Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 13 June 15 >

June 14[edit]

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed font unix/:7100[edit]

Not sure if this is a speedy but sure looks like junk to me. Then again, I'm no Unix expert... I abstain due to lack of knowledge. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Send to /dev/null ... Uh, I mean delete. Troubleshooting info for a specific error message. This is a good example of how useful information is not always encyclopedic information. Transwiki if we have a wikibook on this sort of thing, else delete... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • rm (delete). --W(t) 01:17, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm pretty certain this kind of stuff is covered somewhere in WP:NOT. Mr Bound 02:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • /man rm?: Delete. Geogre 02:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not suitable for wikipedia. Poli 06:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks I'm sure they have soemthing on Unix. If I'm mistaken delete is also possible. Mgm|(talk) 09:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki if this can be cleaned up. JamesBurns 10:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks if enough context can be supplied, otherwise delete. Anyway this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. — JIP | Talk 10:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure it's encyclopedic enough for Wikibooks. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Jamyskis 14:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Encyclopaedic enough for Wikibooks"? Wikibooks is a collection of free textbooks, manuals, and other instructional materials, not an encyclopaedia. If there were a Troubleshooting Linux wikibook, this would be perfect for it. Perhaps this could be a start. Uncle G 17:07, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to here maybe? Rangek 18:28, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful enough for wikibooks. It's a solution to a very uncommon problem that assumes an unusual system configuration. --Carnildo 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lot of work needed for Wikibooks... but this definitely does not belong in Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 02:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not transwiki. There's no need to dump this stuff on Wikibook's doorstep. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Nonnotable Sysop exotica. Messages like this are a dime a dozen on server computers, and they are all different on different machines or op systems. This is a joke on wiki. So sez my en-gin-earng degree. Both of them. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 04:00, 18 Jun 2005 (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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 00:59, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dave Day[edit]

Non-verifiable silliness, it seems to me. –Hajor 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete # These are the Daves I know, I know, these are the Daves I know... # Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All google hits come care of Wikipedia mirrors... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 00:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a joke.--AI 01:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's at least keep it until June 15 so I can finish celebrating... then delete DS1953 01:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's no longer the Year of Al Franken or the day of Dave. Geogre 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only hits on the first 20 in google for "Dave Day" June 14 came from this article. Poli 07:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Mgm|(talk) 09:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. "Dave's not here man" JamesBurns 10:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified? What are the chances of this being verified? 6,620 Google hits, but most are about Mr. Day or Dave's day. Sonic Mew 12:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified as a notable holiday. Matjlav 14:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified and probably made up. --Etacar11 14:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original article written in May stated June 14, so it's strange that it should get nominated today. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs, Me 14:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. People make up holidays all the time. Wikipedia has an entry for the "parodic" International Talk Like A Pirate Day, so why not just make a note in the entry that this is completely made up? It's also been mentioned on other web sites, including this one: http://www.blacktable.com/incoming050613.htm. (Unsigned comment by 68.78.132.156 (talk · contribs), user's first and thusfar only contribution.)
International Talk Like A Pirate Day makes an effort. This is just a sentence, followed by a list of people called Dave. Sonic Mew 16:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Awesome. I can't get my garage band into Wikipedia, so I'll just create My Garage Band's Day on June 22! (Delete unless it can be verified, which it probably can't) -- Plutor 16:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aecis 17:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I was around to celebrate Dave Day, this may not be a holiday others celebrate as often Foxcek 20:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense and apparently unverifiable.--Kross 20:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cherish I've been celebrating International Dave's Day for years. It is as verifiable as the events surrounding engineering graduates' Iron Ring Ceremony. Dave6687 21:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Comment by 70.25.67.248 (talk · contribs), user's first and thusfar only contribution.)
  • Delete - I've heard of International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and despite all the Daves I know, I've never heard of Dave Day. Amusing, nice try, but delete it anyway. StopTheFiling 22:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the "organization" of the International Talk Like A Pirate Day, not to mention the exclusiveness of a dave-only holiday ;) -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:44, Jun 15, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ivan Savage[edit]

Vanity. Zero Google hits for "Ivan Savage" "Is It Easier Now?". No entries on artistdirect or allmusic. RickK 00:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DS1953 01:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Possibly a prank or vanity -- hard to tell, as it could be that he really is a musician who wants to make homosexual double entendres -- but no verification. Geogre 02:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notability.
  • Delete nn, possible vanity. --Etacar11 14:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote a play when I was 10, can I have an entry too? No? Okay, delete. StopTheFiling 22:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This individual was a pretty big model in Houston in the 90s. He did work with models like Laura Kapriva and later Alexis Bledel (a famous actress). He was also the international face of XS cologne in the early 90s. True, his work is microcosmic, so if Wikipedia is being maintained only for a macrocosmic angle (rather than covering people of interest), then this should be deleted. I thought I'd put in my two cents. Louis Molnar, Jun 14, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lung Plung[edit]

A record label with three Google hits, and their official website is at freewebs.com. RickK 01:05, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Denni☯ 01:38, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete though I wish them well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, super independence must be assimilated. Mr Bound 02:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable at this time. When they sign our buddy above, perhaps they'll have that big breakthrough. Geogre 02:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, come back later. --Etacar11 16:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. StopTheFiling 22:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WERE GONNAA BE HUGGE!!!!!
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.

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 no consensus, kept. -- Jonel | Speak 06:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity[edit]

Has already been VfDed and deleted here, but was recreated in good faith and I suppose it could have gained notability by now. However, it didn't, so I'm proposing we delete it again. --W(t) 01:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Keep : Please. This will be used to create lesson for students.
  • Keep :D This is a great idea.--AI 01:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but certainly support re-creation when & if it gets off the ground. I agree that it's a cool idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Self-reference, plus it isn't notable, plus it isn't really enrolling or doing. Geogre 02:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it gets going. Great idea though and where can I find info on the combined nose hair trimmer and coffeemaker? That should get me awake and presentable in the morning. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content. Whether or not it was recreated in good faith is irrelevant to whether a recreation should be kept (good faith is instead relevant to whether the recreator should be sanctioned). Whether or not it has gained notability since the last VfD is an issue for Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion—it should have been listed there first by anyone who wished to recreate it. Postdlf 07:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've reconsidered because the subject matter was only proposed at the time of the original VfD; that it now exists is more than a mere question of notability, and I think this change does make the issue different enough from that which the original voters faced so as to not make that vote binding. But merge and redirect to Wikibooks, because it doesn't seem to have any real independent significance from that topic. Postdlf 16:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wikibooks. It's mentioned there, but could use some expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or turn into a redirect page. This takes up very little space and may help someone find their way to the Wikibooks area. A redirect would also be OK but may leave someone who is not experienced in the Wiki Foundation a little confused since you are now in a different area with a different log in. DS1953 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: for the reasons already stated. -- Taku 07:44, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It seems like a serious project so why shouldn't it have its own entry. Incomplete yes but if you poke around you'll find some extensive stuff in it.
  • Delete - not notable enough yet - if this was any other than a wikimedia site it would be deleted pretty quickly. -- Joolz 13:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep - we are working on classes for the project (Oceanography) and try to get more faculty associated - it needs an information base within Wikipedia - it will be good for students worldwide, especially the havenots - Professor Dr. habil. Uwe Kils Klönschnack 00:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but I don't think it's appropriate that we should have one standard for websites and another standard for mediawiki websites. It's simply not notable enough to deserve an article, regardless of whether one would help attract faculties or help the 'havenots'. -- Joolz 01:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I do not understand that "standard" - to what rule does it refer? there is space enough on the server - good ideas all started small on the web, why delete so much? Nobody is forced to read this or contribute - Uwe Kils Klönschnack 03:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - good idea Vikings 01:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 18:57, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep It is not listed as a project on the front page. How would anyone know about the nascent project if there is no article about its development? There are plenty of nonsense articles to keep Vfd'ers busy without trying to banish things that could actually be useful.. --Blainster 19:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace or merge with Wikibooks. To keep as a seperate article would be like having an article about Willy. Alphax τεχ 09:17, 21 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.

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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 07:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Update: The content was speedy deleted but a new page was recreated with this title to redirect to Electoral register. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Electoral roll[edit]

This seems like a weird Star-Wars-New-Jersey nonsense joke? Philthecow 01:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is definitely fact, and great. it must live. it is the jedi way.


Delete Put it in Wikibooks, not Wikipedia.--AI 01:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No wait this is absolute jenius you musn't delete it it's a traaaaaaap --AdmiralAckbar 01:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete --Tarkin 01:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about it is joking? The whole thing seems very serious to me. Electoral rolls are an Easter tradition in my family, going back hundreds of years; I was thrilled to see this article created, finally explaining my family's long-loved food to the rest of the ignorant world. Don't take it down and keep the cycle of ignorance going! Yeah, I agree. It is a benefit to the whole of Wikipedia. It ties in several articles that otherwise may not be tied to anything. --Laura 01:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is legit. The roll is an important part of the culture and shows how several different worlds took advantage of easy trade routes to better their economies. The Electoral roll is a symbol of simple ideas turing into a thriving business. --WWHITE 01:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dont Delete this is not trash! --Cenataur_Palpatine 01:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Dont delete. This is a well researched, well written article. It is both informative and entertaining, and I applaud the writer on his/her article and its connections to various articles that might otherwise fade into obscurity.--Paca 01:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Speedy as nonsense. Seems to be a BJAODN attempt that went on a paragraph or two too long. The sockpuppets aren't helping. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


Don't delete. This article exists in the 23rd dimension and deleting it will surely make us slaves to the infinite void. ----Christopher Walken's Ambiguous Potato 01:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete as nonsense. --PolPotPie 02:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article is utter nonsense and sock supported to boot. However, I would vote to keep a genuine article or reasonable stub on Electoral Rolls which are lists of eligible voters in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Capitalistroadster 02:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS A Google search for Electoral Roll returned 148,000 pages. [1] Capitalistroadster 02:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per sockpuppets. Mr Bound 02:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/explanation. PolPotPie blanked the whole page (including the vfd notice) to put in the legit article topic suggested by Capitalistroadster. I restored everything and put PolPotPie's new text at the bottom, as it was not appropriate to remove the vfd notice (even if the new material was legit). I vote to speedy delete the current silly hoax history, and then immediately restore PolPotPie's text as a stub for a new article on the legit topic of recorded lists of voters, and the sale thereof. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 02:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
    • Just to be sure PolPotPie's new text is not lost in any event, he wrote:
An electoral roll is a list of eligible voters in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. Its function is similar to a census, in that it is a comprehensive population list, but it can be bought or sold privately by specialized companies.
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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Colin Stuart[edit]

Not notable. --W(t) 01:30, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. DS1953 01:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even the slightest attempt at notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Such articles should easily be speedy deletions because no reasonable Wikipedian would vote to keep. Postdlf 01:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. --Delirium 01:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. God bless, Postdlf, I hear you. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn kid vanity. --Etacar11 16:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Create a "special place" for vanity bands and non-notable college students; move the article there; then tell them, "oh we didn't delete your article, we moved it to the special place!" Until then, Delete. -- BD2412 talk 22:17, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, the boy already tried blanking the page after the vfd. StopTheFiling 22:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete That sort of stuff is for a user page not for wikipedia! --Rschen7754 02:06, Jun 15, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dubx[edit]

Non-notable conlang. I tried to find how many hits Google returns, but most are of pages filled with nonsense text which by coincidence happen to have the characters "dubx" in them. Google gets one hit when searching for "dubx conlang." Whimemsz 01:32, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two to seven speakers? It would be notable if it were a dying language, but not one just being developed. Mr Bound 02:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Come back when it has become an international way of communication as intended. (Constructed languages need major press attention, wide use and be out of the development phase.) - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MgM StopTheFiling 23:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough yet. Come back when it is.democracys 00:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, below the notability threshold. Can one describe in a sentence or two in what sense the language is notable in the world outside the Wikipedia? Not why the conlang is special, since every creative work is special, but in what sense it is notable, or what kind of attention it has gotten? --Cam 01:22, Jun 19, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Fof[edit]

Non-notable. Zero Google hits. Denni☯ 01:42, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Mr Bound 02:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but politely: At least there isn't a wikilink of both names or outrageous claims. The band has not established enough significance at this point for an encyclopedia article (no records, no contract, no distribution). We are a tertiary reference source, so everything has to be verifiable. Geogre 02:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. JamesBurns 10:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "FOF is a small band from Portland, Oregon." "Small" is the key word there. Delete Matjlav 14:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete inoffensive, but vanity. --Etacar11 16:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it is one of the less annoying "bandity" entries, but still... StopTheFiling 23:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- vanity page, nothing notable. --Rschen7754 02:09, Jun 15, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:01, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

POT (Pirates of the Theatre)[edit]

Unverifiable. I was unable to find any relevant google hits. "Pirates of the Theatre" -potentiometer (to weed out mirrors of pot) turns up 30 displayed hits, of which about a third are no longer inaccessible, and all of which are releases by a warez group. There isn't enough to turn it into a proper stub for the warez group, and I don't think such an article would be merited in any case. Cryptic 01:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless referenced. --W(t) 01:52, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mr Bound 02:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete shiver me timbers - unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Matjlav 14:39, 14 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.

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 speedy KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 21:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judd Winick[edit]

This page is not a biographical/career history article about Judd Winick. Instead, it is a PR piece that looks like it was largely copied from the back cover of one of his books, complete with quotes from reviewers and a list of awards. 68.84.241.191 01:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Advertising & C&P. Geogre 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep: Mea culpa. I should have checked the history. (I noticed that the nominator was an IP, but I didn't put 2 and 2 together.) Geogre 12:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I will revert back to this version [2] by User:62.252.192.12. The history shows that this article has been developing since 7 July 2004 and the part that looks like advertising was just added last month while deleting some of the bio/career history that nominator wishes for. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and revert per DoubleBlue. — Gwalla | Talk 04:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be notable cartoonist. Capitalistroadster 05:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite keep. RickK 05:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DoubleBlue. JamesBurns 10:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Don't know why it should be deleted. unsigned vote by Matjlav (talk · contribs)
  • Keep one of the few RW people who is notable. --Etacar11 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep with the article in its current form; this discussion can be closed. jglc | t | c 19:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Flcelloguy 20:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too please Yuckfoo 20:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and add information about Juniper Lee, his latest project. Haikupoet 02:39, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Postmodernasty[edit]

Neologism. --W(t) 01:59, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree, the original author wrote on the talk page pretty much admitting just that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mr Bound 02:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nonce word. Geogre 02:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteAdmitted neologism. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nonsense. --FCYTravis 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vandalism. Matjlav 14:40, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete and redirect. —Xezbeth 15:03, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

American Falange Party[edit]

Insufficiently notable. No google hits for "American Falange Party", and of the 10 for "American Falange", only the first is relevant. --Cryptic (talk) 02:14, 14 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.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 default to Keep. I count 33 Keep, 28 Delete, and 3 Merge (counting "rename" as a vote to keep, since we can't delete & rename), which is roughly 44% Delete, 51% Keep, 5% merge; soundly No Consensus. Essjay · Talk 01:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • A slight recount, as it appears the number of votes was a bit off: I see 30 Keeps and 30 Deletes. (The nominator's vote, even if the identity is in question, should be counted as a delete). Reviewing the "rename" votes appears that they are likewise split: there are 5 "Keep, but rename" (counted as Keeps), and 3 Rename OR Merge-- which should default to merge, rather than "keep" -- since we can't, as you say, keep & merge. Plus, there are 3 clear "Merge with State Terrorism." (1 vote to delete the "troll nominator" was not counted either way). My feeling is that in this instance, Merge votes should be considered a special form of "delete"-- with a request to removing the separate article, and combine the factual info into another one. Thus, they should not be counted against "Delete" in the final tally. Thus, it's pretty much 50/50. Still a No Consensus, of course-- which is just why VfDs will continue to be problematic. --LeFlyman 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one was a difficult one to close. I considered leaving it alone, but it was the last one in the archive, so I decided to suck it up and close it. I used a pencil & paper to tally votes, but I'm not suprised I missed some; it was just so blasted confusing. Anyhow, no consensus seems to be the right call. -- Essjay · Talk 07:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Israeli terrorism[edit]

