created/clicked on a link to packing, noted there was no article, noted that the search brought up packing problem and sphere packing, and then added links to both. It is unlikely to have been created as a reflection of accuracy, but just as a reflection of the existance articles named or concerning "...packing..." in wikipedia, but no article named packing.
      • Packing problem is not about the mathematical issue. Read it, it simply gives two examples already in Sphere packing, states that there is a result that many mathematicians are surpised to learn (because it is original research, and most would dispute its existance and/or noteworthyness), and then states that it is a class of puzzles, which is also original research. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
        • Blimey. Obviously we disagree about the interpretation of the predicate "is an article about the mathematical issue of packing". Readers can decide for themselves: I added the comment because when I did click through to read the article, I felt that your assertion had (I'm sure inadvertently) misled me about its content, and I didn't want others to feel they had been misled. —Blotwell 8 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
  • Delete. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
  • DeleteThere must be some way to stop this abuse--Porturology 4 July 2005 12:38 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge as per Blotwell. I have a couple of Burr puzzles and Disentanglement puzzles myself and they are notable (if you like that sort of thing). I can only imagine these pages have got caught up in the crossfire here. Leithp July 4, 2005 14:59 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disentanglement puzzles are well-known, as can be seen from pictures. I would rename packing problem to packing puzzle, since it's a well known class among puzzles. I think (I am not an expert in puzzles, just have some interest in them) the classification is somewhat questionable on Mechanical puzzle and Wire-and-string puzzle. I would also probably go for merging some of these, as per Blotwell (except that burr puzzles and wire-and-string puzzles (including only wire ones) are quite well defined categories and would merit a separate articles). Classification is of course a problem, but where isn't? For all those who don't believe these are real, please try visit a local puzzle shop and you'll see. ;-) Samohyl Jan 5 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
    • The point is not that there are things which satisfy the description (e.g. the images), but that the division into "mechanical vs. other" is not standard, and in this case, original research by Karl Scherer. Obviously if someone categorises puzzles, e.g. Turquoise Puzzles, many things will fit the description, and allow images, and thus can be discussed, but this is obviously still original research, and a non-standard division. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
      • Just because the classification scheme may be original research does not mean that these articles should be deleted. The solution is to reorganize the content, not discard it. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
        • It is the articles themselves that are the classification scheme. The only way to solve that original research is to remove the articles. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm voting keep until we can sort this all out. I'm not comfortable with these multiple deletion entries. I think each article should have its own vfd entry. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 04:52 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that grouping them together is not ideal, but had I kept the last lot seperate there would have had to be 199 VfDs rather than 1. To give you an idea of the articles worth, the VfD for those 199 was a 90% majority to delete all of them. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
      • And I also appreciate the problem with having a large number of related problematic articles. But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, and I don't want an article deleted because it was written by a problematic editor, or because it has the "wrong" title. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:27 (UTC)
  • keep. These articles are too dissimilar for a combined vfd. I don't see what is wrong with these articles. These puzzles exist. It seems that you object to the name of the articles. --MarSch 5 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
    • The issue is not that puzzles exist which satisfy these definitions (e.g. I could define Puzzles made from red plastic, and obviously some would exist), but that the division of puzzles into such classes is not standard, and is Karl Scherer's own original research (he admits as much on another VfD). The articles serve only to push his own agenda as to how puzzles should be classified, when puzzles simply are not classified in this manner - indeed they are usually not differentiated at all. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)
      • I notice that when Scherer makes assertions about circle packings you're the first to say he's probably lying so as to get it deleted (see below), but when he claims that something is his original research (oh, and can you reference a link for that?) you cling dogmatically to the assumption that he's telling the truth so as to get it deleted. From your claim that puzzles "are usually not differentiated at all" even you should be able to guess that you haven't spent as long looking at the literature as those of us telling you these are standard classifications. As Samohyl Jan says, you should go to more puzzle shops. —Blotwell 6 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
        • The reason that I trust him when he claims something is his own original research, is that I can find absolutely no reason for him to say so if it is not true, since it would prove the case against it - that it is his original research, thus violates Wikipedia:No original research, which thus requires deletion. There is no reason I can see that he would lie so as to delete his own work even if it is genuinely valid. Thus I see no circumstance where I would doubt his claims of committing original research; on the other hand, I can see many circumstances where I would suspect something of his is original research and/or lying. These are by no means mutually exclusive, and indeed are virtually identical. In both cases I suspect it to be original research, its just that in one, he admits it. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)
          • Anyway, why don't you believe other people telling you that the topics (except maybe packing problem, but such puzzles definitely exist) are legitimate and mostly contain no original research. There probably isn't some official classification of puzzles, since there is no authority (and also, there are crossovers). But please understand that burr puzzles, disentanglement puzzles and maybe packing puzzles (where you have a couple of pieces and the task is to put them into a box or square or make a cube from them) are different large quite well-defined categories, which are actually used commonly in practice. We could argue about exact names, but this is a fact, which you would quickly understand if you visited some puzzle shop. It's also very hard to argue about all these pages together. Samohyl Jan 7 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
  • Keep, to diverse to delete in one go. At first sight, a detailed vote would be: merge rattle puzzle, wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle into disentanglement puzzle, keep packing problem (which is definitely about the mathematical issue of packing, at least at the moment) and word puzzle delete and redirect packing problem and word puzzle to sphere packing and word game, respectively, abstain on mechanical puzzle and delete transport puzzle. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
    • Packing problem is not about the mathematical issue, which even the article notes is at Sphere packing, it is about how they constitute a (non-standard, i.e. original research) class of puzzles. Note the highly abnormal terminology used in the article. Packing problem consists solely of Karl Scherers original research definition of different classes of such problems, the problems are not divided in this manner in mathematics - see Sphere packing (which also covers circle packing). The only other content in Packing problem are two examples which are already in Sphere packing.
    • The only content which is not at Sphere packing is his own definition of how to break down packing problems into different types, and his own claims about how this connects to puzzles. Thus there is absolutely nothing in it worth keeping, as all the non-original research is already at Sphere packing. (I have already voted) ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
      • I agree that packing problem contains no usable information beyond that which is already in sphere packing, except that I cannot find the first example from packing problem in sphere packing. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
        • The first example is at Sphere packing#Circle packing. Karl Scherer's "solution" for the specific dimensions he gives that "surprises many mathematicians" is original research, and should be removed for that reason alone, even apart from my strong suspicion that it simply isn't true. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure about that, I do have a vague recollection of something, but if it is unverifiable, it should be deleted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
    • Also, Word puzzle contains no content other than Word puzzle categories are followed by his own non-standard and original research categorisation. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
      • It is a list of word puzzles, I see no harm in that (I also see little research in it). I (together with others, of course) made a list of numerical analysis topics; surely that is not going to be deleted? What is a problem is that it duplicates word game, as Andreas notes below. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
        • It is an artificial categorisation - if you note the items in the list, most of them were already VfD'd. The problem that it duplicates word game is that wikipedia does not allow articles to be forked. There should be no duplicates of articles under different names. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
  • Merge Redirect Word puzzle to Word game (delete content of Word puzzle and make it redirect to Word game). Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)
    • Merge what? The only non-identical content is an original research categorisation. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
Keep Disentanglement puzzle, merge Rattle puzzle, Wire puzzle and Wire-and-string puzzle into it. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)
Delete Packing problem. Create a category "Packing problems" instead, just like Packing problems category on MathWorld. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)
As far as I can see, from Wikipedia's current content, there would only be one item in the category - Sphere packing, so the category would not be appropriate to create at this time. If the circumstances substantially change (i.e. suitable articles on genuine topics are created) then my thoughts on this matter are likely to change as well. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
There are more packing problems in Wikipedia: Bin packing problem, Knapsack problem, Close-packing, Hexomino#Packing problems. However this is irrelevant to this Vfd. My vote was to delete the article, the category can be created later if needed, when there is suffcient number of articles on packing problems in Wikipedia. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
Mathworld's Sphere packing article concerns only the specific case of a 3-sphere. Wheras Wikipedia's Sphere packing article concerns the general idea of an N-sphere, and all the maths that goes with it (in theory). Mathworld is much more fragmented than wikipedia, and Wikipedia would thus not be as suited to a category. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
Keep Mechanical puzzle, however completely rework the article. There is an excelent Mechanische Geduldspiele article in German Wikipedia. I would propose to translate it to English to create a new content of Mechanical puzzle article. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
Doing that is replacing the entire current article, as no content from it would remain. I.e. the article be deleted and created anew. This is equivalent to a vote to delete the current article. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
Yes, if it is desirable to nuke the edit history of the article. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
Delete Transport puzzle, google search doesn't returns any hits beside Wikipedia mirrors and some puzzles for children, which called "Transport" only because they really display cars, trains, ships etc. Andreas Kaufmann 7 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see what the fuss is about. I really don't. These all seem to be straightforward articles on notable puzzles. The reason given for deletion seems incoherent: "the articles were all created by some guy whom we all hate". This doesn't seem like a valid reason to delete. linas 5 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
    • No, the argument is "the articles were all created by some guy doing original research". See Wikipedia:No original research. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:33 (UTC)
      • When it comes to mathematics, there is a very fine line between original research and old research. Unlike most other endevours, math is "timeless"; 2+2=4 was as true 10,000 years ago as it is now. When mathematicians look at wikipedia with an interest in a subject, they don't limit themselves to topics that were known 50 years ago. Yes, it would be nice if he could provide some link to an article in Mathematical recreations or some such journal, but sometimes one can be quite expert and still not be aware of citations. Anyway, if you want to delete original research, I suggest you start with articles on Pokemon, TV sitcoms and rock-n-roll albums. There is a boundless quantity of the stuff in those articles. There's far, far more stuff in WP that is more frivolous and ephemeral than this. linas 14:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 2+2=4 only in certain sets. In many, indeed, in most, 2+2 is not equal to 4. See Set Theory. N.b. its an l in my user name rather than a 1. ~~~~ 16:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not original research. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
  • Keep disentanglement puzzle (I've collected a few dozen of these, so I think they're notable) and merge wire puzzle and wire-and-string puzzle into it. No vote on the others. If the problem is that it's original research, it should be redone, not deleted, as it's a valid topic. Chuck July 8, 2005 12:45 (UTC)
User has 64 prior edits ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:41 (UTC)
    • If its original research, then its content still needs deleting, a VfD to delete would result in this, as it would clear the edit history. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

Proposal to seaparate the vote[edit]

I propose that we vote about what to do with every page on the list separately. Samohyl Jan 7 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

I propose that the admins work it out from our votes, as would normally be the case. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

  • However, I would point out to admins that most votes here are complex, and not as simple as keep/delete the lot (even when they start with one of these two words). ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leeboy[edit]

Vanity --TheParanoidOne 3 July 2005 14:51 (UTC)

delete vanity Friday 3 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly a vanity page. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:07 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Paul Sharp and Harry Timmer. All of them are vanity pages probably made by the same author. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 00:59 (UTC)
  • Keep Leeboy is a well known yob in the south east, i feel this page presents the reader with vital information (Unsigned vote by 82.34.154.97)
  • Delete - Vanity --Skuld‡ insult 6 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Idont Havaname. (BTW, Harry Timmer has been reposted after deletion.) --IByte 13:46, 11 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.  Grue  21:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zillions of Games (the article)[edit]

Article is an advert. Zillions of Games has only 602 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits.

N.b. there has been a lot of Zillions-based spam (e.g. over 100 articles created) on wikipedia for the last 2 years, that was only recently discovered and VfD'd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games. Consequently, there was time for there to be many different IPs used to create the articles, and the creator's edit pattern seems to be to use an IP/user-name for a while, then bin it and use another, creating a potential army of dorment sockpuppets.

As a result, some editors with over 200 edits, who have been here for more than just a few days, are potentially sock puppets of the Zillions-article creator. This complicates determining whose votes are permissible immensely, and a developer would probably need to check out each voter when the voting is closed. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea to check out everyone who votes here. -Ril- has been pointing out users with few prior edits. But this is relevant only for users without verifiable identities. When a voter is using his real name and has an established presence on the web beyond Wikipedia, we can be fairly certain that he is not a sockpuppet, and when he refers back to his Wikipedia profile from his homepage, as I have done, and that homepage is in a domain registered under his name, as mine is, we can be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is for real and no sockpuppet. The number of prior edits is relevant mainly for those without verifiable identities, such as those who use pseudonyms, as -Ril- does, or have not established any presence on the web beyond the Wikipedia. In this case, more edits raises the probability that a user is not a sockpuppet, though it never makes it a certainty. The nature of the prior edits and how recently the account has been created are also factors to consider. For example, a couple of the accounts that have voted for delete were opened last week, and one has been involved mainly in VfDs. --Fergus July 8, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Now, I could claim on my talk page that I was Douglas Adams. And, apart from the fact he is dead, there is no proof that I am not. Nethertheless it would be a lie. There is no reason to take who people claim they are to be true, as it is easily a lie, and particularly likely for Sockpuppets to do, to try to establish a different identity.
I can register any number of homepages and claim them to be different people, then use them for sockpuppetry. Their existance is no evidence at all. The only convincing evidence would be the individuals physically in front of me stating what their usernames are.
And even in this case, their votes would not reflect the opinion of the Wikipedia community at large, but of a small, highly biased, clique, only recently arrived within it, which is reason enough to discount it.
It is not more edits that establishes individuality, but a distinct personality difference between editors and their editing styles and interests. More edits makes a comparison possible, and it harder to fake such differences. Under 200 edits is too easy to fake. I myself was accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Ril, but my editing style and other behaviour, together with my over 3000 edits at the time, strongly indicated that this was not the case to a member of the arbitration committee.
Nethertheless, it is also a major sockpuppet behaviour to edit in a noticably distinct style. This is also detectable; by the fact it is much more different to each other than would be statistically likely for two seperate people - i.e. it is obviously someone trying to make themselves appear as different as possible. Indeed some occasionally make votes opposing themselves elsewhere, using paper thin arguments for the case that their true opinion contests.
Between these two factors, I see nothing to indicate that those editors below of few edits are distinct people. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