Pardon me for having to edit this already existant VfD page, I do not happen to know how to archive this previous VfD page. I bring this page to a VfD delete for a variety of reasons:

  1. I feel it is inherently biased
  2. A page of this manner already exists dealing with Israeli state terrorism and this should be merged there AT THE MOST
  3. This page could easily be renamed Jewish Terrorism as that it what it deals with and such a page is inherently biased as it attacks Jews
  4. This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists [personal attack removed] ... and despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia
  5. The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote. --ProudWHITEIsraeli 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Take a look at this guy's user name and profile. This is a troll nomination. CanadianCaesar 00:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, a "troll". Trust me, Im here to fight against trolls, not be one. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that why you called User: Mustafaa a racist? CanadianCaesar 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and as if it wasnt so blatant that you are a left-wing nut, you have just proved yourself a RACIST. What about my name? What exactly is wrong with being PROUD of your ethnicity and heritage? Simply because I am White and happen to be PROUD of it I am a troll? -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speaking of trolling...--Calton | Talk 06:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zionist terrorism is a valid article but the Israelis don't currently practice terrorism as it is currently understood but military operations. Although I would appreciate more information about the nominator.Capitalistroadster 01:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable'. This is news to me. This topic either as presented or merged with State Terrorism is worthy of inclusion. I am sure it will undergo a lot of revision as editors put their spin on it but that is no reason for deletion.--Porturology 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? Maybe you live in California or New York or some such place, but the majority of REAL Americans Citizens (and that word CITIZENS is vital and entails much) as well as the majority of the world, recognize that all these attacks on Israel ARE laughable and are racist and just products of the Socialist Propaganda Machine. Sorry if your left-wing fanatical delusions have severed your ties to reality. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a madeup concept. Perhaps Israeli-sponsored terrorism would work, but actions of a military do not fall under the definition of terrorism. freestylefrappe 01:49, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete about time this came up for VfD. This page is lacking any real documented incidents of "Israeli terrorism", instead it recasts Israeli efforts against terrorism as being themselves terrorist. Klonimus 02:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same reasons as Klonimus. Carioca 02:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have concerns about the nominator and whether this is a good-faith nomination. I also want to distance myself from his comments about Mustafaa. Nevertheless, the page should be deleted because it's a POV personal essay. It doesn't define terrorism, it's unencyclopedic with no sources, and it has no chance of becoming encyclopedic, because there are no reputable or scholarly sources who would agree that the incidents listed are examples of terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Brother, I assure you my nomination is completely in good faith, I merely seek to rid the world of the sick propaganda that the Socialist Establishment espouses, namely articles such as this one. My comments about "Mustafaa" were not meant as a personal attack and I am sorry if they have been interpreted in such manner, however I do not rescind my statements one bit. I beleive it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews and anyone who is proud of their Whiteness and adherance to Judaism. Do I even need to point further than to the Islamic-Arab allusion his username alludes to than to prove that he is a Socialist Racist? But thank you for backing me up, I wish I could state myself so eloquently as you but yes, this article is very POV and has ZERO encyclopedic content. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 02:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fernando Rizo has reprimanded me for my comments here and I would just like to say I apologize somewhat for my tone and vocabulary but I stand by my beliefs. -ProudWHITEIsraeli 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This page needs cleanup , and definetly needs sourcing; but it does discuss a a very real issue in our world. Though as it stands it is a poor article. And second, due to the hurtful and biogted way this VfD started I believe it should be closed and broguh up for vote again in a few weeks; this has gotten off to such a bad start it need some time so cooler heads can prevail, be they for deletion or not. Additionally (my thanks to Guettarda) this page does not meet criteria under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy--LouieS 03:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hurtful and bigoted? I dont feel an ounce of pain over "hurting" Racists and Communists. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not meet the criteria listed under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. In addition, why are the nominator's personal attacks still on this page? Guettarda 04:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it violates WP:NOT is not a soapbox, as well as no original research. Klonimus 05:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Controversy is not a good reason to delete an article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-NPOV and unencyclopedic in intent. --TJive 05:47, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with State terrorism, again. El_C 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprise surprise, a KNOWN AND OPEN COMMUNIST wanting to keep the article. Who woulda guessed? -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • �`אמת, מי El_C 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the troll nominator. Let the article cool for a month and if someone with credibility who can defend the nomination appropriately wants to renominate it, reopen the discussion. This is going to go nowhere because whether the outcome of this VfD is delete or keep it will be for all the wrong reasons. -EDM 06:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, POV or lack there of is not grounds for deletion, only editing. --LouieS 06:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree entirely with EDM. The personal attacks on this page make it difficult to reach a reasonable consensus--Porturology 06:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ruy Lopez 06:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep calling a well respected user like Mustafaa a racist is indicative of the nominators extreme POV, and inappropriate views. ~~~~ 07:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barring the nominator's user name, I think the article should be kept, but a rename sounds good. The word "terrorist" by itself is breaking NPOV - what you might call a terrorist, I or others will call them freedom fighters, or vice versa. The new title, IMHO, should be Violence committed by Israel. Plus, it could be hard to merge this article into State terrorism, since some of the acts committed by Israelis were not under the direction of the Israeli Government or, as pointed out, retaliation against attacks from the groups residing in the West Bank and Gaza. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We can't delete articles just because someone doesn't like them. The article is perfectly NPOV and represents all points of view fairly. Besides, the claim that there is a 'popular consensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable', is... well, laughable. - ulayiti (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ive addressed this before, please read above before commenting. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Represents views that are held by a notable number of people. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 09:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Remind me WHERE these views are held by a notable number of people? Outside of California and NY and other filthy overcrowded inner-cities such as that? Have you ever met an American White (we are the majority after all) CITIZEN who holds these views? Didnt think so. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoa there. (raises hand) White Kansas American citizen here. I don't know that it's useful to assign right/wrong to the actions of the governments of Israel or Palestine, but to say that we should completely "whitewash" the articles in Wikipedia is downright offensive. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to something more neutral. Agentsoo 09:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about naming it to something more TRUTHFUL such as "Unverified Racist Accusations Aimed at Jews and Whites, Written By Biased Racist Arab Communists" -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troll nomination; WP:POINT. Delete it (the nomination, I mean). If this isn't possible (if this VfD must be taken seriously), then keep the article and have it edited as necessary. Nothing obviously wrong with the title, either. -- Hoary 09:52, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Acusing a country as "terrorist" conflicts with NPOV for one. The page requested to be deleted is an excelent example of what wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Israel terorises by buldosing palestinian settlemensts? Come on. With that logic I am a terrorist for helping buld a dam. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, exactly friend. Moving dirt, moving "Palestinians", no difference. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia should never reflect the views of people who equate human beings with dirt. Debate over. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AFAIK, facts do not necessarily conflict with NPOV. Sam Hocevar 10:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can be couched in weasly language if you want to make it ultra-NPOV. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Israeli-Palestinian conflict page. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Stop putting this article up for VFD again and again...Heraclius 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when did the fact taht an article has been up for VfD before preclude it from being put up again? I feel this is completely legitimate. -TelAvivKid 15:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the parenthetical abuse and cheerleading really necessary TelAvivKid (ProudWHITEIsraeli), or could we please have a fair an civil vote in the spirit of Wikipedia?
      • Comment I doubt User:TelAvivKid is a real Israeli. Considering the hatred most white supremecists have for Jews, and the fact that the families of most Israelis came from the Middle East rather than Europe, I don't think you'd see many racists of this type among real Israelis. My guess is that "TelAvivKid" is a troll or someone trying to smear actual Israelis.

--LouieS 16:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can somebody please block the damn troll. -EDM 16:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ignore just how damn racist he is, at least he is absurd to the point of humor! --LouieS 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      He's not racist, he's making it up, and doing it poorly. -EDM 21:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - both the article and the troll. I'm no fan of Israel, but calling its actions 'terrorist' is clearly POV (perhaps even mine). An article concering Israeli behavior in the occupied territories etc (which I'm sure we have elsewhere) could discuss how many have spoke of this as state terrorism - but in the title? Inherently POV. --Doc (?) 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The title is just dandy, too. —RaD Man (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The very title is POV (the subject may be worth mentioning in State terrorism and/or IDF, though).--Doron 20:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A better title would be Alleged Israeli atrocities, and it should be moved, but that can be done boldly after appropriate discussion on the Talk page. I am sure we will end up with redirects from "Israeli atrocities", links from the relevant dab pages, and so on, which seems right and proper. Robert A West 20:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Controversial subjects should still be treated in Wikipedia. ESkog 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. I think it's a poorly written article, and poorly titled, but the subject matter is absolutely legit. Nandesuka 22:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regarding some of the reasons:
    1. "It is inherently biased" -- having a section about Security within Microsoft Windows is not inherently biased, but instead provides a balanced view of the issue-- this page should do the same
    2. "it attacks Jews" -- The page is restricted to actions by the governement of Israel, and is supposed to deal with the "interpretation of israeli policy and action in the past". It has nothing to do with a religion or culture.
    3. "This page has been heavily edited by known anti-Semitic and anti-Caucasian racists" -- You cannot go around making personal attacks in your vfd (calling User: Mustafaa racist, for example).
    4. "despite popular concensus in the real world that accusations against Israel are laughable, these claims have been allowed to remain on Wikipedia" -- this can be added to the page, but I would include some sources because I think this might be contentious.
    5. "The last time it was brought to VfD vote, there was not really a true concensus met and there should be a revote."-- I'm not sure we're looking for consensus, just a majority. Consensus will probably take longer ;)
Given the lack of consensus, I am beginning to think that the title is definitely POV. I would support renaming to "Alleged Israeli state terrorism", or merging with State Terrorism, regardless I think there should be a link to this information from Israel.
MisterSheik 23:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unredeemable POV, soapbox, original research. I would accept an article titled "Israel military action" or similar, or includion of documented information in a violence against civilians article. But this as is will never meet WP guidelines, IMO. DavidH 23:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Which part is original research? :) MisterSheik 23:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something more neutral, or merge into a more appropriate page. This slop is already covered in excrutiating detail. — RJH 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for any of the numerous reasons above. If it can be renamed something more neutral, and the quality improved, all the better. Sabine's Sunbird 01:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as an editorial soap box and merge salvagable information with state terrorism. There is absolutely no reason that Israel should be singled out because of some warped definition by fringe loonies. Guy Montag 02:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: User:ProudWHITEIsraeli/User:TelAvivKid is a strawman sockpuppet (see the link for further details of what that is). His intent, aside from making Jews and Israelis look bad, is to ensure that this VfD fails. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the kind of thing User:Alberuni would do, who's also from Atlanta, Georgia. It must have killed him to make all those spelling mistakes on purpose. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Er, why would he start it in the first place if he wanted it to fail? - ulayiti (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For a laugh. And by being obnoxious, he's hoping people will vote for the article as a vote against him. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any specific user whose sockpuppet he is accused of being? I'll admit to not being too familiar with the "whites and Jews unite" racial supremacist theory, but then again this is the internets, to paraphrase a quote. --TJive 21:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably banned user Alberuni, who likes nothing better than to cause trouble for Israel and Jews in general. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • I assumed that it was just an under-educated Israeli adolescent who doesn't realize how dumb he comes off claiming to be a proud "White" when in many places in the world Jews aren't consider "white" or "caucasian" (an inherent misnomer.) Sadly, Israelis can be prejudicial and racist against their own; within Israel there's still residual devisiveness between Ashkanazim (European Jews) and Sefardim (generally, non-European Jews), although that's disappearing in favor of prejudice against "new" immigrants from former Soviet states and (particularly) those from Ethiopia (Falasha). Whatever this user's personal racist beliefs, they should not form the reason to vote for/against deletion. The article should be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof. (However, I would point out to TelAvivKid that arguing about others' votes makes his/her case unsympathetic.) --LeFlyman 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he wanted you to assume it was an "under-educated Israeli adolescent". In fact, it was a strawman sockpuppet of an American Muslim, and his personal racist beliefs are about Jews. Jayjg (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any proof that it's an American Muslim or are you just blaming people at random?Heraclius 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "fallacies" in casual discussions. This is not a debate (thank God). But the only evidence you have for him being an American Muslim is that the behavior seems like that of User:Alberuni. Looking at his page, I see no evidence of him being an American Muslim.Heraclius 15:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You see no evidence that Alberuni was an American Muslim? Whatever. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's confusing to the previous commenter (and myself) is the claim that TelAvivKid/ProudWhiteIsraeli is the same person as the banned user, Alberuni. Is there any actual evidence, or just supposition (as stated above, that it's "probably" him) ? --LeFlyman 18:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following it, and it looks like pure conjecture to me that TelAvivKid is in any way firectly related to Alberuni; unless there is something we arent being told. --LouieS 20:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heraclius and LouieS may have started editing after Alberuni's reign of terror. He was a highly disruptive editor who was running over a dozen sock puppets at one point, deeply anti-Semitic, racist, and abusive. Those on the receiving end of it became familiar with his trademarks, which I won't describe here, but they're evident in this user. If it's not Alberuni, the user has been invited to get in touch to discuss the issue, and I'm sure s/he'll do that if there's been any unfairness. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (pov) merge to Israel and State Terrorism accordingly. DiceDiceBaby 06:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The assassinations belong in State terrorism. The rest of the article duplicates others, or is unsubstantiated filler. --Uncle Bungle 14:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep The title is fine (if you agree that the title Palestinian terrorism is fine). As regards the suggested name change to an apparently less POV title, if this is carried through, then the SAME SHOULD BE DONE WITH Palestinian terrorism. --Mpatel 14:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ban anyone that puts this up for vfd again anytime soon. --Dv 18:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, doesn't exist.  Grue  19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is POV. PMLF 23:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. If there are POV problems, try the edit button. Shem(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Briangotts (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per MisterSheik. Rename if necessary. Shem(talk) 02:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an Israeli terrorrism. Not so wide as the Islamic one, although it exists. It's more ponctual. An example? Iztak Rabin was not killed by palestinians. José San Martin 02:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC) (my grandfather was jewish).
The murder of Yitzhak Rabin was an assassination by a politically extreme individual, not a terrorist action by an entire society. There is a vast difference, and claiming this as proof of supposed "Israeli Terrorism" is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association" -- as well as false premise. Oh and referencing an ancestor as Jewish as somehow relevant to this matter is a form of "Special pleading". --LeFlyman 04:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, and then merge any still relevant information that is not original research into State Terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per a good two thirds of the reasons listed above. Junjk 07:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as José San Martin. Axon (talk|contribs) 11:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete all "Xyz terrorism" articles. If wikipedia wants to be in the "terrorism" blame game then it should keep them all, if not then delete them all. Israelis are not the chosen people. --Magabund 19:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazingly enough, from what I can tell no other country has a "Country terrorism" article devoted to it. No "American terrorism", "British terrorism", "Chinese terrorism", "Zimbabwean terrorism" etc. I guess, on Wikipedia, Israel is indeed "chosen" for special treatment. Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Israeli" does not equal "Jewish". Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are religions; Israel is a multi-religious country. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment is unrelated to the one above it.Heraclius 03:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The juxtaposition of Israeli and Arab murderers seems to imply that there are no Arab Israelis, whereas there are over 1,100,000, around a fifth of the population. SlimVirgin <fontcolor="Purple">(talk) 05:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the word "Palestinian" would be better, but I wanted to preserve the integrity of the quote.Heraclius 16:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with Slim and Jayig; I think its worht noting that perhaps this article is talking about the wrong things. You have to look at the fact that Israel in the not so didtant past sanctioned torture. Beond that, Israeli Tarrorim has a phenomenon is worht mention; that is simply because it exsists in a good portion of people's minds in our world, in needs to be adressed. I think this page addresses it in entirely the worng way. Rahter we should be looking at how and why people came to look at Israeli actions as terrorism in the first place, who those people are and why they came to their conclusions. --LouieS 14:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Louie, fairies exist in the minds of lots of people in the world, but that doesn't make them real. Our policies say we should cite the views of published majority- and significant-minority opinion (not tiny-minority opinion). When I last looked, not a single source was cited, so the article as it stands violates our content policies, and were it to be cleaned up to be in accordance with them, much of its current content would have to be deleted. The point is that it's unfair to single Israel out when there's no article on British terrorism, French terrorism, Italian terrorism, and so on. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a proponent of the singling out either. I think the solution here is to extend the information relating to other examples of state terrorism. Surely, this would help put things into perspective. This can start by extending the country sections of the State terrorism article -- if a country's section becomes large, a new article should be created. I think the "don't single anyone out" argument should always be dealt with by extending the information that we represent rather than removing information. Should we not have created an article on Windows until we have Linux? The detractors can add balance by adding information rather than removing it.
Regarding sources, we already have a number of sources at the bottom of the page and in the text. I think that regardless of your viewpoint, the notability of the article is evident given the sources and the surrounding debate. We have an article on Sasquatch -- doesn't mean he exists :). MisterSheik 17:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Move - Including the word "terrorism" is inherently POV, likewise all other articles whose titles inclde the word. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per Tomer -- Mario 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: First off this is TelAvivKid/ProudWHITEIsraeli, I had to make this account because once again my account was banned (read: censored). This account will probably be banned soon too since SlimVirgin said I can't return until I "prove I am not Alberinu". Right. Well that should be easy :-/. No worries though, I was just on a friends account reading this and decided to answer some questions, Ill probably stop editing after this. First off I am not Alberuni, I dont even know who that is, but if hes anti-Semitic then he deserves to be banned or whatever. For you nosy Commie bastards that want to know more about me, I am in my 20s originally from Tel-Aviv, now living in the United States, HAPPY? I started reading Wiki about 2 months ago and have been especially reading this page until I decided to stand up for Jews everywhere and VfD this POS. I'd just like to say all you a-holes who have accused me of racism while being blind to your own hatred of the White Race, you are truly HYPOCRITES. How come I dont see any articles about how the damn Mexicans are terrorizing the US by coming over here ILLEGALY and lowering our standard of living? How come I dont see any articles on how East Asians are increasinly taking over Slavic lands in Asia ILLEGALLY and IMMORRALY? Huh? Racists. -MissRebelsGuy 22:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. You first claimed you were originally from Jerusalem.[3] Now you claim you're originally from Tel Aviv. It's hard to keep the story straight, isn't it? Tagid li mashehu, ha'im atah medaber ivrit? Im kein, tichtov mashehu b'ivrit po, bevakahsa. Jayjg (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the reasons others have given above. Much of the content is covered elsewhere, the rest can be merged into other articles (eg State Terrorism etc). The concept of '(insert country here) terrorism' makes little sense anyway, given that terrorism, by definition, is by a non-state actor. Batmanand 23:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as José San Martin. JamesBurns 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ?באמת ישראלי, ולא אלברוני, מה שמך בעברית "ProudWHITEIsraeli" יש לי שאלה...אם אתה ,משתמש Tomer TALK 06:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per excellent points Tomer made on July 31. I also would like to question the authenticity of the nominator. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Viriditas | Talk 10:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Haham hanuka 18:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move I think that if this is not OK then Palestinian terrorism should be changed as well. MicahMN | Talk 18:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Incognito 21:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. some of the information is noteable and should be merged into other articles (perhaps Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). it doesn't fit the definition of terrorism, however. ObsidianOrder 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JustMe2005 15:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unbehagen 22:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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 no consensus, and I don't think letting this stay on VFD any longer will bring about a consensus. Defaults to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zionist terrorism[edit]