You might create any number of homepages, but are you wealthy enough to register any number of domains? Of course not. No one is. It costs money to register a domain, and that is why I brought up the point of having a homepage in a domain registered to oneself. My homepage is in a domain registered to myself, which you can verify with a whois search. If you compare it with the whois search for wikipedia.com, you will even discover that mine is older. That should erase any doubt that I registered the domain only to create a sockpuppet here. But even without having your own domain, a homepage that is part of an established web presence can go a long way toward establishing the credibility of a user. For example, Andreas Kaufmann has a geocities homepage, but he has included a picture of himself, has programmed games and a winboard adapter for Zillions, and has been playing games against various people, including myself, on various websites. Moreover, his activity here has been consistent with what I know of him beyond Wikipedia. So I'm certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is. Perhaps there are others here I would come to the same conclusion about if I did the research, though, as yet, I have not. In short, the extremity of your skepticism toward people with few edits is unjustified. --Fergus July 9, 2005 00:13 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • Do we use the same search engine? Searching for ""zillions of games" -wikipedia -encyclopedia" gives me 63,900 hits [19]. I heard from this game before I read the wikipedia article, and think it is quite notable, so keep. The spam by whoever is quite sad, tho. --Conti|✉ July 3, 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • Keep: This issue was discussed over 2 years ago on the article's talk page. The number 602 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits comes from a 2 year old comment on the articles talk page. See the 08:40, 20 April 2003 article talk page; it reports "8,740 hits on google - though only 602 of those are non-duplicates". Currently there are ~67,000 Google references, but I do not know how many are non-mirrors. Wendell 3 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
    • Karl Scherer's spamming of Wikipedia on the other (now deleted) articles started some 2 years ago, that probably has quite a lot to do with the increase in google hits. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
    • This page seems to have taken a negative tone, so let me be clear. I think the page is a Keep on its own merits, regardless of Google counts or SockPuppets issues. Although I have never used it, I enjoy games and board games, and wish I was a better programmer. This tool seems like a good introduction into prototyping algorithms, regardless if it comes with dozens of built in games and hundreds of user created downloadable games. My reference to the 2 year old talk page and its Google counts was meant to highlight that someone had not done recent research, just repeating older discussion. Wendell 5 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
user has voted previously above. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. There may has been Zillions-based spam, but that shouldn't mean that this article is automatically removed. It seems a noteworthy enough computer program, and not particularly advertising. Perhaps some rewriting is due, but otherwise I see no reason to delete the article. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
    • If it is noteworthy, then why can I find zero negative references to it on google? The internet is a very critical place, so out of the things that arent just an advert, you would expect a sizable number of negative criticisms, but there appear to be none. This implies it is all just advertising, i.e. not noteworthy. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you didn't look hard enough. See [20] for a negative review and [21] for some negative comments about the ZRF scripting language used by Zillions. PittBill 3 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
        • Heck, for that matter, look at the user forums on the Zillions of Games site. *wry grin* Those of us who are enthusiasts of the engine routinely run into its limits. Once I'm home, I'll try to dig up some of the webpages from game programmers on limitations they've run into. -Fuzzy 5 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)
Hmm... i take your point. I've just seen all the other things by this guy up for deletion, and I totally appreciate spam and advertising has been a big problem with this. I still do wonder, however, why the program should deserve no representation on here at all. I fully agree removing countless links in other articles, and rewriting this to ensure an NPOV, but I still just feel that it's notable enough to be represented. However annoying the spam has been. Interesting point you make re the google results however, i'll look into them a bit more. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
Hmm... well there are some reviews of the software out there so it's not just advertising. Still seems a noteworthy enough program to me. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia policy must be consistent. I see noone moving to delete the entry for Microsoft. By the way, I am NOT the vandal. --BadSanta
The behavior of one anonymous zealot is regrettable. Nonetheless, as Dr. Karl Scherer once argued at length and in explicit detail, this article is not a damned ad. Zillions Of Games is the only fully-universal, user-friendly program for creating and playing chess variants of any architecture. In other words, the ZOG program is as indispensible to board game inventors as Microsoft Windows is to most IBM-compatible computer owners (and I sure as Hell do not wish to advertise for Microsoft). By the way, my name is Melvin Rippey. It would be nice to get some input from some Wikipedia editors who are not clueless as to what they are talking about yet strangely vocal to the point of trying to get this important page deleted. --BadSanta
User has edits only to Chess variant games, and has not edited for a while (since 13th june) until the VfD on Karl Scherer's articles stopped being edited (2 days ago) ~~~~ 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
I'm not sure that BadSanta's edit history is relevant to this discussion. The fact that a user votes in a VfD discussion that relates to his or her area of interest is hardly suspicious, and the fact that one of this user's absences from Wikipedia coincided with VfD discussions related to another user's contributions is only circumstantial grounds for suspicion. NatusRoma 3 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
The issue is that Karl Scherer's edit pattern (see the IPs) is to use them for a reasonable period, then move on, and occasionally resurrect them. This was over a period of 2 years. This suggests he is capable, and may be likely, to have set up sockpuppets which now appear to be established, though do not make frequent edits, and can then be used to sway a VfD by appearing to be different editors. Consequently, the only way to see if someone may need to be checked out by a developer for sockpuppetry is by flagging up an edit pattern conforming to what would be expected of Karl Scherer. Obviously this could, and is likely to, catch innocent editors, which is extremely unfortunate, and I would have preferred not to need to do this, but developers should soon be able to determine the guilt or innocence of each, when it comes to tally up the vote. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
    • You are not really allowed to vote twice. Would you like me to move your previous comment down here to make it clear you are only voting the once?~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
      • I did not vote twice or attempt to. I don't care where you move my comment or if you move it. --BadSanta
        • Now dealt with. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
User has only edits to Chess-varient related articles, and Fox and geese which I put up for deletion as something that appears to be written by Karl Scherer, despite being created by Andreas, who claims to be a seperate individual. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
FYI- Andreas Kaufmann is a seperate individual! Nearly everyone in the chess variant community knows who he is. He made the WinBoard adapter for Zillions Of Games without any financial compensation. Are you going to insult everyone? --BadSanta
So, what you are saying is, Andreas Kaufmann is a significant part of Zillions of Games, just like Karl Scherer, i.e. highly biased, and just as likely as Karl Scherer to have created the article as spam advertising ? ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
No, I am saying the opposite. Andreas Kaufmann is not affiliated with Zillions Development in any way. He made the WinBoard adapter without any financial compensation to benefit the chess variant community, not for a corporation. By the way, Dr. Karl Scherer does not work for Zillions Development, either. He is simply the most prolific board game inventor in the world. --BadSanta
Now, I am very curious why you would title Mr. Scherer as most prolific when it isn't backed up with evidence, given that you have no personal connection to him. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
The Zillions web site currently lists Dr. Karl Scherer, a published mathematician, as having invented 396 board games- several times more than whoever takes second place (strictly by numerical measure). This is a verifiable fact. You do know what "prolific" means, I presume? --BadSanta
Prolific means prolific not noteworthy. I have written prolific VfDs (I have had over 100 articles deleted via VfD over the last fortnight), but that does not make me noteworthy enough for an article. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
Neither Andreas Kaufmann nor Karl Scherer 'created' the Zillions article. According to the page history, a user named Chuck Smith wrote the first version in 2002.PittBill 4 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
User has 46 prior edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
How is my edit history relevant to the statement I made? PittBill 5 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
A low prior edit count is evidence of potential sockpuppetry. Usually VfD admins err on the side of caution and discount any votes by people with under 200 prior edits, or who have been here less than a month prior to the VfD. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. Fortunately, I haven't cast a vote. I've only posted comments in an attempt to influence those whose votes will be counted. PittBill 6 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
Personally I think you should vote anyhow, and that should be counted unless further evidence of sockpuppetry is presented. UkPaolo 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
And I thought -Ril- was talking about User Chuck Smith. FYI, User Chuck Smith has between 250 and 500 edits dating back to 2002. Wendell 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
N.b. 2002 was when Karl Scherer first appeared (as one of the IP addresses) ~~~~ 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think zillions of games need any additional advertisement. It is a major addition to the wealth of human civilization and culture. That's what encyclopedias should be all about -- diversity. And those silly allegations about the guy using fake profiles, that sounds like slander motivated by jealousy. If you had an interesting life of your own, you wouldn't be poking your nose into everyone's business.
(unsigned vote by User:70.114.136.31) Who has zero prior edits. probably a SOCKPUPPET. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
Your argument does rather collapse when you consider that you appear to be a sockpuppet yourself. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Strong delete with extreme prejudice. The sockpuppetry alone is enough to reach this conclusion. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
I gather that a few conscientious editors have been thru Hell over the sockpuppetry. The temptation to get angry and nuke the problem is to some extent, understandable. However, we have a responsibility as editors to not let the unethical behavior of one individual provoke us into spitefully flushing down the toilet relevant material of interest to many. The bottom line is it is difficult to discuss chess variants without mentioning the Zillions program in the modern era. So, it belongs, notwithstanding. --BadSanta
The issue is, is it noteworthy to more than just people who work for Zillions in some manner, and their sockpuppets, i.e. is it more than just fancruft? Given the state of google on the matter 2 years ago before this spamming started - only 602 non-mirror hits, many being message board edits by karl scherer + company themselves - I would say that it is fancruft, and not noteworthy. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
Chess variants are variants of chess, which require only a board and chess pieces, and someone who knows the rules. I don't see where Zillions is a necessity there. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
No, that is a naive understanding of Chess variants. They may be played on boards of varying sizes, shapes, and geometries, and with pieces not used in Chess. Zillions of Games enables the play of countless Chess variants that cannot be played with the standard equipment of Chess. --Fergus 01:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware that there are different boards. For example, a 6 sided one for 3 players is the most notable of these. It still isn't mentioned in the article though. I think you mean different geographies. I strongly doubt that zillions could cope with the Minkowski geometry, Riemann geometry, or Kerr geometry, for example. ~~~~ 11:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, while it is not an indispensable feature, I would state that ZoG's ability to try all possible moves within a vertain depth is certainly useful in finding holes in one's developed game. For instance, in a chess variant I created (name not mentioned here for fear of being accused of advertising), I originally allowed for a destructive effect on surrounding pieces when two pieces of a certain type were adjacent. I ran the game in ZoG. Four moves in, the computer had moved his pieces into mine in such a way as to devestate my ranks with an explosion. I found that it was something that was impossible to properly defend against, providing a definite advantage to anyone playing the first to move. Two years of playing the game with friends (before I tried plugging it into ZoG) hadn't revealed that move sequence. Maybe not a "necessity" but pretty darn useful in chess variant development. -Fuzzy 05:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally doubt that any sockpuppets are voting on this page. It rather seems to me that many quite obsessed fans of the game are voting. While I can certainly understand the suspiciousness of the Wikipedia editors, to me the game itself is still notable enough to warrant an article. Just have a look at some of the google results, they are certainly not all spam. [22] [23] [24] --Conti|✉ July 5, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
You are mistaken to the extreme upon one of your key points of argument. The Wikipedia definition of gamecruft refers to fan or fanatical devotion to a single game. Recall that Zillions Of Games is a universal board game program. Just see how radically inconsistent your allegation of fancruft (imprecise word used) is with the broad definition of chess variants. Note that chess variants is a compound noun which carries a very distinct meaning from literally "variants of chess". Chess variants refers universally to a class of board games which include chess and many other chess-related games. I wish the main protagonist on the other side of this argument was minimally coherent on this subject. --BadSanta
"Pink tigers" refers universally to a class of tigers which are pink. That still doesn't make it notable. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  • Keep. My name is David Bush. I am not, nor ever have been, a sockpuppet. Perhaps my home page (such as it is) would provide sufficient evidence about this. Zillions has great value to me as a tool for analyzing lots of abstract games, not just chess variants. It helps me get a handle on basic tactics, which form the basis for deeper understanding. There are probably hundreds of ZoG script writers who have added to the ever increasing body of work. It costs money to "join the club," but once you have the software, all third-party packages are freely downloadable. I have been a playtester for ZoG, which means I got an upgrade for free. I received no money. I don't know Jack about IT issues, sock puppets and the like. But I am very upset about the flame war that has grown up here. Insults don't help. They really don't. Ignoring the guidelines for posting on Wikipedia doesn't help. It really doesn't. Those who manage this site have a valid concern that future additions to the ZoG page should observe the rules which are clearly listed for anyone who takes the time to read them. Is it worth their time to continually correct violations, just to keep a page which apparently is read by relatively few people? Can we all get along? Everything you might want to tell the world about ZoG can be done within the posting guidelines. If you are not certain your edit is correct, Wikipedia has a "preview" option as well as a "sand box."