This discussion was not linked to the main VfD page, so I guess, the countdown for it starts today. mikka (t) 02:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am electing to have this page deleted as it is just an epithet. It should be inserted into the political epithets page. Scarabar

If you're going to troll, at least sign it, man. Grace Note 03:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Neither an epithet nor does it have to be a bad article. Major revision is in progress. (also added the inital posters signature) LouieS June 11 2005
  • Delete freestylefrappe 00:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete Curiosity 17:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Any reason?Grace Note 23:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I need to go in to the political motivations behind this article? Please, it only really exists because the Israel-haters cannot handle having 'palestinian terrorism' (something indisputable) without having to come up with their own counter. This article will never be agreed upon in terms of bias, facts or NPOV , because it's whole existence is completely for political reasons rather than a desire for facts, and it will always try to portray disputed actions as terrorist, irrespective of the reality. Strong Delete. Curiosity 08:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Can it not state that the actions' being "terrorist" is disputed? Are you suggesting that there are no "Zionists" who have ever done anything that has been considered "terrorist"? We all know that "terrorist" is more a label than a description. As many others do, I try to minimise the label's use in WP, given that it's always POV, as you correctly note.Grace Note 13:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    It may be able to state that, but if the "terrorist" nature is disputed, then it really shouldn't be the title, should it? And I am aware that there are Zionists who have done things that have been considered "terrorist", but I'm also perfectly aware that a lot of the actions are being moulded and exaggerated to fit that description, and when compared to acts of terrorism today (by palestinians, amongst others) absolutely pale in comparison when you look at the brutality and the targets. Different motivations also come in to play. Palestinian terrorism is aimed at death and destruction primarily, as is evidenced by increased violence the nearer peace seems to get, because it's ultimate objective is not a palestinian state but an end to Israel. The so called "zionist terrorism" was not about eradication of a state or deliberate killing of people, on any level, nevermind a primary level. Look at the attacks (and I refer mainly to groups, not lone lunatics like Goldstein), they're on HQs etc., calculated to achieve an objective. Palestinians blow up buses and shoot innocent people, things which cannot help their objective at all. Also see my response further down the page.Curiosity 14:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "It may be able to state that, but if the "terrorist" nature is disputed, then it really shouldn't be the title, should it?" I think my point was that the "terrorist nature" is always disputed by someone. I'm not getting into a debate with you about who is or is not a terrorist. You've made it clear enough why you oppose the article's inclusion. Grace Note 14:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Enviroknot 00:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable topic. Terroristic acts by Zionist militants during the pre-statehood era can only be termed Zionist, as that was the driving ideology; and, extremist forms of Zionism can also be seen as the ideology of post-statehood militants, in that sense. I am, however, open to persuasion which draws from the pertinent historiography (i.e. some sort of basis). In contradistinction from the post-statehood (hence, institutional, non/less clandestine) Israeli State terrorism. It is currently heatedly disputed by both sides, but this is to be expected. El_C 02:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Inherently a non-NPOV discussion; only purpose is to create a forum for indictment of Zionism; if necessary, can be merged into Irgun or Lehi (group). Upgraded to "Strong Delete" -- as those who intend this article to "counter" some sort of bias demonstrate its POV purpose. Single example of King David Hotel is weak: the hotel was used as a military HQ, and was warned ahead of time that a bomb had been placed there. --LeFlyman 05:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In answer to those who may not understand why this is inherently biased, try this thought experiment: change "Zionist" into "Jewish" -- which is the POV this article is intending to perpetuate. Would "Jewish terrorism" be an appropriate topic here, or one that would be more fitting to an Anti-Semitic site, such as this one listing "Past Zionist-Jewish Terrorism?" Or the Palestinian Information Center which lists a litany of so-called "(Jewish) Zionist Terrorist" acts and "illustrates the brutal ugliness of the Jewish Zionist mentality" claiming, "the entire Zionist history, at least since the establishment of the malignant Zionist entity called Israel, has been a huge accumulative criminal file."

      The Semantics of the article is in large part the problem: using "Zionist" as an adjective to modify terrorism implies that there is a continuing, ongoing effort by Zionists (i.e. Jews) to commit terrorist acts -- tantamount to claiming Zionism a terrorist ideology. A less loaded title would be "Terrorism by Zionists", but that still suffers from the inherent problem of holding up and singling out a particular political group for indictment before all others. For example, while there is an entry for Irish Republican Army there is no entry for IRA Terrorism. Likewise where are the Pakistani Terrorism or Kashmiri Terrorism articles? (I will grant that there is a List_of_ETA_attacks -- but the ETA is an avowed terrorist entity) In fact, the only place on the Web you find the term "Zionist terrorism" is in anti-Israel or anti-Jewish sources.

      And in my view, the only place on Wikipedia that would be appropriate to list so-called "Zionist terrorism" would be in a contextual article such as List_of_terrorist incidents --LeFlyman 16:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV. Gamaliel 06:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • POV vote? I can't tell, it's limited to a single word. My argument is that the term is notable. See for example: John L. Peeke's (of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School), Jewish-Zionist terrorism and the establishment of Israel (1977) El_C 06:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a published book-- it is a 30-year old thesis-dissertation. Clicking on the "other editions link, makes this clear. A single post-grad thesis from 1977 ago does not make a notable term. --LeFlyman 16:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason for deletion is offered. Proposer is 101% surely a sock. --Zero 07:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - We have an article on Islamist terrorism and an article on Palestinian terrorism and militancy. Should they be deleted as POV forums for indictment of Islamism and Palestinians? --FCYTravis 07:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The difference between these articles, and those, is that Islamist Terrorism and Palestinian Terrorism are documented facts. The Islamist vandals like BrandonYusufToropov and Zero keep trying to push nonsensical and racist accusations into this article, when the articles on particular non-supported groups which have not existed for decades (such as Irgun) cover all REAL incidents of so-called "zionist terrorism" just fine without the need for this redundant article. The sole purpose of the Keep votes here seems to be as a jumping-off point for racist attacks.
  • Keep. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. BrandonYusufToropov 14:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE There can be no greater argument FOR deleting this article than that known Islamist vandals like BrandonYusufToropov and Zero are ardently trying to make sure that it exists so that they can use it as a platform to launch racist attacks against Jews. - (Anonymous vote by 81.91.192.220 - User has eight edits on Wikipedia, all to Arab-Israeli related articles. Addendum by FCYTravis)
  • Delete There is a major difference between the Palestinian Terrorist article (which is not about the Palestinian Authority) and this article. If someone wants to write a historical article about events 60 years ago, they can -- start with the Irgun article. Until such time, this is pure POV. Mikeage 17:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please disregard the votes by anonymous IPs of KaintheScion/Enviroknot.Yuber(talk) 18:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please disregard the Islamist rantings by vandal Yuber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.211.80 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 13 Jun 2005
      • This anon has made a smallish number of edits, all targetting Yuber (including removing his comment from and RfA evidence page), and claiming to be protecting Enviroknott. An IP check might be in order. I've blocked him temporarily, but I imagine he'll be back. A number of IP addresses have been used in the saem way, a couple to vandalise my user page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete enough of this disruptive pseudo-balancing. Klonimus 03:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or serious rewrite. This has the same problems I noted re Suicide Bombing, which is it mixes up terrorism and guerilla warfare. To quote the renowned Wikipedia, One definition means a violent action targetting civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. Blowing up military installations does not come under the first definition, and would stretch the second definition out of shape until it applied to all military activity. Gzuckier 18:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The King David Hotel bombing is indisputably an act of terrorism committed by Zionists. Some of the other accusations don't quite qualify. If this article stays make sure it's not a propaganda piece against Israel and the IDF. --Cypherx 18:47, 13 Jun 2005
Weak Delete I still think there needs to be an article covering this topic, but after looking at what sources use the term "zionist terrorism" I've realized there's too much political bias associated with those words to create a neutral article. --Cypherx 16:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, this is not the place for a lengthy discussion, but since your post relates diretly to to my point, I rebut the "indisputably an act of terrorism". The King David Hotel was not a hotel in the sense that it housed a bunch of tourists and honeymooners. "Ninety-two persons lost their lives in that stealthy attack, 45 were injured, among whom there were many high officials, junior officers and office personnel, both men and women. The King David Hotel was used as an office housing the Secretariat of the Palestine Government and British Army Headquarters." says Wikipedia, quoting the British House of Commons. Blowing up your adversary's HQ and army HQ is not the same as blowing up a hotel. Certainly in aerial warfare, for instance, the effort to drop a bomb on your adversary's HQ is made, despite the loss of life to innocent secretaries, janitors, and the visiting children of employees. If that is not described as terrorism, i.e. attacking civilians as your major target, then blowing up the HQ by planting bombs is not either. Blowing up a Motel Six is terrorism. Blowing up government and military HQ is guerilla warfare, even if the building has Hotel in its name. Gzuckier 19:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree Klonimus 03:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So the attack on the Pentagon on Sept. 11 was legitimate guerilla warfare because the target was a military headquarters? Just making sure we're clear on that. --FCYTravis 02:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, certainly more of an act of war than the WTC, which is an act of terrorism. Why wouldn't it be an act of war to specifically target the adversary's military HQ? Didn't the US attempt to specifically bomb the German military HQ in WWII? Because it was a suicide run? Compare to kamikaze attacks. Because it was without warning and without a declaration of war? Compare to Pearl Harbor. Gzuckier 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Im sorry for continuing the discussion here (what's a better page we can talk on?) but I think the King David Bombing crossed the line. While the bombing had a military objective (making it a form guerilla warfare), the disregard for civilian life (a majority of the dead were civilians, including 15 jews) also qualifies this bombing as terrorism. I think it's similar to the bombings of police recruiting facilities currently seen in Iraq. Those also have military objectives, but are widely considered acts of terrorism. --Cypherx 20:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, as I've observed, we bombed the crap out of German government offices in Berlin in WWII and nobody suggested that was terrorism because of the civilian workers killed there. Compare to Dresden, which is much more controversial in terms of civilian losses for no explicit military gain. I didn't make this up; the international Laws of War allow for collateral damage proportional to the desired military objective; i.e. blowing up an enemy shipyard despite the loss of many civilians is permitted, versus blowing up a hospital to nail one annoying sniper on the roof is not. Gzuckier 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


No-one has mentioned the fact that a specific WARNING was given of the King David Hotel bombing beforehand. Had the warning been followed and the building evacuated, instead of the warning being dismissed, the casualties would have been far lower if any at all. The fact there was a warning, shows there was not an intention to kill people, especially civilians, certainly not as the primary motivation. Terrorist attacks try to kill as many as possible as a way of coercion, they deliberately target civilian populations. This attack was on a military target and efforts were made to keep casualties down. Once again, it's a stretch and definitely POV to call it 'terrorist', especially when compared to say al-qaeda/palestinian terrorism where the main objective is killing as many innocent people as possible. A bus/restaurant/disco is not a military target, so bloeing it up with intent to kill innocents is terrorism. Blowing up a political/military HQ after specifically warning the people you're going to do so and they should evacuate? If that's 'terrorism' then there are obviously drastically different levels of 'terrorism'. Yet another example of the anti-Israelis on here trying desperately to create an equivalency between actions that simply isn't there.Curiosity 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think most people are claiming equivalency between Hamas and Etzel. However, Etzel and Lehi blew a great number of people and places in the years preceding the founding of Israel, and many of those people were non-combatants. You don't have to be as evil as Hamas to be a terrorist.
I think your issues with the POV of the article can be addressed within the article itself, rather than by deleting it. --Cypherx 15:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"No-one has mentioned the fact that a specific WARNING was given of the King David Hotel bombing beforehand." Staff at the King David Hotel are on record as saying that they were recieving daily (sometimes more often) hoax warnings during the period - enough that they effectively had no warning. So yes - technically there was a warning given but... lets not be too keen to run up to that moral highh ground.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.15 (talk • contribs)

Interesting if true. Any reference for that? --Cypherx 19:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BBC TV documentary last year where they interviewed all of the survivors they could find. One of the people they interviewed was the woman who took the warning call. She absolutely confirmed that she had recieved one - then explained why it was not acted upon. Alas you can't link to a TV broadcast (and they have no transcript online) so I'll wait till I see a transcript before altering an article in the main encyclopedia. Fascinating show they also interviewed the woman who made the call - who seemed terribly proud, much like the French Resistance Fighters you sometimes see interviewed. In her mind she was clearly a Freedom Fighter not a terrorist.
  • Strong Keep. It's important that in addition to each article being balanced the overall editorial tone of Wikipedia is also seen to be unbiased. The article itself plays word games with the definition of "terrorism" - to delete it because of a feeling of bais by one side or the other just panders to a one sided (anti Palestinian) viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.0.7 (talk • contribs)
What the heck? Why's my username on this? It's not my vote. --Cypherx 21:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is user 62.252.0.7's vote, I changed the post to reflect that. --Cypherx 21:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this title, and rename the contents, or merge them with another article. The word "terrorism" is not defined, and there's no universally agreed definition, so it's a term that should be avoided, especially in titles; and where it's used in a title, it must be defined at the beginning of the article, using a definition accepted by academics and by the UN (there are several definitions in use by the UN). The article also needs to say what's meant by Zionist terrorism, and to describe whether and why an act of violence (carried out after May 14, 1948) intended to protect the existence of the state of Israel is considered (a) an act of self-defense by Israelis, (b) an act of aggression by Israelis, (c) either of these by Zionists, (d) an act of terrorism by Israelis, or (e) an act of terrorism by Zionists, unless the words Israeli and Zionist are being used synonomously here, in which case that needs to be stated upfront. Acts before May 14, 1948 are more easily described as Zionist violence, but then the article would have to cut off at that point to avoid the muddle, and many editors may feel that's a false cut-off point, as (largely) the same people continued to fight after that date as were fighting before it. The whole subject matter is muddled because of editors' strong opinions on both sides. We need encyclopedic titles, and clean, unbiased writing, using mainstream, reputable sources. If we can't achieve that, we should delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - No valid reason to delete. Recommend Cleanup though --Irishpunktom\talk 23:28, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The facts this article talks about are too different to be united in a single 'zionist terrorist' article. It looks to me as an anti-zionist article, and nothing more. (Is El-C happy ?)--Revas 00:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reading my excerpts bellow. I translated them from Hebrew precisely for those editors voting Keep or Delete without any explanation whatsoever! So it gives me great pleasure to see that my efforts were worthwhile! :) El_C 00:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Ecstatic! El_C 05:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE, as strongly as possible That the Islamists are here making asses of themselves as usual is a great reason to get rid of this nonsense. The less playgrounds they have the better Wikipedia is. — Unsigned by 207.241.238.149. Note that user has less than ten edits. El_C 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Israeli terrorism and rename into a less loaded title. IMO there is no reason to split the hair. But if there is, it better be explained. mikka (t) 02:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • many of the acts discussed were committed before the founding of the state of Israel and cannot be considered "Israeli terrorism"
  • the article Israeli terrorism is much worse than Zionist terrorism and itself should be deleted
--Cypherx 02:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A repugnant minority of Zionists committed acts of terrorism before Israel was set up. These deserve an article. Keep. -- Hoary 02:48, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep This is encyclopedic, and notable. At most, it should be {{NPOV}}'ed and {{cleanup}}'ed. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course - unless all the "_ terrorism" articles are deleted. - Mustafaa 03:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, we wouldn't want indsiputable palestinian terrorism to have a page if we can't have a deeply biased and inaccurate one about those 'Israeli/Zionist scum' as well, right? Curiosity 08:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there are content problems sort them out in the article.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am neither a muslim or a jew but if there's an Islamist terrorism then it can only be fair to have one on Zionist terrorism. Ultimately, both topics will stir up contrversy but that doesn't mean they're not notable. The fact is that you can't run from your past and our job is to present facts. This page definetly needs some clean up and removal of some POV statements but that doesn't warrent deletion. If as Mustafaa said, if you delete this, you have to set the precedent and delete all _ terrorism articles. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of current content, a valid subject for an article XmarkX 06:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Unlike the above article on Israeli terrorism, there have been clear examples of terrorism by Zionist organisations. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And merge content with Israeli terrorism Most of the actions described here are esentially linked with the Israeli state and even geographically are happening mostly within a close distance to the borders, so separate article for just Zionist terrorism apart from Israel state's one is unnecessary and creates undesired POV tensions. --Oneliner 07:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for reposting this from Israeli terrorism's VfD page, but as I said there: "I strongly disagree with this reoccuring suggestion to merge Zionist terrorism and Israeli state terrorism. I think it's a worse violation of NPOV to associate the actions of pre-Israel paramilitary groups with the Israeli government than it is to have an article on Zionist terrorism. Irgun and Lehi were a small minority of Jewish militants in the 1930s and 1940s, and the majority disagreed with and distanced themselves from violence against civilians. You can't equate Irgun or Lehi with Israel. Flip the tables and see if this merge still makes sense. Imagine a Palestinian state is formed and now on wikipedia there exists an article called Palestinian state terrorism, detailing every attack on civilians performed by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Izzadin al-Qassam, etc. Doesn't seem to make sense."
--Cypherx 08:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Cypherx. Two different subjects, two different articles. --FCYTravis 09:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as it is a very valid article subject. And keep seperate from Israeli terrorism as there is a distinction between the two. The Zionist movement and terrorist actions done by it existed before the state of Israel did. -CunningLinguist 08:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Zero, and XmarkX. -ÅfÇ++ 08:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Notable and encyclopedic. Terrorism by various stripes of Zionists is both real and well doccumented. Any effort to exclude this article is very anti-NPOV. Blackcats 09:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep no valid reasons offered for deletion. JamesBurns 10:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in line with many opther articles that deal with smallscale or fringe phenomena. Needs considerable cleanup, but probably deserves existence as counterpoint to the extraordinary proliferation of articles detailing violence against Israelis/Zionists. None of the justifications for deleting this article, if reversed, would be supported on those pages, so it needs to stand (albeit in a modifed form). illWill 11:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

  • Keep Though maybe edit. The Goldstein Massacre is certainly a terrorist act, ditto for the other acts mentioned in the post-state section. Deir Yassin is well-documented as well and is acknowledged by Israel. In general though, the existence of Zionist terror campaigns should not be disputed.Termite10 12:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE [I believe the article is POV]. STORM LEGION666 15:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (The text in brackets was originally written by Newkidd and has been refactored by android per WP:RPA.)
So what's the VfD protocol for posts like these? User is obviously a troll. Has made only 7 edits, all in different VfD pages. --Cypherx 16:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do not know, but I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like 'vandalism' to me. It seems very much like someone expressing an opinion. Perhaps it's being expressed crudely and impolitely, but it's still in essence a valid opinion and one which a lot of people share on some level, however it is phrased. Were his opinion to be cleaned up and profanity removed, it'd be acceptable, so I don't think it constitutes 'vandalism', if you read the description properly. Curiosity 17:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Curiosity, it's a clear troll user vote. He has no contributions outside making profane, derogatory, racist and homophobic attacks in the VFD space. If that doesn't fit your definition of vandalism, you have a very odd definition of the term. --FCYTravis 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm using the wikipedia definition, it doesn't fit! Curiosity 19:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete for reasons given above. --Briangotts 22:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. --Ttyre 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and major clean up with future Terrorism in Israel article - article itself is blatantly NPOV but the info is valid. For the record, everybody everywhere at all times has done crappy things to the planet and each other - no one country or group of people has been immune and it's silly to suggest otherwise. StopTheFiling 23:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Hillel 02:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up for NPOV. Frankchn 02:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it's pretty obvious that the article is dredging up obscure stories about defunct minority groups in order to smear modern Zionism. There is lots of room in the Anti-Zionism article for "anti-Zionism". IZAK 05:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete factual stuff belongs elsewhere; confusion of state and pre-state actions (however characterized) is improper. YKahn 17:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Seems to be enough legitimate content, however, it needs clean-up and NPOVing (if possible). Israeli terrorism, however, should be merged with State terrorism and deleted, IMO. Kaldari 22:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Also wish luck to the admin sorting out consensus. The page is now 48 KB long. w00t. JFW | T@lk 23:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the actions of Irgun and Lehi are amply covered in articles about them. Such an article is redundant to these and begs the question. --Leifern 00:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete(Weak Keep if we disambiguate the article by making it about pre-1948 terror by Zionist groups like Lehi, Irgun, and Haganah, the reasons, and the responses) - It seems odd to lump the actions of Lehi, Irgun, Haganah, Kach and Kahane Chai, and the Jewish Defense League together. These groups have nothing to do with each other except that they are Jewish groups - they would probably have radically different views of whether they or the others were Zionists, and had very different motivations for action, rather than a single philosophy. These incidents are covered in many places, and this article leaves open the question about whether any "terrorism" committed by Jews would not be considered "Zionist terrorism" -- would everything fit in this catagory? I think this is a case of the use of the word "Zionist" to mean "Jew", unless someone can convince me that this article could in some way be made meaningful. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lehi, Irgun, Haganah, Kach, and the JDL have all committed violence against those they viewed as enemies of the state of Israel. (the interpretation of this violence as terrorism can sometimes get very subjective). If some religious group such as Satmars or Neturei Karta, or perhaps some group of ultra-leftwing socialist Jews were committing violent acts, they could not be considered zionist terrorists. So no, I don't think the article is assuming that Zionist = Jew.

--Cypherx 05:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, Cypherx, that seems tenuous, we are basically saying that unless one of the two or three explicitly anti-Zionist Jewish groups commits acts of terrorism it will be Zionist terrorism? Lehi and Irgun did not necessarily engage in terrorist actions against "enemies of Israel" (leaving aside they were pre-State), they engaged in often brutal terrorism with the purpose of achieving certain political goals that were not always directly related to establishing a state, while Hagannah's "Hunting Season" (listed in the article) actually involved cooperation with the British against Irgun and Lehi. Meanwhile, Kach is probably best described as a Jewish extremist group, (or even a supremicist group) its ideology is not a Zionist one. The point is that I am not sure why these groups should be lumped together. I agree that the actions of groups like JDL, Lehi, and the Irgun were often terrorist acts, but it seems to me this grouping of all of them under "Zionist" doesn't make any logical sense, and that only Neturei Karta violence would be excluded among all Jewish violence. The article lumps together a wide range of motives and beliefs under the epithet "Zionist" implying that Baruch Goldstein is equivalent to the Haganah is equivalent to the Stern Gang in goals and methods, which is inaccurate. I can't see how it will be cleaned-up.--Goodoldpolonius2 12:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there's a fuzzy definition at work here. Is Zionism equivalent to Jewish nationalism? If yes, then the JDL (which concerns itself with Jews everywhere) can be grouped with Irgun, Lehi and Kach. Kach, unlike the JDL, is definitely a zionist group (by any definition of zionism). Their primary purpose is to expel arabs from Israel and establish a religious government there. Whether they're terrorists...I'm not sure, I've never seen anything except their support of Baruch Goldstein as evidence. --Cypherx 19:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The fuzzy definition is the problem. The meaning of the word "Zionist" in the context of terrorism is entirely unclear, and comes close to use as a epithet or propaganda, as can be seen in any Google search of Zionist + Terrorism. Again, this does not mean that terrorism was not used as a tactic by some Zionist organizations, but it implies (as Humus sapiens notes below) that terrorism was/is a primary tactic of Zionism and/or Jews. This article seems to include three unrelated topics: (1) the historical use of terrorism by Jewish groups in the Mandate against British and Arab targets (2) current groups that endorse terrorism as a tactic (JDL) and (3) controversal statements about Israeli state-sponsored terrorism. The first is historical (and covered in Lehi, etc), the second is about fringe criminals (and covered in JDL and other articles) and the third is controversal and politically charged (and the subject of many articles and fights in wikipedia) -- please explain why they should be in one article. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After Tomer's suggestion, I would change my vote to Keep if we make this article explicitly limited to pre-1948 terrorism (Topic #1 in my above paragraph), this avoiding politics and slurs.
  • Delete Almog 03:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 05:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep: cleanup and rename. We already have Zionism and racism so maybe Zionism and terrorism? The current title (and the contents) suggest that terrorism was/is main Zionist tactic. Far from truth: mainstream Zionist leaders repeatedly condemned terrorism and terrorist groups. "Killing of two British sergeants": not terrorism by definition. However if it's continued to be used as a political point scoring then delete. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per IZAK's argument above. -- Nahum 10:13, 16

Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, highly POV Barneygumble 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment by my count, 14 users vote STRONG, 35 vote unqualified, and 3 vote weak. Dystopos 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge / Rename after struggling through the strident and uncooperative arguments made here, I believe the best action would be to divide this subject into more verifiable subtopics. The aggregation itself is POV. The topic is still notable, though, and it is not automatically an act of hatred to discuss "Zionist terrorism". Dystopos 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and make sure that content makes clear that this is a Pre-1948 concept. Most people don't realize that a significant amount of Zionist terrorism was against other Jews almost at least as much as it was against the British and that only a small part of it was against Arabs, and then usually only in retaliation for Arab attacks on Jewish communities. All such discussion, however, should be taken up on Talk:Zionist terrorism, not on this VfD page. Tomer TALK 07:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's one of the better suggestions I've seen so far.illWill 09:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - my understanding is a VfD needs to be on the topic istelf, not on the current content or POV of an article. As such, the question is should an article on Zionist terrorism exist. It should. Saswann 13:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up as per Tomer. As for merging into Israeli terrorism, that article should itself be merged into State terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 16:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP, a notable topic and a worthy inventory. Atlant 23:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete what are the anti Israel people going to think of next? Kosher terrorim? --Diglewop 06:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have not heard the term mentioned anywhere in the media, does not seem like a legitimate topic , sounds like sort of propaganda term more than an actuality. --Fredwall 15:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is common opinion of various groups to consider the acts of the Israeli government as terrorist. Axon 17:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Are these groups' opinions academically verifiable or remotely encyclopædic? Tomer TALK 09:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sources & comments (please vote above this space)[edit]

Britain: Inteligence elements warned of Zionist terrorism

Following the attack on the King David Hotel, the British were afraid of a wave of terror to be operated by Jews in London: a recently exposed document now reveals that the police was issued an order to follow every Jew arriving from the Middle East.

British inteligence services followed in the 40s after all Jews arriving from Israel due to their fear of "international Zionist terrorism." From documents exposed from the MI5 Royal Inteligence Archive, it was discovered that this concern increased following following the famous terrorist attack that Etzel members committed in 1946 against British officers in the King David hotel in Jerusalem. (Walla/Ruetres) *** The Encyclopedia of Jewish History: Events and Eras of the Jewish People mentions that the Etzel's "terror versus terror" policy, "enabled extremist groups in the organization to commit terrorist acts and robberies on their own accord" (p. 158). It also states that the Lehi "committed many terrorist acts, directed towards the British" (p. 159) El_C 00:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what point is bring made, or what point should be made on this page. If the issue is whether Zionist groups did things that reasonable people would class as terrorism, then of course they did. What about the Irgun campaign in the late 1930s when several hundred Arab civilians were indiscrimately killed by bombs set off in public places like train stations and markets? Was that not terrorism? Similar things were done in the late 1940s. Morever, even the mainstream Jewish groups called it terrorism. The following is a typical public statement, from the Palestine Post of Dec 19, 1947. The Palestine Post was a major Jewish newspaper (later renamed to the Jerusalem Post) and the Vaad Leumi was a sort of governing body for Jewish affairs in Palestine. The "Yishuv" was the Jewish community in Palestine.