--Twixter 5 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

User has 18 prior edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
  • Comment So far, we have 3 votes from editors with under 50 prior edits, one of whom has none prior to voting. Is anyone still uncertain why I raised concerns about sockpuppetry when I started this VfD ? ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
You will see how baseless you claims if you check exactly what these users edited. I am actually more concerned about people voting to delete this article only because of your unproven claims without checking the matters by themself. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
Karl Scherer's edit pattern (including those of the IPs) is to edit a set of general articles, and then centre on Zillions/puzzle-categorisation articles, then fade back to general articles before fading away. It fits two well. The other has not got any prior edits at all, which is generally regarded as an extremely clear indication of sock puppetry. ~~~~
Actually IP's are most easy. Just enter user IP in IP address locator and you will see that the user whom you accuse in Sockpuppetry is from Texas and not from Australia as Karl Scherer. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia has in recent times been the victim of attacks via Open Proxies, one of the most used sets is based in Texas, and the most used itself is based in australia, so IP locators are somewhat unreliable in cases of sockpuppetry. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
I also don't observe Karl Scherer's edit pattern for two other users you hint to be sockpuppets, actually it is very easy to find their real names from their user pages. Both of them are not Karl Scherers. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
It isn't very likely that if someone had sockpuppets to use for voting that they would use their real names on their pages, as that would give it away. It would be more likely that they would lie. Indeed, it would be statistically more likely that they would indicate a name on their page than an average user would, since that way, they appear to imply that they are someone else, wheras an average user has no need to. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
You need to immediately quit falsely accusing everyone who disagrees with you on this issue of being both a disreputable editor and a sockpuppet. I am for real and as I have long-standing acquaintance or familiarity with some of the people you are accusing, being fellow hobbyists, I have compelling reasons to believe they are real as well. What you are doing is morally wrong and it starkly violates Wikipedia policy. If you persist, we or I can get you banned. Finally, you have wrecked you own credibility to the extreme that I now seriously doubt Dr. Karl Scherer has done everything or anything you have accused him of. --BadSanta
    • Comment -Ril- Can you clarify the editors with under 50 prior edits who voted? I found only 2, and a third person who only made a comment (not a vote). The page is getting busy, and it is sometimes hard to follow the discussion. Wendell 5 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Keep. My name is Fergus Duniho. I am well known as one of the editors of the Chess Variant Pages [25]. Zillions of Games is not just any commercial product. It is a one-of-its-kind product, an interpreter of a computer programming language for playing countless board games against a personal computer. It deserves as much attention as any other computer programming language. Furthermore, Zillions of Games is so much more significant than the games that come with it. More importantly, it has been used to program countless games that no one has ever been able to play on a computer before, and it has provided game creators with a tool for developing and creating new strategy board games. In fact, its existence has resulted in a boom in the creation and availability of new strategy board games. In the world of strategy board games, and especially in the world of Chess variants, Zillions of Games has been of monumental and far-reaching consequence. Both Andreas Kaufmann and Karl Scherer are well-known to me outside of the Wikipedia. Karl Scherer is a New Zealander who has published numerous Zillions rules files (ZRFs) of several games and puzzles of his own invention, and Andreas Kaufmann is a German developer of ZRFs and a well-known member of the Chess Variant Pages, against whom I have played several games online with my own invention, Game Courier [26], and against whom I am presently playing a game of Grand Chess online. If both men have posted to the Wikipedia only on related subjects, it is only because they share a common hobby. I share the same hobby and have also posted only on Wikipedia pages related to Chess Variants. But I am also a separate person with a verifible identity. In fact, you will find a separate link to each of our websites on the Zillions of Games page linking to other websites [27].

--Fergus July 6, 2005 02:24 (UTC)

User has 4 prior edits. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)
  • Keep - While my list of articles which I've editted is fairly random and includes a large number of minor edits to fix spelling, grammar, and word choice, it is fairly evident that I've been editting articles outside of ZoG (Heck, my editting experience with ZoG was writing up an article on Jungle and changing the link in the ZoG entry to refer to it...). Zillions of games has been a godsend to me in the area of testing out new abstract board game designs. If nothing else, it helped me develop a chess variant, Fantasy Chess, that I wrote back in middle school. To my knowledge, there is no comparable tool out there. Incidentally, anyone else feel like they're stuck in an Asimov story, trying to prove they're not a robot? :-P
(unsigned vote by SeanDuggan 05:32, 6 July 2005 (he has 185 total previous edits)
Keep Didn't realize I'd forgotten to sign. *wry grin* Although apparently I've got too low a number of edits. -Fuzzy 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
the above user is SeanDuggan, and has already voted previously in addition to the vote above ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
Actually, I included the number of edits since I thought it was sufficiently high to indicate to more suspicious minded editors that it was unlikely to be a sockpuppet account! It was intended for info only, with no implication as to being "too low". UkPaolo 6 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to that robot question, but I'm afraid my answer might violate the First Law :-) PittBill 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable enough. The sockpuppetry is evident. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
There is no sockpuppetry here at all. People with few edits came to vote because of this message on chessvariants.org discussion board. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
  • Keep - regardless of whether there have been sockpuppet votes (and on the balance of probabilities I suspect there may have been), 68,000 google hits is enough to convince me of notability (though Alexa ranking is disturbingly low). OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 6, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
    • As you may note above, before the article and all the spam was in Wikipedia, there were only 602 google hits, the sheer volume of spam (over 100 articles) is going to have made a significant contribution to increasing 602 to 68,000. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
      • Do you seriously think that wikipedia spamming can get you over 60.000 google hits? A simple search for "Zillions of games -wikipedia" should eliminate the wikipedia mirrors, yet there are still over 60.000 hits. Just go through the google results and you will see that most of the hits are not spam. --Conti|✉ July 6, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
  • Comment The Mathematical Association of America has a regular online column called "Math Games". Zillions of Games has been mentioned in at least two editions of that column. For example, see A Zillion Connection Games and Deadly Rooms of Death. PittBill 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
    • As has pretty much everything maths-related that floats around google after link spamming Wikipedia for two years. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
  • Comment Right, some technical info. According to the aforementioned Alexa site [28], which monitors internet traffic,
    • the traffic rank for Zillions of Games is 461,687
      • the smaller this number the more used (an indicator of notability) it is
      • e.g. the traffic rank for Google is 3
    • Zillions is over a 100,000 worse than the traffic rank for enjoyingtea.com (http://www.enjoyingtea.com] (331,256), which is still not notable. I.e. Zillions is 1/3 more un-notable than enjoyingtea.
I picked this site because it was the first thing that appeared when I searched for Fish Teapot ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
  • It comes as no surprise that you would seize upon a low Alexa ranking, as was mentioned above. This is not the only measure of notability, however. And from comparisons with another (allbeit seemingly unnotable) website, I fail to see how you can make such generalised statements. UkPaolo 6 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
If there was evidence of non-noteworthyness, why do you find it important to state that I seem to point out that there is evidence of non-noteworthyness?
It is precisely because the enjoyingtea website is unnotable that I can show how unnotable the zillions site is. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
But Alexa doesn't really indicate notability. It only serves to record a traffic rank for a given website - ie how many visits a site may be getting, in comparison to any other. As such, you're only recording the number of visits to one website (discounting other language versions, mirror sites, other sites mentioning it, and crucially any download sites). You've got no measure of the number of downloads, nor of the user base. There are plenty of websites which rank worse than Zillions, despite their subject being considered noteworthy. If you wanted to use Alexa to proove to me the notability of a given website, then I would accept what you are saying. It does not, however, prove the notability of a given subject matter, in this case the Zillions of Games system. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Yes, I know it only indicates how many visits it gets comparatively. But it shows that Zillions gets less visits than obscure websites about drinking tea. I.e. is a less notable website (as it is predominantly a computer thing), wheras tea is drunk in the world at large. ~~~~
I've gotta love your sense of humour creating enjoyingtea. UkPaolo 22:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site's Alexa ranking would be relevant if we were discussing an article about the website zillions-of-games.com. The article is about the software, not the website. Should we judge the suitability of World War II as a topic for an article according to the Alexa ranking of worldwarii.com? Chuck July 8, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
  • That is a false dichotomy. World War II does not have an official website, and there are certainly more discussing solely or mostly it than worldwarii.com, so the alexa ranking of the group rather than the individual site would need to be taken into account. This is not the case with Zillions. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
  • That was exactly my point, Chuck, well put! -Ril- of course this is the case with Zillions, allbeit to a much lesser extent. There's plenty of websites about the software, and plenty of download sites, and sites for the games (hence the need for a categories, etc on Google). There's also other language versions of the site such as ZIllions.de. Also, you mention so-called "official websites" so here's another example for you. The UK city of Reading most certainly has an official website: Reading.gov.uk. It's traffic rank according to Alexa is 323,106. Since this is only about the same as enjoyingtea.com are we to now presume that city is now unnotable? UkPaolo 8 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
No, that's the official website of the city's council. Which is definitely unnotable (but 1/3 more notable than Zillions - as Alexa confirms). Also, Reading doesn't exist predominantly on computers, and so a more reliable measure of its notability is non-computer based, e.g. newspapers and books. This is not true for Zillions. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
Still there is "Zillions of Games" subcategory in "Board Games" category both on Alexa and on google. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Anything that has references on multiple other sites is going to get a category. If I created the word "fishian", claimed it was a religion, and then set up 81 seperate sites claiming to be seperate branches of the fishian religion, it would get a category too. This is merely how google identifies categories, not an indicator of noteworthyness. Google (etc.) is predominantly automatic, not determined by people. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
It also gets a category on Dmoz - which prides itself as being a human-edited web directory. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
I will give you 1 guess who I think was the human that edited Dmoz to include Zillions. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am getting increasingly annoyed by User:-Ril- (aka silly 4-tilde signature)'s repeated arguing on this page. This is intended as a VfD, everyone is entitled to make their point of view. I fail to see why every point needs to have a response made by -Ril-. I feel these comments are unneccessary, and serve only to ensure that the vote appears skewed towards a deletion. I would also point out that he seems to be willing to remove positive comments about Zillions of Games which clearly differ from his point of view (such as this). For the record, there are plenty of Google results for "Zillions of Games", even discounting those from Wikipedia and it's mirrors. I fail to see how such volume of results could be generated merely due to advertising and spam. In addition, as quoted previously there are plenty of valid reviews etc (such as this) which are clearly genuine and not spam. Zillions is also sufficiently notable to gain it's own category on Google. Now, I do not doubt that there have been numerous problems of spam from certain editors here on Wikipedia. Nor do i doubt that there may be sockpuppets in use, including on this VfD. However, this is no reason on it's own for the Zillions article to be deleted. Of course, sockpuppet votes should be discounted, in accordance with policy, but I do not find -Ril-'s constant accusation to be merited. It is perfectly believeable that editor's voting here are likely to be the same editors who may have only edited articles similar to this one, if this is their field of interest. Messages posted on external bulletin boards will also have ensured that editors who may have never used Wikipedia significantly before have been driven to vote. Whilst their votes (assuming they have never edited before) should be discounted, this is no reason to "Bite the Newcomers". Perhaps we can continue to let voting take it's course, without the need for a running commentary as to -Ril-'s latest opinion of a comment. This is a VfD, and everyone can make their say. UkPaolo 6 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
[29] is called an edit clash. It happens from time to time, particularly during system crashes such as the one that happened last night. Its quite bizarre though that one, ill check it out, it might have caused problems with my edits elsewhere, which is going to be annoying to fix. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
ContiE's comment was left at 14:07, yours much later at 18:51. For that to have been an edit clash, you must have clicked to "edit the page" before 14:07, and then not saved it until 18:51. This seems unlikely, and even so, the system would prompt you that there was a clash, and another user has edited the page in the meantime. I've never heard of any system crashes causing comments made much earlier to end up deleted when someone adds a further one. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
I know. I wasn't home until 19:30 though, which confuses me immensely. They seem to be having similar issues though at the article about the london bombs, so I think its something to do with this new version of the software theyve put up. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Please note. The term you use in the sentence This is a VfD, and everyone can make their say, namely the word everyone, by definition includes me. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
Absolutely, and you've made your say. Repeatedly. What I was trying to get at was that everyone should be able to make their say, without the need for constant comeback by you, me, or anyone else. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
Indeed, it is preferable if I am able to make my say without the need for constant comeback. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Also, please note that Messages on external bulletin boards to get people to come and influence a VfD is extremely frowned upon. Please read the guidelines. Please also indicate who in Wikipedia placed the notice, so I might raise an RfC against them. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
I totally agree, I would frown upon such practice myself. I was not endorsing the post, merely quoting it as an explanation why so many fans of the system who have no significant edit history on Wikipedia may be voting. Whilst you may legitimately take the opinion that they are not entitled to vote, that does not give you the right to "bite the newcomers" and accuse them of sockpuppetry. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)
I totally don't give a damned! The person(s) who notified the chess variant community of the reckless behavior at Wikipedia (i.e., the move to delete the most important entry in the subject matter) were obviously acting out of loyalty to their fellow hobbyists instead of loyalty to their fellow Wikipedia editors. Otherwise, these involved people with an irrefutible right to know would not have known. Ultimately, it is the destructive behavior of a Wikipedia editor who has zero respect for the hobby of chess variants which compelled this betrayal. By the way, Wikipedia does not have any legitimate right to control every aspect of a person's life who happens to be an editor. In life, unfair conflicts sometimes cause people to choose their most important loyalty at the sacrifice of others. --BadSanta
I have zero respect for sockpuppets. By the way, Wikipedia does have a legitimate right to control Wikipedia. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
I do not think we owe it to anyone to beg to justify our significance in terms of popularity. The facts are we exist, we are worldwide and we are passionate about our craft. The heavy-duty web sites of Zillions Of Games and The Chess Variant Pages are one indication. The 100's of members discussion groups such as Yahoo's "Chess Variants", "CV Gameroom" and "3-D Chess" have is another. Our detractors need to admit it. --BadSanta
When you say "our significance", are you admitting to being someone connected to Zillions of Games? ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
  • rolls eyes* If we claimed to have never seen or touched the program, would that make us more credible editors? Anyhow, last word from me on that subject, as I think this is spilling more into something that should be on the discussion page. -Fuzzy 7 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)
Yes, because it would make your edits a secondary reference, rather than a primary one. Wikipedia is about reporting secondary information, not being the original source of it. The wikipedia policies clearly spell this out. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Comment out of interest, how many voters here are not part of Zillions of Games in one way or another? And, what is the difference between the vote margin if you only include such voters? ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Well I'm nothing to do with Zillions, nor have ever heard of it before stumbling across this VfD. I agree with comments previously made which suggest that a large number of voters are (possibly quite obsessed) users of it. As such, they may consider themselves in some way "part" of ZoG (being part of a large user-base) but that is surely no reason for them not to have a vote counted. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