WARNING TO TERRORISTS
At an urgent meeting in Jerusalem yesterday, the Vaad Leumi Executive issued a strongly-worded warning to the terrorists that "the Yishuv will not permit them to destroy the new world we are about to build." The Executive stressed that, against its will, the Yishuv had been plunged by the terrorists into a whirlpool of blood which threatened political suicide at a time when the community was deeply concerned with its safety and security and the transition to independence. The statement continued: "In the face of abominable spilling of innocent blood in our streets, which cannot be condoned because of the repressions of an outgoing Government, the Yishuv will rouse itself to a renewed and intensified struggle against its destroyers, to save its honour, existence and future." --Zero 00:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My above translation/citation was in response to Slim's comment that: Acts before May 14, 1948 are more easily described as Zionist violence, as a clarification that they were seen as terroristic at the time, and also, I can't really find the current historiography taking issue with the term (though I am admittedly not familliar enough with it, so I refer to more knowledgable editors, such as Zero, Jay, and others, to better illustrate whether this is/isn't the case today). El_C 00:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi El C, sorry, I didn't write that clearly. I wasn't disputing the term "terrorism" for those acts (though I wouldn't use it myself, because I try not to use it at all), but I know the British used it. I was saying that, while acts of violence/terrorism before May 14, 1948 can be described as Zionist, once the state of Israel is established, it becomes harder, especially as time goes on, to say which acts are Zionist, and which Israeli i.e. the actions of a group of people trying to defend themselves, where it would seem odd to call the response Zionist. This matters because of the cut-off point of the article. May 14, 1948 is the only obvious one, but I can understand why others would see that as arbitrary. It's a tricky issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Gauging the neutrality of "Zionist Terrorism"[edit]

I think the term "Zionist terrorism" is more loaded than I originally suspected. Try doing a google search for "zionist terrorism", the results are of a uniform anti-Israel political bias and use the term in reference to actions of the current state of Israel, rather than its para-military predecessors. So perhaps this isn't a good name for an article after all. There definitely should be an article documenting the terrorist activities of Irgun and Lehi, but what's a less loaded name we could use? --Cypherx 16:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There already are articles documenting the activities of Irgun and Lehi (group) -- as neither group exists today, the list of "terrorist activities" can be included in their own source articles, rather than breaking them out pointlessly. The problem lies in the contention of the political movement of Zionism itself being categorized as terrorist, whereas it was only in the extremist quarters (and early history) of the founding of Israel that this was the case. By those standards, the American Revolution's Minutemen might be considered terrorists. --LeFlyman 17:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent, judging by the google results it seems clear that the common usage of "zionist terrorism" implies that zionst is terrorism and that all Israelis (and most Jews) are Zionist terrorists. This is definitely not the article we want to have. Still, I think Islamic terrorism is a valid term, even though it only a small minority of Muslims are terrorists. Similarly we need to think of a term for terrorism motivated by Zionist ideology, (carried out by Zionist groups) which does not associate all Zionists with terrorism. --Cypherx 18:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess we could use the same approach that people use to disasociate Palestiaian Terrorism with all Palestians - oh gosh - they dont! Perhaps we could try to not have a double standard for a while? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.15 (talk • contribs)

I wonder about the absolute equivalency people try to cast between the two groups. Terrorist organizations are powerful political forces in Palestinian society and repeated polls have shown a majority of Palestinians support violence against Israeli civilians. As you will notice Palestinian terrrorism currently has an NPOV notice because it's very hard to nail down what terrorism is and when it can be attributed to a group. So this isn't clear cut, but it's obvious to most people that violence commonly interpretted as terrorism has become a major part of Palestinian society, thus Palestinian terrorism is a valid term...though it must be applied carefully to not paint all Palestinians as terrorists or supporters of terrorists. In contrast terrorism plays a minor and mostly historical role in Zionism. Terrorist tactics were rejected by the mainstream Haganah and the groups that did employ terrorism (Lehi and Etzel) were much smaller and considered fringe. The post-Israel incidents of "Zionist terrorism" are very limited and in my opinion limited to actions of Kach and people associated with Kahane. --Cypherx 19:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to draw absolute equivalency. Clearly, terrorist acts by Zionists have been few and far between compared to modern Islamic terrorism. But just as clearly, terrorism has been a force in the history of Zionism, and arguably played a major role in forcing the British to re-evaluate their occupation of Palestine, much as the Marine Barracks Bombing arguably prompted the withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon. This deserves historical discussion. The fact that there was less of one than the other is irrelevant - the fact is, there is Islamic terrorism and there is Zionist terrorism. To delete or rename the article is tantamount to denying that Zionist terrorism ever existed. --FCYTravis 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was initially in favor of keeping the article but then discovered the term "zionist terrorism" has been co-opted. It does not mean terrorism committed by zionists such as Irgun or Lehi, but refers to actions of the current state of Israel that most people do not consider terrorism. For example, I think Compassionate Conservative describes a quaker...but tough luck, the term has been taken and its meaning can no longer be redeemed. Something similar has happened to zionist terrorism and we need to find a new term to describe it. --Cypherx

There is no such "separate" term-- it's 'just' terrorism. Creating a separate category of terrorism for militant Zionists is tantamount to the new anti-Semitism: "Misrepresenting Zionism or singling it out for obloquy." There is nothing in Zionism, as a movement, which promotes terrorist acts, while it may be argued that the contrary is true (to an extent) with a number of Islamic groups-- particularly of the fundamentalist perspective. However, I would urge caution when using a term like "Palestinian terrorism" as opposed to specifying the actual organization responsible-- such as Hamas or the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Finally, I think we have strayed from the vote into political discussions --LeFlyman 19:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is creating a separate category of terrorism for militant Islamists then tantamount to anti-Islamic hatred? --FCYTravis 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The argument could be made that certain aspects of modern Islam support and promote terrorism as a means to an end. See, for example, "The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism" (Policy Review, June 2004) and the contrasting article from the same issue, "The Psychological Sources of Islamic Terrorism" (by Michael J. Mazarr, professor of national security strategy at the U.S. National War College). Likewise, PBS's Frontline looked at "The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism" and noted that, "[I]n 1995 almost half of the identified [terrorist] groups, 26 out of 56, were classified as religiously motivated; the majority of these espoused Islam as their guiding force."

Now please find something in the mainstream that discusses so-called "Zionist terrorism" -- apart from anti-Semitic, conspiratorial or Islamic anti-Israel sites such as Radio Islam --LeFlyman 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://terrorism.about.com/od/timeline/a/timeline60.htm - reference to "zionist terrorist" http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9069635 - encyclopedia Britannica refers to Irgun as "Zionist Terrorists" http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/syriadenial.html - quotes a source using the phrase - though they seem to disapprove of it. http://www.worldpress.org/print_article.cfm?article_id=669&dont=yes - uses the phrase "zionist terrorist" http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=%22zionist+terrorism%22&x=0&y=0&scope=newsukfs&tab=news BBC shows several uses - usually in quotes.

The term is pretty clearly in common use - and not only with extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.15 (talk • contribs)

62.253.64.15, please sign your posts. It's very confusing when you don't. All it takes is four tildes. --Cypherx 07:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly can be zionist terrorists, and if the term "Zionist terrorism" were free of political connotations that's what we could call the collective phenomenon. Unfortunately the phrase already has politically charged meaning. In the links you provided "Zionist terrorism" is used by (1) Dr. Ian Steer, a nobody from Oxford writing a letter to the editor (2) Abdel Aziz Rantisi, Hamas spokesman (3) Al-Thawra, a Ba'ath party newspaper in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It's simply not a neutral term! If any mainstream, unbiased sources used "zionist terrorism" then it would be fine as the name of a wikipedia article. But that's simply not the case. Anyone describing "zionist terrorism" is clearly speaking about current Israeli actions and has a serious political agenda. Seriously, look through the google results: Google and try to find a disinterested party using the term "zionist terrorism". --Cypherx 22:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. Here are the 3 (!) BBC references noted, in context:
  • It quotes Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantisi as vowing to retaliate for the attack. "Hamas will escalate martyrdom operations inside Tel Aviv and Jaffa and Haifa and everywhere. We are determined to wipe out Zionist terrorism," Mr Rantisi is quoted as saying. ("MidEast press pessimism over intifada" 28 September, 2002)
  • "It takes the utmost in courage and integrity for a Jew to criticise Israeli behaviour and acknowledge Zionist terrorism past and present as one of the root causes of this conflict, together with Palestinian terrorism." (Dr Ian Steer, Oxford, Internet comments 6 December, 2001)
  • "We expect nothing but failure, despite the promises he might receive during his tour," Al-Thawra, the mouthpiece of the ruling Ba'ath Party, says in a front-page editorial...Blair's trip aims at "containing the Arab public's anger at Zionist terrorism in Palestine and the crusade being waged against Afghanistan," the paper says. (Mid-East papers sceptical over Blair tour, 1 November, 2001)
And the page from JewishVirtualLibrary quotes from an anti-Semitic article:
  • The editor of the Syrian Regime's daily, Tishrin, Muhammad Kheir Al_Wadi, wrote an article (January 31, 2000) in which he denies the Holocaust and accuses Zionism of being worse than Nazism... "While history turned the page on the Nazi acts, the Zionist terrorist acts reached their peak. They committed massacres against innocent people and led a policy of aggression and expansion. This is the plague of the twentieth century that was passed to the third millennium and it spread destruction in every place it reached...
Pretty clear biased material, and yes, what was found was out of the mainstream. --LeFlyman 07:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I notice you have totally ignored the reference from Britannica and About.com.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/timeline/a/timeline60.htm - reference to "zionist terrorist" http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9069635 - encyclopedia Britannica refers to Irgun as "Zionist Terrorists"

Are these both clearly biased?

What about the Guardian Newspaper? http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,960951,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,,1109213,00.html 62.253.64.14 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, "zionist terrorist" (the term used in both your links) still means what it appears to mean...that is a terrorist who is zionist. "zionist terrorism" has become a politically charged codeword for military actions of the modern state of Israel. "Zionist terrorism" is what we're debating on this site, and unfortunately its only usage is found among people with a strong anti-Israel agenda. It's too biased to be the title of an encyclopedia article. --Cypherx 19:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not, however, disagreeing that there were zionist terrorists, or that we should have an article about them. We just need to find a NPOV name. --Cypherx 19:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that there are terrorists but no terrorism? An interesting point of view. I'm sorry it's starting to look like we're jumping thropugh hoops in order to make a point here. 62.253.64.14 19:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying there were terrorists, there was terrorism, but when you put the words together to form "zionist terrorism" you've made a statement of political belief. I don't like it, I wish we could use the term because it would make our lives easier, but seriously, I ask again: try to find a single disinterested party in the Google search for "zionist terrorism". There are none. If we named an article "zionist terrorism" it would be inherently tainted with POV. --Cypherx 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also don't dispute that actions of the Irgun and Lehi groups were akin to terrorist activities in the years prior to Israeli statehood. These groups, which were rightly termed "Zionist" no longer exist. The JDL, which is not a "Zionist" organization, hasn't done anything of note in the last 20 years, unless you count attacking each other. Even the Anti-Defamation League has a page detailing the JDL's sordid antics. The problem, as noted by Cypherx, is that the title imputes an ongoing form of terrorism that is Zionist in nature-- which is a political epithet. Thus, I have a suggestion for a more neutral title: "Militant Zionism" -- which semantically makes more sense, modifying the form of Zionism, rather than creating a Zionist category of "terrorism" --LeFlyman 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support that in principle, as its a lot more descriptive, although a lot of the debate here seems to be about sematic equivalency. For example, is it fair to have a page that is headed 'Militant Zionism' describing Irgun etc. and not change the equivalent pages on other groups? I would personally favour changing 'terrorism' to 'militancy' in every instance, but I'd like to see somebody try it without a lot of time on their hands. illWill 20:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm also starting to feel that the word "terrorism" itself is perhaps too loaded to be useful for wikipedia. We should delete the "______ terrorism" articles. Even when I consider a group like Islamic Jihad (who to me are clearly terrorist) I have to acknowledge that some of their actions can be classed as non-terrorist militancy (attacks on checkpoints). Now the way I divide terrorist and non-terrorist actions depends heavily on my POV. I don't think we can ever manage a satisfactory NPOV definition of terrorism. So why not drop the judgement of the action let the readers judge for themselves? --Cypherx 20:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Definitely, I think the any discussion of this topic will always stumble because the term 'terrorism' is inherently POV - I can't think of any type of military action that doesn't produce 'terror'. Also, I could think of numerous armies, groups and factions whose broad aims I support (including the allies in WW2) who have committed actions that I would describe as 'terrorist'.illWill 00:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking about this at work today. I agree that the vast majority of the use of the term "Zionist Terrorist" is by people who condemn their actions - these tend to be on the "sympathetic to -> rabid support of" the Palestinian cause. But then I got to thinking - how many articels have I ever seen that use the phrase "palestinian terrorist", or "IRA terrorist" that are not written by people who oppose their actions and usually the cause they stand for. You just dont write "our brave terrorists went out and killed a bunch of people today - hurrah!" do you? As such if one is going to condone the use of the word in one context (palestinian, IRA, shining path etc) then it's more than a little out of balance to refuse to use it just because in your moral viewpoint they are doing something wrong. 62.253.64.15 19:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about amending the article to reflect that Zionist terrorism is historical?[edit]

In line with many of the comments made on this page, maybe the article should be amended to reflect the fact that, historically, Zionist terrorism has existed, but there are no longer any active groups. Material relatiing to kach should be mentioned, but forked off to the main article.

Like many people here, I think the material here belongs in State terrorism or whatever is closest, but I don't think we should delete the article as it allows the Israeli side to occupy the moral high ground in any discussion of terrorism ie. terrorism is a tactic which only the palestinians would stoop to. I don't think either side should be allowed to occupy the moral high ground, even if it does mean too many articles.illWill 20:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism Articles[edit]

I'm still somewhat new to the community, can someone suggest to me how to have a wiki-wide vote on limiting the use "_____ terrorism" on wikipedia (especially in article names)? --Cypherx 05:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I just saw Christian terrorism and it's also pretty bad)

I dont know if you can - but you'd get my vote! it's a silly title for an article - but use it once - you have to be consistent. 62.253.64.15 19:49, 16 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.