Comment. What is it supposed to mean to say that someone is part of Zillions? If it means that someone here is an employee or a shareholder or has some other financial interest in Zillions, then I expect no one here is a part of Zillions of Games. What we do have here are some avid users of the program, including myself, who, as such, are in a better position to appreciate the program's significance. --Fergus July 6, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable. We don't need hundreds of stubs advertising Zillions, but it deserves an article. The article is not an ad, and Zillions of Games has more than 602 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits, contrary to Ril's claims. The person who started the article may or may not have some sockpuppet accounts, but that's irrelevant to the merits of the subject itself. Factitious July 7, 2005 09:36 (UTC)
  • Keep. chessvariants.com [30] has Zillions files for about 700 different chess variants, by any number of different inventors. (Full disclosure: I once downloaded the trial version of Zillions and tried it out for a bit, which may disqualify my comments in the eyes of some, even though I decided not to purchase the full version. And yes, I have fewer than 50 edits.) The software is passably good for analysis of positions in chess variants. To say that it's unnecessary because chess variants can be played with just a board and pieces is like saying Microsoft Word is unnecessary because writing can be accomplished with a pencil and paper. Chuck July 8, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
    • User has 59 prior edits~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
      • (1/3 of which are to a single article - Greenlighting and its VfD over the last 3 days). ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, I know the article borders on spam, but the subject is valid. It needs cleanup, not deletion. --A D Monroe III 8 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have just done a major revision of it that gets into more detail and provides a more critical look at Zillions. --Fergus July 9, 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep ZoG is a notable game in the Chess Variant community. Samboy 21:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable company, in my view. Many of the associated stubs (listed elsewhere) should probably go, but the primary company behind them belongs here ...and to save -Ril- time: I have 1,153 edits as of today. :-) Tobycat 21:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are not notable. Put a link to a webpage about them on another article. JimRaynor 14:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for the sake of continuing Ril's position on number of edits, this user has 86 edits

Er, Jim, maybe I'm confused by the "they" and "them" in your vote. Are you voting on deletion of the Zillions of Games article or for the various stub articles that re-route there. Ril is also sponsering the mass-delete of the stubs, which follow a different issue. -Fuzzy 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on whether to end the vote[edit]

It has been over a week since this VfD went up, and the vote has been overwhelmingly in support of keeping it, with several of the people voting to keep it making their names and webpages available, which is good evidence that they are separate individuals. Let's bring this VfD to an end. Also, I have once again updated the page, adding organization and more content. --Fergus 00:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that most of them are likely sockpuppets trying to pretend to be individuals is a good reason to keep it open until the wider WIKIPEDIA community has had a chance to discuss the matter. Allowing only the ZOG community +3 or so others to vote on the matter is not going to reflect the wikipedia community's will, only the obvious bias of the ZOG community as to their own notability. ~~~~ 01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are still pretending to believe that everyone who votes for keeping this entry is a sockpuppet? Disappointing. So, when the vote goes against you, you cry fraud and try to drag this matter on thru corrupt manipulations? Disappointing. So, when the article you voted for deletion is fundamentally improved, expanded, detailed, objectified to the point that it nullifies most reasonable grievances as well as no longer resembles what you originally voted for deletion, you do not reconsider and withdraw? Disappointing. So, you would carelessly destroy all of the superlative labor invested by Fergus Duniho in revising this article? Disappointing. Do you ever do anything admirable? --BadSanta
Come now, BadSanta, there are not supposed to be personal attacks here. Ril seems to believe in his assertations and we shouldn't sink the level of name-calling. Look at the page from the view of an objective viewer. What would such a viewer think of the discussion when he sees it? -Fuzzy 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I added a section header to this section since this is all commentary and no voting. I know there are a lot of rules for VfDs, so if I have transgressed, feel no compunctions against telling me so. -Fuzzy 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril-, there is no fact at all that most people who have voted to keep this article "are likely sockpuppets trying to pretend to be individuals". Most of them have identified themselves by giving both their names and their websites. I visited several of these websites last night, and you can go do the same. Some, though not many, of these websites even included references back to their Wikipedia accounts. I particularly liked seeing the pictures of Rush Rhees on Ben Heaton's website, because it brought back fond memories of attending the University of Rochester. --Fergus 03:20, July 12, 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: 16k, 1d, 1m, 1 nonsense discounted. -Splash 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox and geese[edit]

Article about a non-notable variant of Solitaire (the non-american usage of the term). Appears to be part of the Zillions of Games advertising spam. The creator claims not to be Karl Scherer, though the editing style is similar for this, and other, article(s).

This is not a Solitaire variant, the game is played since at least middle ages, see here for more info The Online Guide to Traditional Games. It was not me who initially created this article, however I significantly expanded it. I added a link to Zillions of Games and made a screenshot from Zillions. I don't see how this editing style is similar to those of Karl Scherer. Andreas Kaufmann 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)
Solitaire
"Fox and Geese" which claims to be an entirely different game totally unconnected to solitaire

It uses a half-empty solitaire board with pegs, thus a solitaire variant. The creator of the page added minimal content, and appears to be from an IP that looks like one of the open proxys that Wikipedia had some trouble with a while ago, so you are effectively the creator, even if you are not the editor from the IPs. You yourself claim This article was written by me [i.e. Andreas Kaufmann], not Karl Scherer in the article's edit history. Karl Scherer's trademark editing style is to create an article on a puzzle, or "type of puzzle" (as per-Karl-Scherer), and add "links to zillions of games". This is remarkably similar to your edits here. Your edits elsewhere also bear a similarity. While you may be innocent of sockpuppetry, you may also not be - a developer should be able to check it out to confirm either way, but they don't seem to keen on doing this lately. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Yes, you are right the game uses the same board and the same pieces as Solitaire. Still the play is quite different, so that I wouldn't call the game a "Solitaire" variant. Yes, 90% of article is written by me, so I could call myself the author of it. Certainly, it is impossible for me to prove that me is me (I am using my real name here in Wikipedia) and that I am not a Karl Scherer. Andreas Kaufmann 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
This nomination has either been done in bad faith or in blatant ignorance. The nominator could at least have bothered to do some googling before making himself look bad.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)
You are strongly reminded that personal attacks are forbidden in wikipedia - Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
I am so sorry if you're offended, but you could have taken half a minute to google the game, couldn't you? Why didn't you do that instead of bothering people with this completely unnecessary vote? So far you have not provided a single valid reason, and I strongly doubt your motives.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable indicator of noteworthyness. E.g. kemwer has only 332 hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors, but it is noteworthy, because it is an ancient egyptian god. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

That is why people who google usually read some articles, don't they?--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
You are again reminded not to make personal attacks. I did read the article and found it to be nothing more than a variant of solitaire, and as such, unworthy of an independant article. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
FYI, it is the other way round.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

FYI, that depends on how you define variant. Most people consider Real Tennis to be a variant of Tennis, rather than Tennis being a variant of Real Tennis, whether Real Tennis came first or not. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

You've got a valid point there. But, personally, I have played both games since I was a kid, and until this debate came up, I never saw any connection, but where I live we play the game with holes and pegs.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
  • Keep. The game is notable. I played this game when I was a child. The game is quite popular and you can probably buy the set to play this game in a supermarket over the corner. Andreas Kaufmann 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Of course you can. Its a standard solitaire set with half the pegs missing. ~~~~

  • Comment I find this game to be documented in a book on Medieval games. RJFJR July 4, 2005 01:23 (UTC)
  • What is the name of the mediaeval book? ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, this is like the perfectly good articles you're nominating for deletion merely because they were written by KarlScherer, with the difference that it's not even by KarlScherer (except inasmuch as you're accusing the author of being a sockpuppet: evidence?). I have seen this game in books, but I wouldn't have judged it notable: however I'm happy to believe Andreas Kaufmann claiming that it is so weak keep. Feel free to delete the Zillions link though, it's borderline spam. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable - along with Nine Men's Morris, Checkers and Chinese Checkers. Agree that spam link should be gone. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
  • Merge with Solitaire. I have this book at home with literally dozens of variant games that can be played on a checkerboard or solitaire board. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
  • Question is, are the rules, playing pieces or the board most significant? If the board means the most, Checkers could be merged with Chess, because they use the same board. If the playing pieces matter, Checkers could be merged into Nine Men's Morris. If the differences in rules do not matter, all of them could be merged into board game. Not to mention the fact that you can play Fox and Geese with the solitaire board, but you need another person to play with you, As for me, Keep - Skysmith 4 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a well-known game. The Zillions link can be removed. --Zundark 4 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
  • keep. This game is for tow players and the soltaire is played only by one. I came here while planning an article to this game in the german Wiki to see what you wrote about. Now I waite, till you finished the discussion. Greetings--Nfu-peng 4 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely not Zillionscruft. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 17:44 (UTC)
  • Keep well known game.  Grue  5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
  • Keep well-known game, though the See Also link to Zillions could go. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 6, 2005 08:51 (UTC)
  • KEEP. I can't believe what I am reading. This is a CLASSIC European game which has great potential for expansion, such as the Swedish variety.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
Isn't already time to close this vote? Majority is voted to keep the article, link to Zillions is already removed. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

No, the standard procedure is at least 5 days, and usually 7. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

  • Keep. The game (or variants thereof) have been around for centuries. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
  • Teh LolZ. I like wiki fish the wikibfish is good trong because youyr wiki kung fu fish is strong --hdttdtdjtdjt
(unsigned vote by User:64.12.116.196) ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. This game is very different from solitaire, which is played with only one player. It is much closer to tafl with the particularity of unbalanced forces between the two players and different goals to win the game. --Philipum 7 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
  • Keep. . It deserves a place in Wiki. Moriori July 7, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
  • Keep... and I despair at -Ril-'s attempt to rid Wikipedia of anything remotely Zillions related. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
  • Keep The stated reasons for deletion are mistaken. Game is not variant of Solitaire and existed well before a paticular implementation. Wendell 9 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason for deletion, besides an apparently baseless and uncalled for accusation of sockpuppetry. Agree with Wiglaf's points. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:57, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 04:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Banana[edit]

This page was tagged for speedy deletion for being "useless nonsense", but I decided to move it here to VFD because I am not sure if the subject itself is notable enough to merit its own article, if it should get expanded, or redirect to emoticon. Thus, I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 3 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

  • OK, redirect to emoticon. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivial. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
  • Delete- no redir. I've seen it before, but it's by no means popular. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
  • Redirect to emoticon. I do think the emoticon is relatively popular, but I don't know what the heck one could say about it besides that it's a dancing banana, and/or post links (but Wikipedia is not a web directory.) Dcarrano July 3, 2005 17:36 (UTC)
  • Weak delete hmm... interesting one this. It's certainly popular, but I can't think there's ever going to be much to write about this in an encyclopedia. Perhaps merge and redirect, mentioning this in emoticon....
  • Weak keep... yes it's only trivial, but it's very popular, and there's no obvious reason to delete. If we do, then it should be merged and redirected to emoticon. UkPaolo 5 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
  • Redirect to User:Andrew Lin Delete. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
  • Keep- The Dancing Banana is more popular than many of the Internet Memes who have their own Wikipedia page. For example Moshzilla has 837 Google hits which pales in comparison to the Dancing Banana which comes in at 16,100! uberzev 5 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  • Redirect. There is not a good reason to make the name dancing banana not to go to emoticon. And answering Uberzev, the fact this Meme is popular does not change the fact that there is nothing to be said about it. Oh, ok I recorded the article, btu it was I have to agree it's not very usefull --Alexandre Van de Sande 7 July 2005 02:46 (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 13:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vampyre[edit]

Fan fiction, see Darth Ruin as well which is the subject of another VFD. Leithp July 3, 2005 15:29 (UTC)

  • Is it fan fiction, or is it a character from the game that is mentioned in the article? – Mipadi July 3, 2005 15:33 (UTC)
    • I presume that Darth Vampyre is the name of the player's character (it's a RPG where you name and create your own character). There is no NPC of that name in the game. Leithp July 3, 2005 15:38 (UTC)
      • I'm inclinded to agree; a quick Google search shows up no results for that name, which is highly unlikely if it is a real Star Wars character. I say delete. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
        • Although Star Wars has begun to decline with their skills in naming (ex. General Grievous), I really doubt they'd name a character "Vampyre." --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  • Delete all player characters from CRPGs. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:47 (UTC)
  • 50 megaton strong delete. Really bad fancreated character for a game that doesn't even exist.--Kross July 3, 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  • Delete. JAMD (Just Another Made-up Darth). --Maru 3 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
  • Delete. New rule - made up "Darth" whatevers go to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 talk July 3, 2005 23:07 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fanfic. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:02 (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 14:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Mubster[edit]

A vanity neologism - probably unverifiable too. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)

  • I agree. Originally, the author signed the article with his name [31], which corresponds to a "creator" of the term. Also, the term does not seem to be notable—I doubt it is in widespread use. I vote for delete. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non encyc, appears to be dicdef of two guys' slang. -- DavidH July 3, 2005 16:07 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity neologism. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:02 (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 14:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Clan of the Dawn[edit]

More Star Wars fan fiction. Tedious. Leithp July 3, 2005 15:57 (UTC)

  • Delete, gaming clan vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gaming clan vanity page, as noted by Alex 12 3. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
  • Delete. fancruft.--Kross July 3, 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  • Obvious Delete, clearly just vanity. Dan Granahan 3 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. dubiuos on own, but invoking imaginary darths seals it's fate. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:18 (UTC)
  • Delete. The first sentence proves its notability. Nestea 4 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
    • Or lack of one. Nestea 4 July 2005 00:14 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfic clan vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:03 (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.  Grue  21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Area 51 book series[edit]

Whoever made this article has no idea what s/he is talkign about, and has obviously never read the Area 51 series. 1) It's a work of fiction by Robert Doherty, not a historical treatise by "Dr. Cary Fitzgherald." 2) The part about Qin Shi Huangdi are relatively minor and only in several of the books. 3) The series isn't organized in "volumes." 4) The Mongols were not the Huns - this doesn't really have anything to do with the series, but should help illustrate that the writer of this page has no idea what s/he's talking about. I think it's too far gone to just simply reword, and besdies, having the name be the "Area 51 book series" is a bad page name. (Unsigned nomination by Kuralyov (talk · contribs))

  • Rewrite and Redirect It can't be that hard to do, can it? You sound knowledgable on the subject, so maybe you could write a decent stub? Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 16:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you don't like how the article is written, re-write it. It's a notable subject, and I see no reason to remove the article. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is it possible that there are two Area 51 book series? BTW, according to Huns and a quick google search the Huns may very well have been Mongols. Pburka 3 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rewrite is probably needed, though. --Joel7687 11:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Miragist[edit]

Yet more Star Wars fanfic Leithp July 3, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

  • Delete, useless, maybe vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:34 (UTC)
  • Delete all player characters from CRPGs. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:48 (UTC)
  • Incrediably strong delete. fan created character.--Kross July 3, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. JAMD. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:15 (UTC)
  • Delete. New rule - made up "Darth" whatevers go to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 talk July 3, 2005 23:07 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfic cruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:04 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery Uncensored[edit]

This seems to be a POV fork from Islam and slavery. I would suggest that differences of opinion should be worked out on that page rather than by creating "uncensored" pages. Leithp July 3, 2005 16:30 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not work. The pro islam people just gang up on anyone editing info that they do not want presented, regarless of historical records or facts. If you read the suggestion made on the Islam talk page , you will see where I am coming from.--Urchid 3 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV issues, crap. User should take it to arbitration if he's having problems, rather than creating "UNCENSORED OMG!" pages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. 4 to 2 with an abstain that sounds like a delete vote. Woohookitty 04:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laxius_Power[edit]

This page should be deleted from Wikipedia. First off, there's nothing of substance in this entry. All that it says is that this game "enjoys success", and is "one of the most successful games" made with RPG Tsukuru. Both statements are subjective and have nothing to do with what should be in an encyclopedia. I hope that others will feel the same. Michiel Sikma 3 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

  • Delete, rewrite. The subject is notable, and deserves a page. "Laxius Power" -wikipedia on Google returns about 15,000 results. But the article is crap. Let it be restarted. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:43 (UTC)
  • This is not subjective. Success is nowhere subjective. Would you say Titanic's success is subjective? LP has enjoyed a massive following so it has been very successful for what it is (a free RPG). Now unless you've got something relevant to say, please shut up. — (Unsigned comment by 195.78.12.156; user's 1st edit.)
  • Delete. Not notable. 369 unique Google hits. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 17:51 (UTC)
  • Keep. Laxius Power is quite notable and has been reviewed by quite a few PC gaming websites. The total number of downloads is also quite high. If the nominator feels so strongly about the implication that the game enjoys success, why not removing the affirmations instead of sending the article to VfD? --Sn0wflake 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC) Abstain. The article just keeps getting worse. In the future I will consider writing a proper article for it, but until then, this does not belong to the Wikipedia. --Sn0wflake 6 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
  • Keep. Laxius power is a VERY popular and well known game, both within and out of the amateur game production community. This article is not particularly informative, though I've let the creator of the games know about this entry, and he is interested in editing it to include a lot more information, as long as it doesn't get deleted first. RealmKnight 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
    • How is letting the author of the games edit this article going to make it less biased? --Michiel Sikma 5 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
      • Michiel: Because the author can add stuff to the article, like pictures and informations.
        • Anonymous editor: I absolutely do not believe that the author of this game will be able to present it objectively. The page will be reduced to a personal advertising outlet this way. Anybody can see that coming.
  • Keep. Laxius Power is one of the most famous free RPG. The website has had 5 millions page views in one year and 4500 registered members. There is also a lot of following going on from the fans, not fading since November 2001. Success is undeniable.

Seems that the page was edited to be even more subjective. "Random returns to resume his fight with the Demons, this time in the fiercest, most dreaded incarnation of his enemies, in the most thrilling and epic of his adventures so far." -- is this an objective encyclopedia entry?

--Michiel Sikma 5 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

  • Michiel, you seem to miss the point that the comment relates to HIS adventures. For instance, "The most thrilling of HIS adventures". "Most dreaded incarnation of HIS enemies". How come this is subjective? Play the games and you'll see this is nowhere subjective. However the summary (overall) might be toned down a little in order to fit better the goal of an encyclopedia.
    • You don't seem to realize that "most thrilling of his adventures" is not objective at all. This is the author of a game abusing an encyclopedia to cite catch phrases. For that reason alone, this article needs to be cleaned up severely, if not deleted. Basically, what you're telling me right now is "but the games REALLY ARE GOOD!" I don't care about that. This is not a rave review site. It's obvious that people who are part of Laxius Power's fanbase are going to be making these comments to try and keep this article up to hype standards. See Wikipedia:Spam for our policy on advertising. Also, please add bullets when responding to someone, and don't place comments inbetween someone else's comments. See Wikipedia:Tutorial for more information.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 14:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Drag Pack[edit]

Added to CSD by Frenchman113. Looks like band vanity but doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. No vote. Hedley 3 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN, band vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Woohookitty 05:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Spadea[edit]

info contained on this page should be merged with that on the better named Vince Spadea (since this is the name he is better known by when refered to be by announcers, etc.). Have mergered the info already. -Mayumashu 02:04, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Also note that the proper procedure for listing a page for deletion was not followed. I have repaired it, but in the future please be sure to follow the procedure at the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
  • Move Vince Spadea to Vincent Spadea. The long version is the name most frequently used. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
  • as per Hedley, merge Vince Spadea to Vincent Spadea and create redirect. Surley VfD isn't really the best place to discuss this, since it seems obvious that a redirect is necessary on one of the articles, rather than calling for deletion... UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:31 (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 14:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Scott McCarthy (soccer player)[edit]

This looks like borderline nonsense and is certainly a hoax. Noel Edmonds indeed. Leithp July 3, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

  • Delete, NN, could be vanity, few if any of the Google hits are this same person. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)
  • Delete, frivolous, vanity, non-notable, [32], links at the bottom of the page are respectively, the person's personal site, and a forum perhaps that the person regulars. Putting: "Scott McCarthy" "Burgess Hills" into google gets three hits, which are these. Anser 3 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense vanity. The article isn't even about a soccer player, either! --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page constitutes one of several acts of vandalism coming from 217.42.249.62. Gsd2000 5 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 16:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

ECoustics.com[edit]

Not notable, created in combination with a link spam spree. --W(t) 3 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

  • Non-notable self promotion: Eliminate. Anser 3 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN, self-promo, vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
  • Delete spam You (Talk) July 7, 2005 20:59 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 05:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chapman[edit]

Hoax, and perhaps speedy nonsense? Leithp July 3, 2005 17:21 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. Not so sure about nonsense. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
    • I meant nonsense on the basis that a professional football team would not sign a 7 month year old baby or play a 9 year old in a full senior game. If they had I would have expected to see it mentioned in the sports pages. Leithp July 3, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
      • Oh, it's a professional team. I was thinking that it was little league. I change my vote, as reflected above and below.
  • Speedy Delete, vanity, nonsense. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)
  • Delete probably nonsense. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 19:55 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, vanity, nonsense. A 7-month-old recruited for his "dribbling" (drooling?) skills might be better suited for BJAODN, too. --Idont Havaname 3 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 06:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolfcats[edit]

Non-notable band formed early this year. Has not released any material. -Frazzydee|✍ 3 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, vanity, useless. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity, nn, nothing on google. Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
  • Delete,nn,vanity67.174.186.96 01:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if there' nothing on google then verifiability is a problem. Seeaxid 05:14, 13 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. jni 18:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sharp[edit]

The same user who created this page created a number of other vanity pages that are on the VfD list, including Harry Timmer and Leeboy. He has also edited a number of date pages to add links to these non-notables personages. I think this page should be deleted, as the person is clearly not notable, and it's just a vanity page. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 17:03 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. Leithp July 3, 2005 17:23 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn vanity. Anser 3 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless vanity. Also, please note that you did not follow the appropriate procedure for listing this page for deletion. I've repaired it, but in the future please follow the procedure at the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  • Delete along with Harry Timmer and Leeboy. All of them are vanity pages probably made by the same author. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 00:56 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)
  • Keep Paul Sharp is a local celebrity in the Maidstone area, what is wrong with that? (Unsigned vote by 172.212.225.65, only edits to this and associated vfd)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 AND CLEANUP. Even discounting anon IP's this is 4k-1d taking nominator as a delete. Sent to cleanup. -Splash 00:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison[edit]

A law firm. Reads like advertising to me. Although they claim to be a major, worldwide firm, notability needs to be proven. Hedley 3 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

  • Send for cleanup. Google returns 28,000 results. [33] - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep + Cleanup. Definitely notable, but article needs revision. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
  • Keep [Author] As above, and thus as notable as any law firm. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup It's certainy notable. Some of the text is taken right off of the 'pro-bono' page of the corporate webstite, though, so we do have some copyvio issues with the text as-is. That also explains why it reads like marketng materials.Tobycat 3 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
    • Well, I just paraphrased a little to get it started. Any help cleaning it up is greatly appreciated. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I didn't expect it to get listed in VfD in the two minutes between pasting in copy and paraphrasing it. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
      • A valid complaint - don't recommend an article as Vfd when it's still in the process of being edited... --80.139.211.173 3 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
    • I've started some cleanup efforts. 128.122.91.174 3 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • Comment: When listing a page for deletion, please ensure that you follow the procedure at the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:48 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. It's a perfectly notable firm, so there's no reason to delete the article. I agree that it still reads as advertising, and could do with wikifying, but that can happen. We can cleanup the article rather than delete it. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable firm involved in notable case Brown v. Board of Education 136.153.2.2 4 July 2005 00:11 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Eamonn p keyes[edit]

Made little sense to me. - Mailer Diablo 3 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense, if possible. Otherwise, delete as nn, vanity, crap. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
  • I'm speedying this an nonsense. Hedley 3 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, 4k, 1d. -Splash 01:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isuzu Sohma[edit]

Its not a car. Its not a plane. Its fancruft, and its gotta go. Delete. Hedley 3 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)


---Kiyoumi: Excuse me for asking, but if this is fancruft and it's gotta be deleted, can you tell me how to make it better so that it's not opinionated and does not need to be deleted like information of the other Fruits Basket characters?

  • Comment: I think the more important issue here is that it's a copyvio. Fruits Basket is well known enough that it's probably ok to have articles on individual characters like this, and I'll vote keep if the copyvio issue is resolved. Kiyoumi, please rewrite the article so that it doesn't use wording from external websites, as this causes copyright problems. It's fine to get your information from whatever (reliable) sources you want, just not the wording. Yelyos July 3, 2005 18:12 (UTC) Keep. Sango's done a good job of improving it, and although I still think it might have a couple issues, they're quite improvable and don't warrant a delete. Yelyos July 3, 2005 18:50 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I've rewritten it and removed the image due to lack of information on its source. It's not fancruft. Please see articles on other Fruits Basket characters on the character template I created here. Sango123 July 3, 2005 18:16 (UTC)
  • Keep + Improve. I was leaning this way before, as the other characters have articles, but Sango123's actions increase my confidence in my decision. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
  • weak keep - not my sort of thing, but it's a respectable article now, and I can't really see much need to delete it as it stands. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic III[edit]

This game might exist at some point in the future (although we're not a crystal ball etc). But this article is just fanfic and a continuation of the other related pages listed today and yesterday, Darth Vampyre etc. I posted a message on this IP addresses talk page after the last one asking them to stop. They've obviously decided to ignore it. Leithp July 3, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete, fancruft, nonsense. It's very likely that a KotOR III game will exist, and when the time comes the page should not be cluttered with this fanfic crap. I placed a second notice on the talk page. If it persists, I say we take it to a sysop who can ban by IP. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yup, just fanfic, and in any case, an article on KotOR 3 wouldn't belong, because AFAIK such a game hasn't even been announced yet. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 18:29 (UTC)
  • Exceedingly strong delete. Fanfiction. Bad ff at that.--Kross July 3, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing released on KOTOR III yet, and this certainly ain't it. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfic cruft. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no vote. Need to wait longer than 2 weeks. Woohookitty 06:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Kammerer[edit]

not notable, information at WCAU-TV anchors - MERGE 203.98.57.97 3 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect I've only heard of him because I live here. Not notable enough.--Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
    • Also, the edits I made to the archived discussion were to stop this from showing twice on the July 3rd VfD page Contents menu. Please don't hurt me. Thanks. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This just survived a VFD a couple of weeks ago and is not eligible for another VFD at this time. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 for bad-faith VFD nominations intended to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
I agree with sanctioning user 203.98.57.97 for above reasons. However, my vote regarding the article stands. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Dude? Why is this guy in two places, I like him on the list of WCAU peeps. Can we put him there? I am thinking that you would say something like Speedy Merge to do it? Will that do it? PhillyDude! 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

  • User's 11th edit, account created 1 July. Edit history looks like yet another of the multiple sockpuppet accounts playing their little disruption game with the East Coast TV station articles. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
    • Oh, no - they're BAAaack. Hi guys. --Mothperson 3 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)
      • PhillyDude! and 203.98.57.97 both :( The Spotctopus doesn't quit does it? Kaibabsquirrel 4 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus. For those interested in vote count, I find 7 clearly "good" keep votes, and 9 clearly "good" delete votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doug Kammerer