Dont Delete this Article[edit]

Pls dont delete this article. We will expand this article in abetter manner. Abulfazl 10:49, 11 August 2006 (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 DELETE. Golbez 01:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Third Battalion[edit]

Rather whimsical article about a de facto fanclub for British Sea Power (a pop group). What do they do? They wear uniforms and go to a nearby pub. All jolly good sixth-form fun, I'm sure, but of such stunning importance that Google has only 43 hits for "third battalion" and "british sea power". This really is feeble by the standards of British Sea Power fandom, considering that Google has about 101,000 for guitar and "british sea power". If this article were named, say, "Third Battalion of British Sea Power", I'd suggest merging with British Sea Power, but I can easily imagine that there is, or could later be, a BSP-unrelated, encyclopedic "third battalion", and creation of an article on that would then require disambiguation, etc. So I'll say that although the existence of the BSP "third battalion" is verifiable, it's significance is peculiarly low, akin to that of the many gaming forums and the like about which articles are routinely created but promptly VfDd and deleted. -- Hoary 02:41, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Delete - Sounds like it's very interesting to those who participte, but it's not encyclopedic. --FCYTravis 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, i'll put it on the actual BSP page then. --Ebz 09:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 10:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A particular club rather. Geogre 12:03, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The distinction of illusions[edit]

A '"melodramatic" and "purely nihilistic"' essay. Its contributor's user name suggests that he may be same as its author, making this vanity; even if not, the most generous fate I can see for the article is a move to Wikisource. --Cryptic (talk) 02:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • As of June 2005, only one third of the total essay has been published to the public. Ah. Then two thirds of it is unverifiable. Look, this stuff is soporific twaddle; why even raise the possibility of wasting server space at Wikisource with it? Delete. -- Hoary 02:53, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
    • Because googling raised a (slim) possibility of there being a notable Cameron Thurber out there, and philosophy isn't my cup of tea - I'm afraid it all looks like soporific twaddle to me. Also note that I marked the article {{vfd}}, not {{move to Wikisource}}. :) --Cryptic (talk) 03:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No personal essays per WP:NOT. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay/rant. — Gwalla | Talk 04:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I actually read this entire (portion of an) essay. If the writer is under 15, he might have a bright future. There is, however, nothing remotely encyclopedic about this. Xoloz 05:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable essay. Eric119 05:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with Xoloz, but I'm a little less sanguine, as I think many, many very bright people think these thoughts at about that age. It's good for him, but it's a rite of passage. Deep Thoughts. Geogre 12:05, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vile (Hip Hop) & Subpages[edit]

Not notable. Possible vanity. It failed the Google test with "Jose Estrada" Vile. Then it failed the All Music Guide test, there is an entry called "Vile" that is categorized as "rap" but I don't think AMG is trying to imply him. AMG doesn't list the hip hop band "BORED". The subpages are also nominated by me: Tha Creation* IMG., Hitlah, Lucki Charmz, R.I.P. Imani and Imani Asikari. Chill Pill Bill 02:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all. Vanity. JamesBurns 10:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All as unverifiable, likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Looks like Kiddie Taunts. Unverifiable, likely libel pages. Geogre 12:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all nn vanity. --Etacar11 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. As a hip-hopper, I feel qualified to say, in the grand tradition of Das Efx, that this entry is wiggidy-wack. Somebody had better check themselves. jglc | t | c 20:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete. Ok first of all jasonglchu, i don't know who ur trying to pass off as, but that whole little "gangsta" slang term is annoying, and secondly, Imani is a factual person, if u don't believe me then go to his myspace: http://www.myspace.com/ripztah it shows 3 of his latest songs. Remember that Imani, Vile, Hitlah, Lucki Charmz are underground rappers who are trying to get recognition, so i posted this article to get their name in the spotlight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.102.142 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 Jun 2005
    • You, sir, obviously can't see further than the basement or garage in which you and your pathetic buddies record your music on a Fisher-Price microphone. Das Efx is about as far from gangsterism as one can get in the spectrum of hip-hop, being idealogical cousins to the Native Tongues movement, and such artists as De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest. Who I'm trying to "pass myself off as" is a scholar of hip-hop, from Grand Mixer DXT all the way up to Aesop Rock and Eyedea. Go learn some history, then come correct. jglc | t | c 01:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - People included in Wikipedia should ideally have had their 15 minutes already, and it certainly shouldn't be for those who really want their 15 minutes or more but haven't got them yet. StopTheFiling 23:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete - In my neighborhood Imani & his posse are very well known and i think that it should remain in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.102.142 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 Jun 2005
  • Deletion Not Necessary - I believe just because these kids arent as popular as Snoop Dogg does not mean we should delete this article. thewiz | thewiztalk | 04:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is user's first edit jglc | t | c 01:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Let's see. Snoop Dogg is a recording artist who has had record contracts with several different high-profile recording companies, and has released albums in collaboration with several of hip-hop's most well-known personalities, producers, and emcees. "these kids," on the other hand, are "well known" in somebody's neighborhood. Which one would be included in an encyclopaedia...? jglc | t | c 01:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Defenders essentially admit they're not notable. carmeld1 01:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's Comprimise Imani Asikari & Tha Creation* Family are working on the R.I.P. Imani Album, it is going to be released on CD Babythis summer I think. I suggest wikipedia keeps the article for the rest of the summer or for atleast like 3 weeks and if the album is not released yet we ban the creator of the article for creating 8 hoax articles, but if the Album releases then we keep the articles. How's that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.100.49 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 Jun 2005
    • Let's Compromise: You stop being a sock (or meat) puppet, and an admin deletes your article. How's that? jglc | t | c 01:32, 19 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Zero (shirt)[edit]

Delete. Rather trivial info which is already present in the Bullet with Butterfly Wings article, and I say this as both a huge Smashing Pumpkins fan and an owner of said shirt (though I imagine it's a bit too small for me now). Unlikely as a search term, so I don't believe a redirect is necessary. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:54, Jun 14, 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.

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 redirect of a title with typo

careau_fluid[edit]

I have accidently created a page name careau fluid, instead of a real one carreau_fluid abakharev 02:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I have been bold, and made the above mentioned article into a redirect. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 03:03, Jun 14, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

On The Playground[edit]

Claims to be published in one local paper. That's more than most web comics can claim, but there are only about 40 Google hits outside its own site. I'd say that it's not notable at this point. --Xcali 03:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It certainly has been published in that paper. I'd say just for that it should be allowed its own entry. Also, (if this is a factor,) it's been Websnarked. Jigglyman 14:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The above is the creator of the article in question. User's ID was created in July of 2004, but made only one edit between then and today, when all edits have been to this page or the article. RickK 21:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: A single paper picking it up is webcomix*infinity, granted, but it's a single paper. My view is that it should be syndicated or at least of regional, rather than local, importance before it is an encyclopedia topic. Geogre 14:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Geogre, weak delete. Radiant_>|< 14:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a local paper. The local paper near me occasionally prints the drawings fourth-graders from the local middle school draw. 'nuff said. jglc | t | c 20:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Oh holy hell. I read the article, and the creator of the strip in question is actually 12. I was just joking when I made my first comment about fourth-graders, but this has got to go, now. jglc | t | c 13:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. --Carnildo 21:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable. carmeld1 01:14, 17 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.

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 SPEEDIED — Gwalla | Talk 22:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Vultar Cataclysm[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Appears to be some event in the Star Wars "Expanded Universe". Article is a mess. — Gwalla | Talk 03:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete without source. Google finds 632 hits for Vultar, but none that appear to be related to Star Wars.-LtNOWIS 03:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Pretend that you don't know Star Wars Expanded Universe of Marketing and read the article. It'll look exactly like nonsense. Anyway, such are the perils of fictions written without indication. Geogre 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be real in the Star Wars Universe: [5], but this is just badly written cruft. --Etacar11 18:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Look at that last paragraph -- "His middle name was Luke Warm Skywalker", "Luke Skywalker invented a time-machine and took it back to the Ajunta Paul times and was killed by him, but Luke was half cat and had 4 1/2 lives" --Carnildo 21:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I admit the parts I could make sense of were moderately interesting, then again, the intriguing ideas of Yoda possibly being a former dark jedi floated out of my head upon reading that Luke Warm Skywalker is really half cat. StopTheFiling 00:02, Jun 15, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

16 Days 'til the Rest of Your Life[edit]

This film does not appear on the Internet Movie Database, nor do its director or its lead actor have IMDb entries. A Google search yields 28 hits, most of which appear to be either Wikipedia mirrors or resumes of the cast and crew. Even though the film exists, it appears too obscure to be encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 03:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Smells like Vanity to me. Or a commercial. --feitclub 06:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/promotional piece. Mgm|(talk) 09:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. It looks too much like a real thing to be vanity, but it also looks too well done to be anything but advertising. Geogre 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad. If it's only been at festivals and it's not in IMDB yet, that means no one has seen it and it hardly merits an article yet. --Etacar11 18:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • And 16 Days has been made a redirect to this article. --Etacar11 18:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant advertising. StopTheFiling 00:04, Jun 15, 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.

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joi Ito[edit]

  • Delete Vanity Page --70.19.111.5 03:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He seems pretty notable and note that this page was started by Jimbo Wales Himself... can you really argue with him? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy ... and only because Jimbo Wales was involved... otherwise, it needs MAJOR edits --Bloghate 05:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Joichi Ito is a major figure in the recent history of Internet technologies, particularly in Japan. Through his writing, networking, and advocacy, he's fueled a great number of notable social and software inventions. JustinHall 06:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough to me since Ive heard of him quite a bit and I am by no means very technology/business oriented. Needs cleanup though. -CunningLinguist 07:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist. VfD vandalism by IP address 70.19.111.5 who is working hand in glove with User:Bloghate. [6] [7] —RaD Man (talk) 08:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per given reasons. Mgm|(talk) 09:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. But I'm not convinced that this is vandalism, and please don't remove VFD notices. Radiant_>|< 10:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep looks plenty notable to me, regardless of original creator. -- Jonel 16:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable person, is even listed amongst other famous people/Wikipedians.--Kross 17:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and note that this VfD was started by an anonymous user Him(or Her)self... can you really believe him or her? jglc | t | c 20:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please he seems famous Yuckfoo 21:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Would be vain to vote to keep. ;-) --Joi 23:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. James F. (talk) 23:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In fact, I don't really care. I'm not sure the policy of keeping, deleting makes a lot of sense. If it's really an issue for the wikipedians, why not creating a people.wikipedia.org accepting every _individual_ who's not opposed to be on it. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:KarlDubost
  • Keep And look into a way to prevent Vfd (a useful feature) from being used for time-wasting trollery like this. If this were a serious attempt to cull non-wiki-worthy bloggers, it wouldn't have started with notables like Joi, Anil, and Hoder. Betsy Devine
  • Keep. Ted
  • Keep Joi is at least important enough to have articles written about him in magazines and newspapers. It would seem to be good to have him included on Wikipedia incase anybody ever reads about him and thinks to look here for more information. Grant
Comment: A troll listing by an IP. Why wasn't this simply removed at once? Dan100 (Talk) 08:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Because we assume good WP:FAITH and consider the possibility that the nominator was simply mistaken, rather than trolling. Xe made about eight nominations, several of which made perfect sense. This one, less so, hence consensus to keep. Radiant_>|< 08:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm with Betsy Devine; the attempt to go after some of the best known and most influential early bloggers seems to indicate an anti-blog jihad, not a genuine concern for the quality of wikipedia. Mamamusings 19:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Joi is worthy of a Wikipedia entry --NikCubrilovic 03:20, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. --Andy M. 10:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Joi plays a prominent role in a wide variety of political, technological, and financial spheres. There's no way his entry should be deleted. -- AKMA
  • Keep I came here to look up information about Joi, and I am puzzled as to how such an influential member of the digerati could be put up for deletion. In order to regard Joi as too unimportant to keep, you would have to delete most of the blogosphere, which is apparently what the anonymous coward was trying to do. -- Skyfaller 03:40, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
  • Keep seems an interesting fellow - Aaronbrick 04:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Joi is a notable person. - ioerror Sun Jun 19 23:37:06 PDT 2005
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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sharon Kelley[edit]

Looks like vanity. I get no relevant Google hits. I only noticed this article after processing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Douglas Darkwater because that vanity article on Darkwater linked to this one on Kelley. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete There's no room for bloggers in Wikipedia. --Bloghate 05:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • She's not a blogger, and you're a bit obsessed. StuTheSheep 05:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Amateur artist, I gather, with online representation, but no shows now. Geogre 14:56, 14 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.

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 no consensus. —Xezbeth 15:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Al-Muhajabah[edit]

  • Delete Spam 70.19.111.5 03:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy if possible then Delete seems like a vanity page (note the list of personal web pages). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no room for bloggers in Wikipedia. --Bloghate 05:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Alexa: 203,315. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Al-Muhajabah is part of an extremely influential software company, Six Apart, and her blog covers a unique niche. I'd also like to note that this nomination for deletion seems to be part of a campaign of such nominations by suspected double user User:70.19.111.5 and User:Bloghate. --ElfWord 07:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD vandalism by IP address 70.19.111.5 who is working hand in glove with User:Bloghate. [8] [9] —RaD Man (talk) 08:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete smells like vanity. JamesBurns 10:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete reads like vanity, Alexa score way too low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established (and please do not the remove VFD notice template). Radiant_>|< 10:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Her website "veiled4allah" gets 52,000 hits on Google. She is definitely notable. Also, though it may "read like vanity" to some (not to me), it was created by a frequent Wikipedia contributor, not someone who came on once or twice and just posted this article. DS1953 14:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability established. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough, and a unique perspective worthy of mention for the tiny cost of keeping this article. --Unfocused 15:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE WORTHLESS PRO-ISLAM BLOG STORM LEGION666 15:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, STORM LEGION666. I've noticed that, with you're newly created user account, you've already managed to cast votes much like this one in seven vfd's (although you've done nothing else). -- BD2412 talk 16:25, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sock puppet user, likely (one can hope) will be blocked --LeFlyman 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's plenty of room for bloggers in Wikipedia; this woman is certainly more likely to be looked up than, say, Robert Harkness is. Eliot 16:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nonnotable person. mikka (t) 16:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While I have no issue with notable/renowned blogs/bloggers being on Wikipedia (such as the Baghdad Blogger), this one just doesn't cut it. This is a promotional article, not encyclopedic.. --LeFlyman 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we have room for this one Yuckfoo 18:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like non-notable.  Grue  17:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --but make into a redirect with actual name of the woman for the bio. [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 06:25, 18 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.

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. —Xezbeth 15:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Anil Dash[edit]

  • Delete No personal vanity page here! randomhater (There is no user named randomhater; page history shows this comment was added at the top of discussion on June 15 by anonymous user 216.27.176.184. User:Betsythedevine
  • Delete Vanity Page 70.19.111.5 03:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no room for bloggers in Wikipedia. --Bloghate 05:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. There are 270 blogger-related articles on Wikipedia at this very moment. See Category:Bloggers. Anil Dash is VP of the company which owns LiveJournal, amongst other things. This entry is notable, verifiable and NPOV. No valid reason given for deletion by the anonymous nominator. My vote is to keep and delist from VfD as an invalid nomination. —RaD Man(talk) 05:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: User:Bloghate was created the same day this article was posted to VfD. Probable sock puppet as the user migrated immediately to VfD and this particular vote was their 8th edit. [10] —RaD Man(talk) 05:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Keep Sounds worth an entry, and User:Bloghate has a bit of an agenda. StuTheSheep 05:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - to nullify agenda-filled voter. --FCYTravis 06:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that there seems to be a noticeable overlap between the contributions(which all seem to be votes for deletion) of User:70.19.111.5 and User:Bloghate. Not sure where to report this, but it should be addressed. As to the issue at hand, Anil is one of the leading contributors to current online technologies as Vice President of notable software company Six Apart. Keep and Delist--ElfWord 07:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy person. Mgm|(talk) 09:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - not because she blogs, but because she's vice-pres of a major company. Radiant_>|< 10:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Side note: Anil is male. --4.38.40.52 00:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. DS1953 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Regardless of the motives of the VfD nominator, I think this particular person is not an encyclopedic topic at this time. There are more vice presidents than sands on the beach. We need, IMO, something unique and notable. Geogre 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • LiveJournal has more registered users then Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden or Switzerland have citizens. That's not notable? -153.18.146.28 18:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper.Bbpen 20:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Anil was one of the notable personalities and business people of the personal online publishing revolution of the early 2000s. Something profound is happening to the way people express themselves and use the media, and Anil, he is at the center of that. JustinHall 22:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent person in online circles.Capitalistroadster 23:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If blogs are important enough, Anil is important enough. Uttaddmb 00:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See above. — Adam Conover † 01:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just started reading RSS and bloggers - given the history on this page and his role as a seminal player in this new arena, he deserves the mention. User:BobNovak2154 10:10 Jun 14, 2005 EST
  • Keep. I don't think anything should ever be deleted from Wikipedia. As long as the information is correct, it should stay no matter how trivial it is. Slightlymanic Stephen Collins

Keep!