Delete Person of very little importance, minor person on minor local TV. Spotteddogsdotorg 18:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Do we need every damn airhead weatherman from podunk's bio here? No! Hohokus 23:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 24th edit, suspected sockpuppet. Kaibabsquirrel 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Local TV weather guy in small market - not notable! Melvis 17:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 10th edit, suspected sockpuppet. Kaibabsquirrel 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Who? Not notable! Next! ShureMicGuy 19:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Account created today, all edits are to VfD. RickK 22:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Marginal advertising, little content, no reasoning for why this person is signifiant. All local weathermen do the weather from a viewer's yard, sooner or later. Geogre 03:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 03:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- nightly weekday appearances on television make one notable. - Longhair | Talk 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ℬastique▼talk 05:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not pass WP:BIO. Neither a "widely recognized entertainment personality" nor a "well-known entertainment figure". --Smack (talk) 05:37, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 05:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears on local television only, and only on one channel. How many other weathermen for this channel have articles? I notice there's a Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz one as well. Average Earthman 07:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep SchmuckyTheCat 16:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I would understand if he was like Janice Huff and did weather on the Today show, but this guy is on some local station and isn;t of any notewortyness. ConeyCyclone 17:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Account created less than an hour before this vote was cast, suspected sockpuppet, user's 15th edit. Kaibabsquirrel 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Jinkleberries 19:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Junkleberries is a new account today and voted 'keep' on 37 articles within a 7-minute period. This user also received a vandalism warning today. Tobycat 20:53, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. RickK 22:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Kappa Falphin 00:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A local TV weatherman, and one who's been there for less than two years? NN. --Calton | Talk 04:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. No one cares if he eats hot dogs or not.  Grue  14:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Philadelphia broadcast area is large enough that "notable there" is "notable enough". --Unfocused 16:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, yet another frivolous VFD no thanks to User:Spotteddogsdotorg and multiple sockpuppet votes. Kaibabsquirrel 21:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Regardless of how large Philadelphia is, a local TV weather hack on the station for 2 years is not notable. Local TV personalities change jobs frequently and are rarely notable. Quale 21:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
  • Strong, Speedy Keep for integrity of VfD process; renomination too soon. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
  • Merge/redir. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:15 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was strong and speedy keep. Uppland 7 July 2005 13:13 (UTC) (being bold).

Storkyrkan[edit]

not notable church 203.98.57.97 3 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)

  • Strong keep 16,400 Google hits? Oldest church in Stockholm? Sounds notable enough to me. Article just needs expansion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Please refrain from refering obviously notable places and quality articles for deletion.--File Éireann 3 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Alex12 3 - Oldest church in Stockholm makes it perfectly notable! UkPaolo
  • Speedy keep. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 for bad-faith VFD nominations intended to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
I agree with sanctioning user 203.98.57.97 for above reasons. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  • I removed the VfD tag, as adding it was nothing but a clear case of vandalism. Please close this vote now before more people waste their time here. Uppland 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)
comment it might be considered bad form to remove the VfD before letting the votes finish... I appreciate that it doesn't deserve deletion (my vote above reflects that), but in that case it will clearly get a Keep vote overall. There's no evidence the VfD was added maliciously as it stands... why not just let the vote run its course? UkPaolo 3 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
It is one thing to defend the existence of an article on something obviously notable in the case of a nomination by an established user who just hadn't understood the significance of the topic (possibly because the article was badly written, which is often the case). But this nomination is vandalism by an anonymous user. This particular vandal apparently discovered that if he adds some garbage to a page, he will be reverted in a couple of minutes, but by adding a VfD tag and going though the trouble of setting up a vote, he can keep dozens of wikipedians occupied for days voting and debating his little prank. I see no reason why we should play according to those rules. Uppland 3 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
fair point. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
Another possibility is that this is some established user who makes these silly nominations anonymously exactly to make the point that non-registered users shouldn't be allowed to make nominations on VfD. Personally, I don't need to be convinced of that. Uppland 4 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was being bold and speedy keeping --SPUI (talk) 4 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

Defect detector[edit]

move to Wiktionary 203.98.57.97 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

  • Strong keep This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains. slambo July 3, 2005 18:49 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, as it is more than just a dictionary definition. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid topic, not a dicdef. JYolkowski // talk 3 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, more than just a dictdef, perfectly valid article. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Should certainly not have been nominated for deletion - please do not refer obviously notable articles--File Éireann 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This is an important, notable topic in railroading. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 for bad-faith VFD nominations intended to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 19:21 (UTC)
I agree with sanctioning user 203.98.57.97 for above reasons. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)
  • Keep more than a dictionary def. should be kept. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 03:13 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, unanimously apart from suspect nomination. -Splash 01:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Fornier, Antique[edit]

not notable place in not notable country 203.98.57.97 3 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

  • Keep, as it is notable. Furthermore, few of your additions to the VfD system seem to be actual candidates, nor does calling a well-established nation "non-notable" increase my confidence in your discretion. Might I suggest you become more familar with Wikipedia before participating in an advanced activity such as VfD? --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The Phillippines is as important as most other countries.--File Éireann 3 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 for bad-faith VFD nominations intended to WP:POINT. Kaibabsquirrel 3 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
I agree with sanctioning user 203.98.57.97 for above reasons. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:52 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - what has the Philippines done to merit being branded a notable country?! Perfectly notable place, in a perfectly notable country (to be honest - can any country really be branded as non notable?). Anyhow, it's a respectable article. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. IMO, this borders on vandalism. Perhaps someone should have a talk with 203.98.57.97. — Bcat (talk | email) 3 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. All countries are notable, and all major cities within those countries are notable. Sanction User:203.98.57.97 per Kaibabsquirrel. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
  • Strong, Speedy Keep Also agree with others regarding the sanctioning of nominator. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. And the Philippines is not notable? *cries* TheCoffee 4 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus - 3 to delete (including the nominator), 2 to keep - a merge is likely in order, as the article is perilously short. -- BD2412 talk 19:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yucko the Clown[edit]

Not a proper article --3 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)File Éireann

  • Keep. Needs expansion, but is notable as a regular guest on the show. As much as I hate that pervert Howard Stern... --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to recall something very similar to this got deleted before. Another guest of his? Voting delete on content in this case: There's nothing there right now... humblefool® 3 July 2005 21:59 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand; there are other regulars with their own articles. Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
  • Delete Humble is correct, the more notable entries were merged I believe. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  22:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James pulver[edit]

Clearly just a vanity page which qualifies for deletion. Dan Granahan 3 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, useless. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)
  • Delete nn contentless vanity. And 4 of the six pages that come up on a search for "James Pulver" +dolphin are apparently porn. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
  • Delete its just vanity and pointless Jobe6 July 3, 2005 21:26 (UTC)
  • pulverise with a lowercase 'p'. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 06:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Malistator[edit]

Non-notable person from a non-notable band. Google only returns seven hits. Kross July 3, 2005 20:20 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn and vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Even though they may have had no success outside of the Czech Republic, the band page says that they have 5 albums and one of their songs reached #5 on the Danish Music charts, which meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Cyclone49 4 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
  • Darthlete, I find it exceedingly lame to add 'darth' to your name in the first place. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:16 (UTC)
    • Comment Erm, I didn't realise lameless was a criteria for deletion. Cyclone49 5 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)
      • Of c0urse it i5! W3 w4ntz 0n1y teh l33test article5 h34r! -- R4d14nt July 4, 2005 18:10 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nominator. Also see VFD for "Varicose Stump" below. Soundguy99 6 July 2005 14:10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 06:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Varicose Stump[edit]

Non-notable band. Article even admits they're hardly known outside of their own country. A Google search only returned 14 hits (after I filtered out the word 'vein'). Kross July 3, 2005 20:27 (UTC)

  • Keep Having backpacked around eastern Europe I actually saw these guys playing at a dingy pub in Austria. I can't say that it is my kind of music, but they DO exist. Just because they aren't famous in the be all and end all "good ol' U.S of A" doesn't mean that they should be removed.... hairybanana
  • user's first and only edit. Soundguy99 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
  • Comment Well here comes my SECOND edit. The only reson I went anywhere near this site is because I was told that "the weird band we saw in Austria" had a page on it. Regardless of who (or what) this Malistator is, 30 year old (and still virgins) Star Wars nerds (Kross) don't have the right to tease anyone. It is them who deserve to have their heads flushed in a toilet. Personally I couldn't give a damn whether or not these pages are removed. I just think that just because a bunch of geeks haven't heard of them is no reason to remove them...hairybanana 8 July 2005 13:30
  • Delete as nn and vanity. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 3 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
  • Keep Erm, according to the page they have about five albums and reached #5 on the Danish music charts. That sound like it meets WP:MUSIC guidelines to me. Cyclone49 4 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Well, the page might say they have five albums and a hit single in Denmark, but with no band website, no allmusic entry, no applicable Google/Ask Jeeves/AltaVista/Yahoo hits that aren't W'pedia mirrors and no hits when adding various combinations of "Danish", "Music", "singles", "charts", "2002" to the search parameters, this article is committing the greater Wikipedia sin of being unverifiable. Plus, frankly, the whole thing reads like a joke/hoax to me. Soundguy99 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. 7k, 3d (or 8k, 3d including anon author) including nominator. -Splash 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Gregorio State Beach[edit]

Not notable--File Éireann 3 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)

  • Delete, thousands of 'em, this one's not notable. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • Leave it to be expanded Thousands of beaches around the world are listed, most not notable. Eventually, every beach in the world could be added, and so what? The more information, the better. People can add to it over time. It's a very beautiful beach. {from User:67.181.136.248. Niteowlneils 4 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)}
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - San Gregorio State Beach is a unit of the California State Park System. All county, regional, state and national parks, historic sites, battlefield parks, beaches, preserves, reserves, recreation areas, seashores, lakeshores, monuments, forests, conservation areas, et al. are notable by definition. Just because there's no "WikiProject:State Beaches" doesn't mean they're less notable than Home Street Elementary School. --FCYTravis 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
  • Keep public parks, at least at the state level. --SPUI (talk) 4 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
  • Keep. What FCYTravis and SPUI said. Beyond that, I've expanded the article to reflect that it is also the site of a registered historical landmark, among other things. Niteowlneils 4 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
  • Keep public parks that have a name at the state level. --ShaunMacPherson 4 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable. CalJW 5 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
  • Keep Gentgeen 6 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
  • Keep There's a whole category for this kind of article. Seano1 8 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The votes are: 3 to delete (including the nominator), 2 to keep (excluding the anon vote). -- BD2412 talk 23:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Michel Virlogeux[edit]

content already contained in the article Millau Viaduct JoJan 3 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

  • Delete as duplicated, therefore useless. No need for a redir. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
    • Also, is that not the sexiest bridge you've ever seen? --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)
  • Abstain - content is duplicate, but isn't the guy to be considered notable? Well, maybe not. --80.139.211.173 3 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
  • Abstain - wasn't he also the chief engineer for the extension to Charles de Gaulle airport which collapsed? If this can be confirmed (and included in his article) then he would be notable, I think. Pburka 3 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
  • Delete but let the red links stand. So far he is only notable by association with Millau Viaduct and he is mentioned there but maybe he needs an article if more info appears. --Nabla 2005-07-04 16:34:57 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand — I linked in his bio. Appears notable. — RJH 4 July 2005 19:23 (UTC)
  • Keep provided the article is satisfactorily expanded.82.127.205.194 12:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a valid bio-stub, considering that an award was won. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 13 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 06:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Wade[edit]

This stub seems to be a short description of a character in a book the page's creator is planning to write some time in the future. It contains no real information, and since it's about a character in a book that hasn't been written that seems unlikely to change. 68.6.118.142 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

  • Delete, I find that individual book characters deserve separate pages only very rarely. The book idea is NN, the book will be NN, the character is NN, take it away. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete, I think the author of the page is planning to add more, but just has not added it yet.
  • Delete, vanity, perhaps hoax ("due to be published in 2008"?). carmeld1 7 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a crystal ball. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish July 8, 2005 02:57 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Pretty much a tie vote. Woohookitty 06:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diggnation[edit]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

  • Delete. Surely not encyclopaedic? Deb 3 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedia--File Éireann 3 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  • Delete: NN, not in existence. Google returns 0 and asks me if I meant "signature." That Kevin Rose is notable, but this isn't. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Revision3 Studios. The video version of Diggnation will be hosted by them. --taestell July 3, 2005 23:26 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)
  • Keep Diggnation is an informative (yet new/imature) entry about extremely popular news/podcast/vidcast of a the new(er) provider of tech news. Question: You allow a Slashdot entry but want to delete Diggnation, Why? This seems to be unwarranted and biased deletion. --Kracker 6 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
  • User's fifth edit.
  • If a Google search is all it takes to establish notability, then I should have an entry on Wikipedia. – Mipadi July 6, 2005 14:41 (UTC)
  • Keep Once there are more podcasts, the article will expand. EDsmilde
  • Keep Clearly if TWiT is OK then so should this. MicahMN | Talk 6 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
  • Delete. Digg was deleted for a reason. --Hoovernj 6 July 2005 16:05 (UTC)
  • Delete. One episode of two guys talking about what was on their web site should not be note worthy. The only Venture that has been kept up os TWIT and that is only because the driving factor in that is Leo Laporte. --Azrichard 6 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
  • Delete While I am a fan of digg, diggnation, systm, and the rest, this article is not encyclopedic. diggnation has released one audio and one video file. This hardly represents a notable societal impact. Give it time to prove itself and then recreate the article. As for redirecting to Revision3 Studios, there is nothing linking this project to Revision3 aside from its creator and the hosting of its files. Malakhi 6 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)
  • Keep Diggnation is an expansion of Digg and supplies valuable information to it's users and fans. --Great Dabisu 6 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
  • First edit.
  • Keep I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to give people access to the sum of all human knowledge? This podcast has a lot of listeners, has two notable hosts (Rose and Albrecht) and is about a notable website (Digg.com). Very worthy of an entry on Wikipedia. And may I ask, why was the original Digg entry deleted? Digg is as worthy of an entry as Slashdot. Quite frankly, those of you who are saying these things are not notable should really pull your heads out from under a rock. — Peter McGinley 7 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)
  • If all you say is true, why not make the articles useful and not just leave them with a reference to Kevin Rose? That's what half of these articles have been, that's why they were deleted, that's why they should be deleted. --Mrmiscellanious 23:49, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable podcast about a website which was deemed nonnotable in a previous vfd and its article deleted. Insults, accusations of bias, and sockpuppets do not convince. Gamaliel 7 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site rules, why delete it? Nikol4s
  • User's first edit.
  • User's sixth edit.
  • Keep This deserves an entry, for some reason wikipedians have a negative view on digg it seems. Digg deserves at least one article, maybe we just need ONE and merge the things that have to do with it. Yamix00 7 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)
  • User only has 9 edits, no article edits, all but one to VFD or VFU.
  • Delete. NN. bunnyhero July 7, 2005 17:54 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, and I hope people would think before making alike articles in the future. --Mrmiscellanious 23:43, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the article time to develop. 69.173.132.243
  • User's sixth edit.
  • Keep. If TWIT, This Week in Tech, which Kevin Rose is a part of, Can stay this should stay up and give them a period of time to see if 1)they expand their fanbase, especially with the launch of Digg 2.0 and 2)If the entry for this Podcast/VideoCast is expanded. WolvenSpectre 14:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 07:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folio hotels[edit]