  • Keep! Anil is notable, interesting, and wikiworthy. User:Betsythedevine
  • Delete as per George. JamesBurns 05:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! Anil is an important figure at one of the leading blogging technology companies, responsible for LiveJournal, Movable Type and TypePad. User:ianbetteridge
  • Keep! Anyone who can get a goatse.cx t-shirt into the new york times deserves canonization, let alone 1.5K of markup on wikipedia.

(Minor) Delete!!!

  • Delete I really dont think he is that important a person who needs a mention on wikipedia.As has been already said there are lots of VPs and good number of them have done wonders, livejournal having a more users that citizens in some countries isn't really a good reason to add livejournal's vp to wikipedia.Also a good deal of whatever he writes isn't useful to common public anyway. by Badrinath.V.S
  • Strong keep. Anil was one of the early webloggers and that he continues to this day is amazing, and he's still one of the most high-profile ones. This, more than his position within a company, should certainly net him a place on Wikipedia if it's true that 270 other webloggers are listed. (On a side note, this concept of condemning anything containing the four letters "blog" in combination is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. What if someone registered "Gamehate" and went on to kill all pages with one-off Mario RPG characters?) Wootest 08:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No one accomplishment may warrant his inclusion but the sum of them make him a noteworthy and recognizable figure on the Internet landscape. The page is NPOV and I doubt it is an attempt to push publicity like an artist or somesuch. --michaelfavia 16:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm disturbed by [User:Bloghate]'s attempt to delete pages of well-known and influential people in the context of an important emerging technology. Should we delete Jimbo Wales' page because he's "only" the creator of wikipedia? SixApart is a significant company in the context of computing today, and Anil has been an influential voice in the development of weblogs. Mamamusings 19:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because there are "lots of VPs" doesn't mean that Anil's work isn't worthy. If the only reason he was listed was because "he's a VP", then there's scant _information_ that adds to the body of knowledge of the Wikipedia. He's listed because he's "done something" and has been part of the formation of a new body of work, a new mechanism for communication and a new style for communication; and that would seem to be sufficient. On a side note, look at how many people have opinions on him. This doesn't suggest to me that he's a non-entity.
  • Delete (minor) if "Dash is known for his love of all things Prince, and his encyclopedic knowledge of music breaks" is what passes for wikiworthiness these days, then fine, keep it. Or mebbe he needs to come in here and blow loud and hard his own horn. He's a likeable, intelligent person but *on his own* hasn't really "done anything" noteworthy that future generations really oughta know about. I mean, there's still Google (and his own blog). You can still find him if you want to.
    • The rest of this article is fine with me, and I do agree that that one sentence does not make him "wikiworthy". But one bad sentence is a reason to re-edit the article, not delete it entirely! Wootest 10:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly notable in the field of social software. I'll admit that some of the current content is subtrivial, and it doesn't help to have supporters here who don't know his gender (are they confusing him with Mena Trott?). And I'll grant that this field is often easier for us to cover; however, the fact that we should have articles on comparable people in other fields, but don't, is not a valid argument for getting rid of this one. --Michael Snow 05:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a pure vanity page and not relevant in encyclopaedic terms. By all means have an entry for Movable Type or LiveJournal as landmarks of the Internet, but personalities should stay out. Either that or let everyone have their own vanity page, as everyone contributes to life in their own way! -- Gashdot 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 [UTC]
  • keep please but take out the love of music parts Yuckfoo 18:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keepand Comment. Atleast Anil Dash finds this somewhat amusing. [11] :)--Kross 18:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep To my view part of the purpose and value of wikipedia above and beyond traditional encyclopedias is that it documents and explains emerging and obscure trends in culture and media, and provides a fairly authoritative source to point people to where there often isn't otherwise one. Blogging fits that bill, and Anil is certainly a prominent enough blogger to make the cut.jddunn
  • Keep. Krypton is doomed. EurekaLott 22:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep - One wonders how many notable accomplishments those voting to delete have accrued? [[User:Fabartus| User:fabartus || TalktoMe]] 06:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I've heard of him, I could tell you various things about him, and I've never once visited or read his blog. Clearly notable. --John Kenneth Fisher 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Well-known blogger. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:24, Jun 21, 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.

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. —Xezbeth 15:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hossein Derakhshan[edit]

  • Delete Vanity Page 70.19.111.5 03:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems this was created by User:Hoder, who hasn't created a user page of his own. So this would count as vanity, but it's been NPOV'ed by other users. For right now, I'd say this should be Userfied to Hoder. -- Grev -- Talk 04:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no room for bloggers in Wikipedia. --Bloghate 05:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Keep and delist. VfD vandalism by IP address 70.19.111.5 who is working hand in glove with User:Bloghate. [12] [13] —RaD Man (talk) 08:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable journalist. Mgm|(talk) 09:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. DS1953 14:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I found articles on this guy in BBC and Wired in no time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:38, 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.

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 merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Shieldship[edit]

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. A vehicle from the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Nominator abstains from voting. — Gwalla | Talk 04:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< 10:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. -- Jonel 16:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Delete. Honestly, do we need another article for the Revvel model of it? Sorry, but it's all so discouraging when people don't even look for the proper locations of their favorite things and just start plugging away, and then we have to do the merge to prevent deletion. Geogre 16:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Yes, it is discouraging that they can't be bothered to put things in the proper place, but that doesn't mean we should obliterate their well-intentioned and good-faith attempt to improve the 'pedia. -- Jonel 17:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: If I believed the motives were improvement of our encyclopedia, I wouldn't get so cranky. I think the "slap it wherever, whenever, however" philosophy undermines such an assumption, though. Geogre 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • If you have doubts about people's motives, I prescribe a dose of assuming good faith. Kappa 21:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. carmeld1 01:45, 17 Jun 2005 (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 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 information - I have a roughly even spread of keeps and merges; therefore, I'm saying that there is no clear consensus between the two and further discussion of whether to merge the article should take place on the talk page. -- Jonel | Speak 06:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anti-worm[edit]

There is no such thing as an "anti-worm". What is described in this article is just a worm with a different effect. Within the computer security industry (of which I am a part), the term "anti-worm" is most often used in the same sense as "anti-virus". --Xcali 04:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete seems more like original research there... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, the article provides a reference that does indeed refer to these things by this name, whilst Xcali does not. Given that they are "just a worm with a different effect", Merge to computer worm, where there is a small discussion of "benevolent" worms already. Uncle G 11:33, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Merge per Uncle G. — Gwalla | Talk 16:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Computer worm. JamesBurns 07:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Computer worm. Project2501a 00:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Anti-worms" is a newly coined term, and have been implemented on and off for the past 5 years. Anti-worms are far different than a regular computer worm and deserve their own section. Perhaps a reference from the computer worms article should be made here. Unsigned edit by 67.171.51.118 (talk · contribs).

  • Keep No reason really. It just seems fascinating. Muijzo 01:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I wrote this article and I will be expanding on it shortly. When I add-on to the article, it will more than deserve its own article. --Ebradsha 01:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like real term.  Grue  17:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Radiant_>|< 19:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that it should stay put. Unsigned edit by 67.171.51.118 (talk · contribs).
    • Sorry, one vote per customer, please. Also note that the above user has repeatedly attempted to remove the VfD tag from the article. --Xcali 06:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Given that it looks like this article is going to be kept, I've just undertaken an almost complete rewrite of the article to remove unfactual information and to explain the example better. I also added a "Criticism" section in an attempt to balance things out. I've tried to keep things factual and balanced, but given that I have a strong opinion on this matter as a computer security professional, someone else should probably take a look at it to make sure it meets NPOV guidelines. --Xcali 06:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Computer worm. Nothing in this article (Xcali's version or the previous one) establishes that anti-worms are distinct from worms, except in their intent. It's had its week on VfD and major expansion hasn't happened. (Xcali, thanks for your additions.) FreplySpang (talk) 13:30, 21 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Revista Tropico[edit]

Seems like websitecruft or advertising to me. <200 hits. --Xcali 04:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pointless. What next? An article describing the article about the minor website? --Ian Pitchford 10:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 10:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 16:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. --Etacar11 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted "", it might be also a good idea to delete Alcino Leite Neto (deleted from WP:PT as vanity page). -- Get It 21:02, 14 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.

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. —Xezbeth 12:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Mike MacDowel[edit]

non-notable XmarkX 04:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wha? He rode around a track. Perhaps, if that particular race has an entry within the article on that year's F1 season, he would be in the "also raced" section, but I doubt it. Geogre 16:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, doesn't merit his own article. --Etacar11 18:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Formula One driver. One race, Rouen, 1957, nul points. He gets an entry. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - There's more to be said about him, a google test picks up 13,000 results and there are relatively few formula 1 drivers around, it's quite an elite sport. -- Joolz 19:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Dan | Talk 00:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same as any other F1 driver. Elite sportsperson, even if his career was only one race. Quale 06:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Contesting even a single Grand Prix is notable. Not many people have done that. Pburka 00:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Agree with the above reasons. --Andylkl (talk) 12:33, Jun 20, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. I've speedied it as blatant advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffrey Crothers[edit]

Wikipedia is not an advertising service! Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 03:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Next!...I mean, Delete. I don't think "one of histories [sic] greatest actors" would still be looking for "his big break." --Xcali 04:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Bubye... There's no room for ads in Wikipedia. --Bloghate 05:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent vanity; should be speediable, IMO. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious ad and vanity. --ElfWord 07:52, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Darth Kryptous and Tim Okah[edit]

Hoaxes. No google hits for "Darth Kryptous", "Len Antilles" or "Tim Okah"; the only hits for "Wes Antilles" are for forum handles. "Cooper Ide" gets some hits, but "Cooper Ide" (Star OR Wars) gets nothing relevant. Both articles contradict our Darth Bane as well. --Cryptic (talk) 03:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I have heard something about Darth Bane, and about Tim Okah, but nothing about Darth Kryptous, it shuld be deleted, but not the other two.
  • Delete - unverifiable. --FCYTravis 05:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be entirely made-up. I know from personal knowledge this character isn't present in any of the Star Wars expanded universe novels. Possibly a fan-fiction author trying to sneak characters from his works into Wikipedia. --ElfWord 07:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Very likely a private fiction, if not buddy jokes. Geogre 16:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is fanon. --Imperialles 12:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, and unlikely. --maru 04:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-canon character.--Kross 08:39, Jun 17, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kingsley peiris[edit]

Really short article and get's little relavent hits on google [15] as well as not showing anything that meets WP:MUSIC. Delete. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails wiki guidelines. JamesBurns 10:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails most criteria, including my law. Geogre 16:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable. mikka (t) 23:02, 14 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.

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. JeremyA 00:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Star Map[edit]

Should be merged into KOTOR and or deleted if anything. Non-notable game object.Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that anything that is merged cannot be deleted as it needs its edit history preserved. (See: Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion) - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • As the KOTOR article is set up right now (with no real game information), I vote to just delete this. Frankly, I'm surprised a legitimate star map article hasn't been written yet. -- Grev -- Talk 04:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • This stub is too vague. It should be re written or merged or deleted! delete Leningrad
  • Delete: Sheesh! I played the game, won it a few times, and there is absolutely no way that anyone would be searching for an article on this. For pity's sake, it's just a game thing. Play the game, don't talk about it. Geogre 16:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A star map is, technically, a map of stars that appears in any number of science fiction books, games and films. Delete and redirect to Interstellar_travel. Radiant_>|< 08:59, Jun 15, 2005 (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 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. —Xezbeth 12:15, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Drum[edit]

  • Comment I think this explains our plethora of new user voters. Oh, love the blog, keep up the good work. - Jersyko talk 03:45, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete suspecting spam 70.19.111.5 04:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was going to vote delete, but he does get 617,000 google hits, and they are mostly relevant. And he has a magazine column. I'm thinking its more of a question of if it can be expanded beyond a stub. I'd rather not vote...yet. --Phroziac (talk) 04:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no room for bloggers in Wikipedia. --Bloghate 05:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems to be a reasonably notable blogger now with a column. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable columnist/blogger, though I think describing Drum as "level-headed" is POV. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The large number of new users coming out of the woodwork to vote keep on this is tempting me to change my vote. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A well-known figure in his field, and there are hundreds of other (less notable) bloggers with entries. StuTheSheep 05:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - High-profile and noted political blogger. --FCYTravis 06:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Besides his notable amount of traffic as a blogger, his column in the Washington Monthly is certainly notable. An influential political commentator. The entry needs expansion, not deletion. --ElfWord 07:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD vandalism by IP address 70.19.111.5 who is working hand in glove with User:Bloghate. [16] [17] —RaD Man (talk) 08:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable magazine columnist. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain please expand article to establish notability, at present it doesn't. Radiant_>|< 10:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, even though he dissed wikis the other day. Eliot 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since he is not "level-headed" 6/15/05 — (Unsigned comment by 66.251.101.34; user's 2nd edit.)
  • Keep Because he is eminently "level-headed". [User:Stephen Abbot] 6/15/05 — (Improperly signed comment actually by 66.141.48.58; user's 1st edit.)
  • Keep Because less important bloggers also have Wikipedia articles. Anomalocaris 15 Jun 2005 — (Anomalocaris's 2nd edit.)
  • Keep He is generally thought of as "level-headed", or "reasonable", though this tends to annoy those on the far right and left. He also almost single-handedly helped reintroduce the Bush National Guard story. MadCowan 6/15/05 — (Madcowan's 27th edit.)
  • Keep NSR 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep David Sneek 22:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Since he is a well-known and influential blogger, as well as a writer for Washington Monthly. User:Robert S. 18:17 EST 6/15/05 — (Improperly signed comment actually by 162.111.235.16; user's 10th edit.)
  • Keep Worthy of page. User:adb 18:22 EST 6/15/05 — (Improperly signed comment actually by 63.89.227.125; user's 1st edit.)
  • Keep I agree with User:Robert S.. -- Zantastik talk 22:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Drum's role in contemporary US political discourse warrants an entry. --Copperboom 23:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (Copperboom's 21st edit.)
  • Keep - Absolutely no reason not to. — (Unsigned comment by 24.161.87.236; user's 5th edit.)
  • Keep He's definitely notable. And that fact that someone with the username "bloghate" is favor of deletion just adds to my support. Pentegamer 23:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Noted commentator. "He's a Lippman, not a Winchell!" democracys 00:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (Democracys's 3rd edit.)
  • Keep He's without question notable. Bloggers will be part of the future so we might as well face it now. And catblogging is a contribution for the ages. Austinmayor 00:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (Austinmayor's 1st edit.)
  • Keep He is a good writer, and I suspect he will be heard of more and more in the future as his blog gains readership. — (Unsigned comment by 68.102.249.181; user's 1st edit.)
  • Keep He is an influential and level-headed figure in the blogworld. — (Unsigned comment by 67.173.254.215; user's 1st edit.)
  • Strong Keep Drum is a writer for the Washington Monthly, the fact that he also has a blog is not relevant, quite frankly. The "he's just a blogger" argument doesn't hold up. Even if he was "just a blogger," he's certainly one of the most well known. - Jersyko talk 02:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An important centrist blogger in a time of polarization. Must Keep!
  • Keep but verify I usually disagree with everything he and (especially) his commentors say, but I suggest keeping. However, I also suggest making sure that the article reflects his POV. For instance, when others have said he's only moderately liberal, he's clarified that he is indeed quite liberal. While he does throw out red meat occasionally, at least he's not quite as bad as Atrios. LonewackoDotCom 20:45, Jun 15, 2005 (PST)

Keep it

  • Keep. Well-known, widely read, widely linked blogger and commentator, and the inventor of "catblogging" --Calton | Talk 04:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (User's 3,755th edit.)
  • Keep. Well known and for a prominent magazine. Fuzheado | Talk 04:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1. Provides largely original analysis/commentary/catblogging rather just than simply linking to news sources; 2. Comes up third in a google search for "drum" (above, among others, Pearl Drums).
  • Keep. An early and influential blogger, one who provides original information and analysis, not just links to the day's news. One of the few bloggers to have become a professional pundit and to have had articles published in major newspapers.
  • Keep despite sockpuppet activity. Notable blogger and more notable than a number of other bloggers we have articles on. Gamaliel 05:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely one of the more noteable, widely read and respected bloggers out there. If he is deleted from here, many other blogger's entries need to be removed as well.
    • Comment let's not give anyone ideas, shall we? This article is going to be kept, Drum-ites, no need to fret ;) - Jersyko talk 14:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the various reasons given above. BTW I'm the person (as an anon) who put in the "level-headed" description. I had been considering taking it out anyway, since Drum has gotten more worked-up lately. The part I wrote about the statistical/graphical analysis still definitely holds true, though. Wasted Time R 18:16, 16 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.