Blatant advertising Denni☯ 2005 July 3 20:50 (UTC)

  • Delete: non-notable/vanity, advertising ("Ours hotels"?) -- 80.139.211.173 3 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
  • Delete: "We"? "Our"? Vanity, advertising. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obvious advertising. --Hullbr3ach 4 July 2005 00:10 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)
  • holdI been change the article for review and add more contents.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EQ2Emu[edit]

Not notable. --File Éireann 3 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

  • Delete: NN, vanity, advertising. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
Also please note that it appears the proper procedure was not followed when adding this page to the list of candidates for deletion. I've repaired it, but in the future, please be sure to follow the procedure outlined at the bottom of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it does indeed become free/libre software, then a mention of it in the EQ2 article might be merited. But a separate article for software with only minor usage, whose chief point of interest is that it might be free-ed, is not worth an article. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:22 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

Brian Wolden[edit]

Vanity page. An article with the same title, but different content, was VfD'd earlier. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brian Wolden. Joyous (talk) July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was pretty sure this was a vanity page, but was willing to let it slide until someone could provide more evidence (which seems to have come to light now). – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:16 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity and NN. Not one single non-Wiki Google match. Also removed user vanity from Ignorance. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:19 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. func(talk) 3 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 4 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
  • Delete - what nonsense! A curate's egg 5 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Phil Scopes[edit]

Non-notable, probably vanity. Denni☯ 2005 July 3 21:34 (UTC)

  • Delete, cannot find anything meaningful on google, apparently just a non-notable vanity. 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. "Phil Scopes" "net-by-phone" yields only 10 Google hits. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 4 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)
  • Keep, known within the blind community. --asert 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)
    • User's fifth edit --Etacar11 6 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
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 keep burr puzzle, and merge plate-and-ring puzzle. The votes were:

6 straight votes for deletion of both
1 vote to keep both
3 votes to keep burr puzzle
4 votes to keep burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle
1 vote to "keep (or merge)" plate-and-ring puzzle
and finally, 1 vote to merge both

For burr puzzle, that adds up to 8 votes to keep and 1 vote to merge; for plate-and-ring puzzle, that adds up to 1 vote to keep, 1 vote to "keep (or merge)", and 5 votes to merge. -- BD2412 talk 01:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Even More Karl Scherer[edit]

This vfd concerns Plate-and-ring puzzle and Burr puzzle.

These are articles, which on more careful examination than last time, were created by User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs

They are a non-standard (i.e. original research) categorisation of a class of puzzles.

Although the history includes many other editors, careful examination reveals that they mostly performed copyediting rather than adding content (except for a picture or two of a puzzle that fits the definition in the text).

It should be noted that over 100 articles (about 200 including images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 8. The only reason this was not included amongst them was because I had failed to previously notice them. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:19 (UTC)

  • Delete (obviously) ~~~~ 3 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  • Delete (nonobviously). They need to go because he invented the classification himself. If someone can prove he didn't, I'll change my vote. Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:46 (UTC)
  • Delete: Excessive. I want this guy gone, too, if this keeps up. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbcom though if and only if this crap was created after the end of the first vfd. I propose that this debate should be extended to include the power to delete any more crap that's been missed. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)
    • The two referenced above were created waaaaay back in 2003, and it doesn't appear that any edits by KarlScherer3 or his associated IPs were made anytime recently. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. -Splash July 3, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasoning on the other VfDs for this stuff. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
  • Strong keep for burr puzzle, which is certainly notable (to my knowledge, and google search gets over 3000 hits). This is *not* original research. See my comments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 02:24 (UTC)
  • (my commentary moved from here to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer —Blotwell 4 July 2005 06:32 (UTC))'
    • I am not clear on your vote - do you wish to keep the content of the article or just the existance of an article on the subject with possibly different content? ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)
      • The only content I support deletion of (apart from Zillions spam links which I have already cut from one or two articles, should be none now) is in Mechanical puzzle because it looks like someone's pet research. All content of all the other articles is relevant information about notable subjects and I see no reason to remove it. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear from my previous post, but I suggest if you see problems with particular articles you should list them on VfD individually explaining your concerns rather than conducting an indiscriminate smear campaign against all articles by one author regardless of merit. —Blotwell 5 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
  • Comment: can someone take a look at Convex tiling and see if it needs to be VfD'd as well, it was created almost 100% by Karl Scherer, and I'd have thought the mathematical term for anything remotely like this would have been something like planar tessallation. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
    • I've never heard of the term "convex tiling" in the context of tessellations, or anywhere else[34] for that matter. I don't think the phrase even makes sense; it apparently applies to a tiling of a convex area, not a tiling using convex polygons. A lot of the text seems to come from here, which is original research, at best. I think it should be added to the list of deletion nominees. —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 4, 2005 22:10 (UTC)
      • Now convex tiling does look like original research, especially in the history where it credits Karl Scherer with discoveries in this field. I would happily vote for its deletion, so please don't add it to this VfD which is already confusing enough. —Blotwell 5 July 2005 06:24 (UTC)
  • Keep Burr puzzle, merge plate-and-ring puzzle into disentanglement puzzle. These topics are legitimate. Samohyl Jan 5 July 2005 04:34 (UTC)
  • Keep Burr puzzle. A cursory google search reveals lots of what looks like reliable information on "Burr puzzle". I really don't understand what the problem is. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 04:39 (UTC)
  • Keep Burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle as above, these are legitimate topics (I have a couple of Burr puzzles myself). I'd also just like to remind everyone to vote on the page not the user. I'm not sure I like the fact that User:~~~~ is apparently attempting to get every article this editor has worked on deleted. Perhaps a little more research should have been done before listing these. Leithp July 5, 2005 07:21 (UTC)
Given that 130 articles out of 146 that the editor in question created were deleted in VfD by 90% majority, and the only reason these 16 were not is that I didn't notice them in time to put them in that VfD, I have increadibly good reason to doubt their worth. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:31 (UTC)
I can appreciate the frustration, I did see the other pages, but these are encyclopedic articles. I don't think these articles are in any way similar to the others, except for the involvement of one particular user. I wonder how many of the voters above read the articles prior to voting? Anyway, I didn't mean to get at you and I'm sorry if that's how it sounded (looked?). Leithp July 5, 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • keep these articles are not connected or similar and should not be combined vfd'd--MarSch 5 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
One may put articles up for VfD however one wishes. I put them up together, thus they are up together. Simple. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
  • keep (or merge) plate-and-ring puzzle. Paul August ☎ July 5, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • Keep burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle, per Samohyl Jan. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 5 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
  • Merge all of this stuff into disentanglement puzzle, and maybe we'll get one good article out of it. I think the topic is very interesting (and certainly notable!), but the naming scheme sounds mostly "original", and the profusion of separate articles is pointless. I'm happy to help merge if consensus supports the action. —HorsePunchKid→龜 July 5, 2005 22:48 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't merge. Looks like a valid article to me. linas 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
  • Keep burr puzzle and merge plate-and-ring puzzle into disentanglement puzzle. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
  • Keep burr puzzle (for example, see the IBM Research site [35] on them). No vote on plate-and-ring puzzle (I've seen them; I'm not sure they're significant enough for their own article.) Chuck July 8, 2005 13:11 (UTC)
User has 66 prior edits ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:42 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. Woohookitty 07:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roll of Honour[edit]

No Google hits. No sources. Denni☯ 2005 July 3 22:04 (UTC)

  • Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource. It's an Irish Republican song praising the participants in the 1981 Hunger Strike. It might be a copyvio, or public domain. David | Talk 3 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource and Merge with Hunger Strike article. I like to include such nationalist/political music wherever it's relevant. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
  • Transwiki assuming that it first passes a screening of whether it's a copyvio or not. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 03:16 (UTC)
  • Looking at several copies of these lyrics as found elsewhere on the web, I find them all to have GFDL-incompatible copyright notices affixed. One even had "All Lyrics are copyrighted and used without permission." affixed. Copyvio. Uncle G 2005-07-04 08:57:50 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:09 (UTC)

The Biggest Killer In American History[edit]

Opinion piece Denni☯ 2005 July 3 22:16 (UTC)

Concur. --Maru 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
  • Delete: What the crap? --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even if it weren't an opinion piece, individual songs typically do not get pages on their own (WikiProject Albums policy). --80.139.211.173 3 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rambling POV essay. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 23:51 (UTC)
  • Delete: Very odd page. Hullbr3ach 4 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
  • Delete; "....to me, anyway" is definitely POV. Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, non notable, essay. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
  • Redirect, to the Bad Religion album No Substance which the song is from. Sabine's Sunbird 6 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikiquote. 5t, 1d. Added to /Old/Transwiki. -Splash 01:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science quotes[edit]

Delete - Lists of brief pithy quotes can be interesting, thought-provoking and verifiable, but they aren't really encyclopedic. If you want to marshal quotations to illustrate a particular POV on a subject (like, say, creationism or intelligent design, just for instance), put a small selection in the relevant subject article. FreplySpang (talk) 3 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. — Bcat (talk | email) 3 July 2005 22:47 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. --Alex12 3 3 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. Warp 5. Engage. Project2501a 3 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)
  • Wikiquote. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 22:05 (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grafton Bus Crash[edit]

Delete. I think this is non-notable. — Bcat (talk | email) 3 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

  • Delete, not-encyclopedic and this artilce is also uninformative--nixie 3 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree, non-encyclopedic / notable. -- Cabhan 3 July 2005 23:37 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but rename to Grafton bus crash memorial (i.e. capitals at the very least). A memorial to a local tragedy is probably at least as notable as a local high school ergo it should be kept. But, WP:NOT a memorial, and "Grafton bus crash" yields only 28 Google hits so it's not all that locally notable. -Splash (signed later, but struck).
  • Merge into whatever city this memorial is located in. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 3, 2005 23:54 (UTC)
  • Merge with Grafton, New South Wales. The Emergency Management Australia website [36] shows that 54 people were injured but no-one died in the accident although there were some dreadful bus crashes on the Pacific Highway in the late 1980's early 1990s leading to changes of regulation of coach travel and pressure to improve the road. 136.153.2.2 4 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Wrong crash quoted - try this one, also at EMA --ScottDavis 6 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
Comment: List of disasters in Australia by death toll lists 21 deaths. -- Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable, wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)
  • Update Grafton, New South Wales with anon info above, then delete. The merge and delete is ok this time because we're not merging article content? This is my adjusted vote in light of the above info. Basically, I concur with Idont Havaname. -Splash July 4, 2005 02:13 (UTC)
  • Update Grafton, NSW, and then Delete the page in question. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)
  • Merge -- and redirect to Grafton, New South Wales. - Longhair | Talk 6 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. The crash doesn't belong to the town. If it should be merged somewhere, then Pacific Highway (Australia) would be a better target. --ScottDavis 6 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)
I've expanded the article now - have another look. --ScottDavis 6 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 6 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
  • Keep per expansion. It should be renamed to Grafton bus crash, though. — Bcat (talk | email) 6 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)
  • Keep the expanded version. Needs correct capitalization however. This is not merely a memorial, so is a valid article. -Splash 6 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)
  • Keep: As per expansion. Has merit and hope. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 6 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  • keep Expanded article shows notability --Porturology 7 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
  • keep --AYArktos 7 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)
  • keep Was a horrible little stub but much improved now. (Can I move an article to the correct title (i.e., lower case) while it is still the subject of a VFD? Or do I wait?) Tannin 7 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

Keep it: article was about an event that was partly linked to other historical facts (eg airline pilot's strike) and should stay ..I don't know what other sites say but people definately died in it: I should know, because I was in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:203.45.184.4 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qutaylah bint Abd al-Uzza[edit]

Non-notable. No Google hits Denni☯ 2005 July 3 23:40 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's a whole mess of these kinds of articles listed at Family tree of Abu Bakr ibn abu Qahafa. No clue on how important they are to Islam, but I'm guessing they ought to be merged somewhere, perhaps into Abu Bakr. No vote, pending information from someone who knows this stuff.
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find a thing. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)
  • (Merge and) Redirect to Abu Bakr: seemingly notable only for having been his wife. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)



DO NOT DELET THIS! Its part of a bigger picture of making an article for manny sahabas. The information on them is thin and its hard to build on them, it takes a while to find information.

Give me a private message if you want me to elaborate, or take a look att this: [37] and this [38]. Make sure you read the second half of that.

--Striver 7 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

  • update

articel is uppdated.

--Striver 8 July 2005 01:07 (UTC)

  • well it seems best not to delete the information, merging it with the Abu Bakr article seems fine, as that isn't too large itself, or a seperate article as it is does seems so also. Seeaxid 00:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment people, i can garantee you that the Abu Bakt article will not accept that info, it will be deleted on sight. I tried to add that Abu Bakr was beated by his cousin, but no chance, no way, Zora own that article now, "it ruines her prose"...

Man c'mon, its wikipedia, the info is relevant to her, some may read a book and add more to her biography... its not rubish, its a legit article!

Just cuz its not much to be said dosent mean its not worth saying! And the person IS notable, its Abu Bakrs former wife! it has a {expand} and a {stub}, what more do you whant? if EMD SW900 can have a article, why cant Abu Bakrs wife have one?

-Striver, with a sad face.... --Striver 01:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it seems odd to have an article about two people on one page, and that it's historical, I would probably tend towards keeping it, although Mustafaa's point certainly seems valid. Seeaxid 10:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comentIs being a wife a smal matter? Is it a smaler mater than being a train in a train series?
  • Delete Stupid terrorists
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete (3 delete votes, 1 keep vote repeated by same voter) --Allen3 talk 12:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Abdullah ibn Harith[edit]

Non-notable. No Google hits Denni☯ 2005 July 3 23:43 (UTC)

  • Comment. There's a whole mess of these kinds of articles listed at Family tree of Abu Bakr ibn abu Qahafa. No clue on how important they are to Islam, but I'm guessing they ought to be merged somewhere, perhaps into Abu Bakr. No vote, pending information from someone who knows this stuff.
  • NOT delet Its me that is adding them. Its included in my effort to have an entry for all sahaba and relatives of sahaba. in the beginning its going to be sparse on information on each character, but it will get better. besides, every person needs their own article in order to follow a family tree from one cousin to another, for example. have patience, this stuff needs time to grow, its like a spinning a spider webb, you dont get the whole webb att once. :) People will start contribution more and more to those as time goes and people notice them. Take Ziyad ibn Abu Sufyan for example, look att its "history" and youll see what i mean. --Striver 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:27 (UTC)
  • Delete, for nn. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)
  • NOT delet Better? This person needs his own article, i tell you! He is a sahaba and if somebody wants to find somthing on him, he wount go to some other characters article, he will go to the sahaba article and try to find him! It is NOT unrelevant, it is a part of the early muslim history! --Striver 4 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would have said keep, but if (as that article currently claims, very implausibly) there were 100,000 sahaba, they can't very well all be intrinsically notable. Google doesn't reveal much more than a couple of hadith he narrated and some Christian sites calling him one of the first copyists of the Qur'an. I think a little more evidence of notability is in order. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
  • Coment It does exist more than 100 000 companions, 120 000+ where gathered in Gadire Khumm. Ther is a List of schools by country. the List of schools in the United Kingdom has more entries than the sahaba list. I dont get why each school gets a entry, but each Sahaba dont get to have it. --Striver 4 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
  • Being a Sahaba just isn't encyclopedic on its own if 100,000 people were Sahaba. What makes this one more notable than the rest? Did he spend more time with the prophet, say? Did he narrate a particularly important hadith, or play a major part in some battle? Or was he promised Paradise, say? If he's just some guy that met the prophet for an hour, he's not worth having an article on. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)
  • Coment Why not? If it was a encyclopedic book i would agree with you 100%, but now we are talking about an electronic encyclopedia. Note that not all schools listed in the List of schools in the United Kingdom are very big...

The reason for having an article for every one of them is simple: If a person has a wife, child and father, and he is not supposed to have and article by himself, then the relative small info that we have on him must be duplicated to every notable relative he has. And that would just clog all those articles with info that is not very relevant for them. And take up much more space than just adding any info to each person. Note that when a Sahaba narrates a hadith, even if there is no info on the sahaba himself, it can help to see in which family he was brought up in and which people he associated with. further, if following a family tree from one person to another, it is important to have an unbroken chain to see how everybody are related. That is not possible if everybody don't have their own family tree. The alternative would be to have one HUGE family tree of 100 000 people, but that would be unreadable, even if ti where in 3D.

Arguments for havin a article for each sahaba:

1) They all matter. many narrated or where in narration chains.

2) To see how they are related with other in case there is not much data available.

3) To see how the more prominent sahaba are related to each other without loosing readability.

4) WP is not a book! If there can be a List of schools in the United Kingdom, why not a complete list of sahaba? How much data can that be in total? the whole article right now is 1,68 kB big. Of whe have 90 000 equal sahaba, that would make 150 000 kb = 150 megabite. How much does that cost? 20 dollars? Isn't that worth for having a complete list of Sahabas, with a article for each one of them?

--Striver 4 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)

and while your at it, take and read this admins main page:

User:Mel_Etitis

--Striver 7 July 2005 19:19 (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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Palmelli[edit]

Non-notable motorcycle manufacturers Denni☯ 2005 July 3 23:49 (UTC)

  • Delete; little/nothing on google: [39] Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. 4k, 2d including nominator. -Splash 01:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vethathiri[edit]

Probable vanity, notability not established. — Phil Welch 3 July 2005 23:55 (UTC)

  • Keep, but cleanup required. Notable most certainly, although not necessarily among the Google-loving crowd with access to the Intarnets. As written, the article is full of POV and vanity, but I think the person is notable enough to merit an article. Ambarish 4 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. He seems notable enough: [40] Jaxl 4 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, borderline notability. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
  • Keep: notability established. Repair POV. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slightly POV, but that can be repaired. Seems notable as founder of a 47-year-old organization and author of 70 books, even if though most likely they are religious/philosophical tracts. Article does need at least one more source. Quale 5 July 2005 20:07 (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.
  • Keep. i could experiecing about presense of Vethathiri Maharishi. he is entiely differnent from others. he is seems to be simple. but his thoughts comes from his Inner Consciousness. we need some maturity with body, mind and soul level to understand presense of his Consciousness. if you have a open heart simply you can feel his consciousness. because he is existing everywhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.71.146.5 (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)

List of free email providers[edit]

It's just a list of webpages. Most likely against WP policy. Hullbr3ach 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 00:11 (UTC)
  • Delete concur with above reason. Jtkiefer July 4, 2005 03:17 (UTC)
  • Delete, not for Wiki. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Cass[edit]

A page giving a lot of coverage to a party activist few have heard of, and who seems to have no fame/interest. I think it should be deleted, as it's far too niche to have any encyclopaedic value. Sanguinus 4 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

  • Delete questionable notability. --Etacar11 4 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable for having won 5% in UK election, standing in various local elections, harassing opponents. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Ground Zero 4 July 2005 15:20 (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. 5k, 1d (including author and nominator).

Michael Shahbaz[edit]

Google search for "Michael Shahbaz" Wimbledon nets nothing. Non-notable at best. Denni☯ 2005 July 4 00:05 (UTC)

Keep it. If you check this pagae[41] you can see, he is Wimbledon champion, why we have to delete a Wimbledon Champion's page? he will be the future of tennis in U.S. .\--Sina 4 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)
  • Whoever made the article misspelled his name. Move to Michael Shabaz (the correct spelling of his name) and redirect the misspelling to there. -- Grev -- Talk July 4, 2005 00:36 (UTC)
  • Keep and move per Grev - notable player (over 1100 Google hits), mis-spelled name. -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 00:39 (UTC)
    • Note: I have moved the article to the correct spelling and redirected the vfd from that page accordingly. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 00:41 (UTC)
  • Concur with above: Keep but move to properly-spelled location. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)
      • Ok, thanks for correction, I made that article but I did not write his name correctly!--Sina 4 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)
  • Weak keep cleaned-up article. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 01:21 (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.

Question: Please tell us more abut his background, his family and parents, placee of birth, etc.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 8 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Alfredo naim[edit]

Vanity by an IP who likes to deface the VfD for his other vanity article. This article is basically about the guy at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ELASTICOS SELECTOS. Not notable. Hedley 4 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)

  • NOT DELETE - Yes I am the author of the other article Elasticos Selectos which was delites for "advertisment i dont see why this should be deleted.
  • Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete for lack of indicia of encyclopedic notability. Note to Alfredo Naim - if you are interested in being a regular contributor to Wikipedia, you can register a user account and you can keep this info there, so long as you do not use your user-page for advertising purposes. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 00:35 (UTC)
  • NOT DELETE - This page is a page my borther wrote honoring my father. User:AN1990 4 July 2005
  • Userfy or delete, per BD2412. "Alfredo Naim" gets only 14 Google hits (6 are displayed), which certainly doesn't suggest notability. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 00:51 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
  • ITS ALREADY USERFIED
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)
  • IF YOU SAY THIS IS NOT-NOTABLE PLEASE LOOK UP ALEFREDO NAIM, SELECT ELASTICS OF AMERICA, AND ELASTICOS SELECTOS AND ADD THEM UP. ONE OTHER COMPANY OF HIS IS SELECT CONSTRUCTION IF YOU WANT YOU CAN LOOK UP THE WEBSITE AT WWW.SELECTCONST.COM, THANK YOU INFO FOR VOTERS - THE TOTAL GOOGLE HITS FOR ALFREDO NAIM AND HIS COMPANIES IS 31. I SUGGEST THAT THE VOTES FROM THE MEMEBERS THAR SAID "NON-NOTABILITY" OR "DOSENT SUGGEST NOTABILITY" ARE NOT COUNTED BECAUSE OF THE REASONS SHOWED ABOVE. THANK YOU.
    • Just for reference, various spellings of my name get 40 Google hits, and I am in no way, shape or form famous or notable. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
    • Please note that "Alfredo Naim" gets only 14 google hits. "Alfredo Naim" elasticos gets only one, which is unrelated.
  • Delete. Not notable. Please turn off caps lock. It's not helping your case at all. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 03:02 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the capitals I will not use them anymore.
      • Err, yes, you did, just there, below. I struck out that bit of misinformation because you can't just call this discussion closed on your own whim. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:14 (UTC)
  • INFO FOR VOTERS - THIS DISSCUSION IS OVER AND IT WASNT DELETED.
  • delete. not notable - 30 hits REALLY doesn't help your case (almost anyone could easily get their name on at least 30, if not more, websites if they decided to try). Also, thank you android79 - he's right, you can't just mandatorily decide to cancel a disscusion. Frankly, if I were you I'd stop trying - chances are this page will be deleted, like it or not. Oracleoftruth July 4, 2005 05:20 (UTC)
    • Well, I just wanted to tell you that non of you will never be like him. I also wanted to tell you that I am not going to waste my time in this because I have 4 companies myself to take of. Fortunatly I do have alot stuff to do instead of wasting my time bothering people. Also it dosent bother me that you say his not notable becuase you are never going to even be near him. O one more thing I am sure going to see him here soon because he is shortly going to be running for governor of the largest city in the world. Mexico city. With no more to say, best wishes. (p.s. - I am sure that someone with nothing to do is going to erase this. But it dosent matter atleast I know that I am never going to be in the need of wasting time bothering people.) ... added at 05:51, 4 July 2005 by 66.68.202.116
Since when is Mexico City the largest city in the world? I must have missed something. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)
For the curious, it's number 12. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 06:10 (UTC)
  • Delete for NN vanity. Also, restrict the offending IP if it continues to interrupt VfD proceedings: "Info for voters: This discussion is over"? What is that supposed to be? --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

I am forced to teach some ignorants something. Mexico City has always been the largest city in size. NOT POPULATION. If ignorants want more info look up the article Mexico City at wikipedia. 66.68.202.116 4 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)

  • Thats how I wanted youu QUIETT!!! FINALLYY!! ...added at 06:32, July 4, 2005 by 66.68.202.116
    • Please sign your comments: just hit the ~ key four times in a row. Thank you. Hoary July 4, 2005 06:42 (UTC)
  • The greatest claim for the fame of Alfredo Naim appears to rest on Elasticos Selectos. When I look in Google for "alfredo naim" and "elasticos selectos" I get a grand total of zero hits. Delete as unverifiable (not to mention the fawning nature of "Mexico should be proud to have this executive as an inhabitant)." -- Hoary July 4, 2005 06:42 (UTC)
  • Delete -- editor's activity after VfD started is approaching vandalism. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Sure Hoary ill sure put my name on this GET SOMETHING BETTER TO DO!!! 66.68.202.116 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)

  • Oh, I have better things to do. Meanwhile, I notice that the exacting demands of the four companies that you claim to run still allowed you the time needed to put a VfD on my user page. -- Hoary July 4, 2005 07:21 (UTC)

I had alot of fun fighting with ignorant closedmind people. but i say goodbye to all of you. 66.68.202.116 4 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

  • The outstanding entrepreneur is still the head of this and other companies, Mexico should be proud to have this executive as an inhabitant. Real proud, outstanding entrepreneuring. Delete. El_C 4 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)
  • Delete, and then sanction 66.68.202.116 for disrupting VfD. UkPaolo 4 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
  • Delete Look, this Alfredo guy may be a great guy or whatever you say he is, but being a nice guy isn't a criteria for keeping an article. Notability is. "Alfredo naim"+Elasticos got one hit, and it was a PDF file in another language [42]. Cyclone49 4 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity from yet another who taints the fame of the person he supposedly "honors" (assuming that the person existed) by arrogant behavior, YELLING and vandalism - Skysmith 4 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 4 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)
  • Delete - what complete drivel! A curate's egg Brookie 4 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
  • Delete - the heck is this? JYOuyang 7 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
  • Vanity, promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 7 July 2005 22:05 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3&oldid=1081092221"