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. —Xezbeth 15:08, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Norman Geras[edit]

  • Delete Sweet smell of vanity Bloghate 04:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Professor Emeritus of Government at Manchester University, which is all spelled out in the article. The fact that he's got a blog is secondary to his notability. This is just a hunch, but User:Bloghate might have some sort of agenda here. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist. Smell of socks. User:Bloghate created today for the sole purpose of nominating articles for deletion. [18] —RaD Man (talk) 08:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Blog and authorship so this one passes the "average college professor" bar for notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Professor who has published works on Karl Marx and Normblog is a reasonably well known blog. Capitalistroadster 10:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Feature article on him in The Times [19] in February 2005.
  • Keep. Published author and blogger. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I object to User:Bloghate's POV attempt to purge all blog related articles. -- Infrogmation 02:27, 21 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Preaching to the Converted[edit]

Neither Preaching to the Converted not Preacher Judas Muad'dib appears in imdb, nor in the list of actors in Shaun of the Dead. "Preacher Judas Muad'dib" does not appear in Google. RickK 05:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete advertising XmarkX 06:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - unverifiable. --FCYTravis 06:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 10:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverifiable, advertising, and it's "preaching to the choir" anyway. Geogre 16:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/unverified. --Etacar11 18:49, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dantareth[edit]

Someone's homegrown AD&D campaign. Five google hits spread over three sites. Two are the name of a player on a mud; one is for an expired domain; two are for an unrelated Everquest quest that's far too granular to replace this with. Not notable. --Cryptic (talk) 06:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete non-notable XmarkX 06:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Lectonar 14:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like fun, not encyclopedic. Ashibaka (tock) 14:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I rolled a natural 20, so delete as vanity. Geogre 16:58, 14 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.

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 it's a category, already brought to CfD. —Xezbeth 15:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Homosexual philosophers[edit]

This is offensive. What encyclopedic purpose does it have to pigeonhole philosophers by their sexual orientation? Certainly, a list of theorists whose work concerns sexuality is valid, but this is lazy and prurient XmarkX 06:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to its proper location - Wikipedia:Categories for deletion --FCYTravis 07:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Keep, obviously. Nothing offensive here. :ThaddeusFrye 07:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - But I don't think this should be listed here. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:59, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Weak because this is ambigious, as it could refer to philosophers who are homosexual, or philosophers whose work deals with homosexuality. Saswann 13:14, 17 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.

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 redirect. —Xezbeth 15:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic Four (movie)[edit]

There are two different movies, each of which has their own article. I don't see why we need a disambig to differentiate between them, nor should we redirect this to either movie article since both are valid. So I suggest we delete it. feitclub 06:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. If you delete it, someone will just recreate it again because they likely won't know that there were two Fantastic Four movies, and so won't know to look under Fantastic Four (2005 film). However, I think there is good reason to just redirect Fantastic Four (movie) to the 2005 version, and then include a see also at the very top to link to the unreleased one. No need to treat them equally. Postdlf 06:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It doesn't do any harm. Deletion is pointless. CalJW 06:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs rewriting but it seems useful as it is. Poli 07:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Fantastic Four (2005 film) into its own section. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge both the 1994 and 2005 films into this space per The Punisher (movie) and redirect their old articles here. Nateji77 08:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly normal disambiguation page. —RaD Man (talk) 08:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful disambiguation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Redirect per Uncle G is better since this was a duplicate. Otherwise this would have been perfectly valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful page. Capitalistroadster 11:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I point out to all of the above editors talking about disambiguation the existence of Fantastic Four (disambiguation). There is no need to have two of them. The only reason for the existence of this page is that it is where Fantastic Four (2005 film) used to be. The redirect that was left behind was, bizarrely, turned into a disambiguation between two of the things that Fantastic Four (disambiguation) already disambiguates between. There is nothing to merge. The various hypotheses and rumours about why the first film was never released are already mentioned, without citing sources of course (heaven forfend!), at Fantastic Four (1994 movie). Redirect to Fantastic Four (disambiguation), if you really think that people are likely to re-create this article (which doesn't seem that likely to me — Editors will go to Fantastic Four and thence to Fantastic Four (disambiguation) and thus find the existing articles.). Delete otherwise, as per the comment of the article's creator on its talk page. Uncle G 11:54, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fantastic Four (disambiguation) as per above 23skidoo 12:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As usual, Uncle G explains it perfectly. Delete Radiant_>|< 14:27, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a Redirect to the existing disambiguation page. Since "________ (movie)" is a common method of distinguishing movies from their other-media counterparts, it can be expected that this will be typed in now and then. Redirects are cheap. --Unfocused 15:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Uncle G. -- Jonel 16:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Uncle G. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect seems ok to me Yuckfoo 21:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 02:32, Jun 15, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Radiance computer link[edit]

Small company (Cyber Cafe) that isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. Poli 06:44, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Anne (rock band)[edit]

Self-admitted garage band with one demo. Non-notable. FCYTravis 06:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete sadly. Reasonably well written, but fails WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fails wiki guidelines. JamesBurns 10:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 19:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is well-written and I do not see how Wikipedia will benifit from its deletion. Sincerely,  Short Verses  (talk) 22:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ...until author can further establish notability. However, please note that "garage" is a genre, not a marker of status, thus there is nothing "self-admitted" about it. 68.4.35.180
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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pykon[edit]

Local band with one EP. Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. FCYTravis 06:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails wiki guidelines. JamesBurns 10:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Local band. Unsigned and undistributed at this point. I'm sure we wish them well all the same. (Does Pylon (band) have an entry? (Two albums, influenced every Athens band, shaped "new wave.") Geogre 17:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. Someone is putting a lot of local Balt. bands here. Hmmm. --Etacar11 19:33, 14 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.

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Technology-deck split and Technology-deck[edit]

Unverifiable, perhaps original research. Zero google hits for "technology-deck split". Maybe it can be moved somewhere, if it's real? --Cryptic (talk) 07:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 11:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a place, and I created it back in February 2005 the last time that an article such as this came up in VFD. It's phonemic differentiation. If "tech-deck" is shown to be real, Merge as per the decision of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sirius-serious merger. Uncle G 12:06, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real thing. Many Scots do pronounce the ch in technology and orchid like the ch in loch instead of like the ch in school. Steve Jun 14, 2005 (actually 64.12.116.202 14:55, 2005 Jun 14 according to edit history. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC))
    • Then prove it. Cite your sources. Cite studies of this split by linguists. Look at the list of references that Wikipedia editors have accrued at the bottom of phonemic differentiation. Cite a similar reference for your "real thing". If, however, this is your original study and your original linguistic analysis, then you are in the wrong place. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
      • It's not my original study. The use of /x/ in technical is discussed in the Scottish English talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scottish_English. Steve Jun 14, 2005 (actually 205.188.117.9 18:31, 2005 Jun 14 according to edit history. Uncle G 18:56, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC))
        • It isn't, unless you count two people asking for sources to be cited, the same as here, to little effect to be discussion. "Noah Winner"'s question there remains unanswered. Uncle G 18:56, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • We have required all splits and mergers in phonemic differentiation to be verifiable with cited sources, and they all are, thanks to the good work of several editors. So far, even when pressed, the editors of this article (and indeed of Scottish English) have provided no verifiable sources for it. As it stands, therefore, the implied "otherwise Delete" of my above vote applies. Uncle G 00:06, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Merge with Scottish English. It's already at Scottish English, so delete this nonexistent term for it. I can provide a source for it. Wells (1982:408) writes:

[Scottish English] retains the velar fricative, /x/, as a member; although in English (as opposed to Scots) /x/ is really restricted to proper names... and sometimes to Greek- or Hebrew-derived words spelt with ch (technical /ˈtɛx-/, patriarch /-rx/, epoch, parochial).

I vote merge with Scottish English, not Do not merge with Phonemic differentiation, because it's not really a phonemic split. It's not that the above words developed /x/ from /k/ by sound change; it's a spelling pronunciation formed by analogy with Scots words and names that have ch pronounced /x/. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:43, 15 Jun 2005 (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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:08, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Zapunx[edit]

An internet site founded in February with 120 hits a day. No Alexa rank, 7 inbound links according to Google, of which three are forum posts and two are link exchanges. One of millions. --Cryptic (talk) 07:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unencyclopedic. --FCYTravis 07:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete website advertising. JamesBurns 11:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, ad Lectonar 14:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may not be a megasite, but it is perhaps the only informative site for a thriving local culture. For that it deserves recognition.

  • Amusing how this anonymous user thought that, unlike this obscure website, his comment did not deserve recognition. jglc | t | c 20:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - My site gets more hits per day than this, and I don't get a wikipedia entry! humblefool® 03:27, 19 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.

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 (without clear consensus) as rewritten. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoreligion[edit]

I request that this be removed from VfD, as the article is substantially changed from when it was proposed for deletion, including making it NPOV and wiki-linked from articles referencing the term --LeFlyman 05:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

original reseach; opinion; NPOV; not an accepted theological or philosophical term; delete article ThaddeusFrye 07:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • yeah it's an opinionated article, i've tried to take some of that out, but i would agree that it probably isn't an accepted term. go on then, delete JiMternet 14:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Note, I've rewritten the article, as it does appear to have some useful encyclopedic basis. A quick Google of "pseudoreligion" reveals 1400 English language links; while "Pseudo-religion" has 8,500 (or possibly 10,400) English links, including:
  • an essay assignment for a 2001 Philosophy course ("Epistemology and Methodology") which asks, "What is "pseudo" about pseudo-science or pseudo-religion?";
  • this exhibition at the Swiss Institute of Contemporary Art which notes, "Jim Shaw's recent work has focused on inventing a new, pseudo-religion, O-ism"
  • From Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics: "The Role of Religion in Global Ethical Leadership": "Any attempt to remove religion completely from public moral life ends up fostering some fairly virulent and irrational varieties of pseudo-religion that sneak in by the back door." (Professor of Political Science, Eric Hanson)
So it looks like "pseudo-religion" is in semi-common usage in multiple fields. --LeFlyman 06:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete original research and opinion Ashibaka (tock) 14:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE UNLESS YOU REWRITE THIS TO SHOW THAT ISLAM IS THE ONLY PSEUDORELIGION.STORM LEGION666 15:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • New user. mikka (t) 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • STORM LEGION666 has cast votes much like this one in seven vfd's (and done nothing else). -- BD2412 talk 16:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As per my prior suggestion, I've gone ahead and made the first stab at a rewrite, excising all of the non-NPOV original material. It can be retooled within that context. Better? --LeFlyman 03:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, irredeemable POV. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep iff we can make it and somehow keep it NPOV. --Idont Havaname 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 05:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep LeFlyman's rewrite, which is NPOV and possibly useful. Frjwoolley 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_>|< 19:02, Jun 19, 2005 (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 by Petaholmes (copyvio june 14) --cesarb 14:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Third Day band members[edit]

Tai Anderson (Third Day Band Member), David Carr (Third Day Band Member), Brad Avery (Third Day Band Member), Mark Lee (Third Day Band Member), and Mac Powell (Third Day Band Member)

  • Vanity articles. Listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup and marked as needing a rewrite since 27th May. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 07:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot onto Third Day. Radiant_>|< 10:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Non notable. JamesBurns 11:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, but they smell like copyvios... Alphax τεχ 14:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We've kept around bios of band members that have accomplished much less than these guys have--4 gold albums, 1 platinum. However, I also agree with Aplhax--this looks like copyvio, but I can't find the source. --Xcali 15:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I managed to find where the articles were copied from. - Mike Rosoft 17:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Xcali . But the articles were not copied.Third Day has also won 2 Grammys.--HopefullGomer11:48, 14 June 2005
  • Keep I agree with HopefullGomer & Xcali . HannahDickerson12:00, 14 June 2005
    • User has no edits. Vote was actually added by HopefullGomer. - Mike Rosoft 18:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The vote was not done by HopefullGomer. She was logged in when I voted. I share a computer with her. - HannahDickerson 3:00p.m. ,14 June 2005
  • Keep I think that these guys deserve there own page. They have accomplished a lot in their own way.Beccadickerson12:28, 14 June 2005
    • This is the user's first edit. - Mike Rosoft 18:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Who cares if it is the users first edit. You have to start somewhere.HannahDickerson 3:39p.m. ,14 June 2005
  • merge to third day please Yuckfoo 21:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As was already mentioned, 4 gold albums, one platinum, 2 Grammys. That meets WP:MUSIC, which looks like it applies to band members too, not just full bands, and therefore establishes notability. --Idont Havaname 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Zygat Montford[edit]

Not notable. Effectively one Google hit. Probably self-promotion. Zygmat Montford to be deleted as well if that is the decision. -- RHaworth 07:40, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Delete: Seems like a fake scandal/stunt. Supposed to be referred to by The Times, but I find no reference there, and the article doesn't give references. Speaks in "an interview," but we don't know with whom. Other name seems similarly vague and suspect. Geogre 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. --Etacar11 20:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 05:44, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ryze[edit]

This was marked as {{db}} for being an "ad", but that does not quite qualify as speedy deletion. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I speedied it as an ad falling under WP:CSD section 1.2.3. It exists only to provide the external link. --Xcali 15:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just an ad. I disagree with Xcali that it qualifies as a speedy under §1.2.3 though, as it does have coherent content beyond the link itself. — Gwalla | Talk 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Usually, an "ad" is not a speedy, but "spam" is. This is the latter, I'd say. It would have to be more verbose to be an ad. Geogre 18:44, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vivek Gera[edit]

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 08:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Kappa 08:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kappa. Nateji77 08:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion (short article with no context). - Mike Rosoft 09:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 11:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of encyclopedic content. Poli 17:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:10, 14 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.

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. —Xezbeth 12:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sint Jansbrug[edit]

Students' union advertizing (in Dutch) the facilities in its building in a university Anthony Appleyard 08:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Er, not entirely. Dutch speaker here :) It is a student society started in 1947, counting 650 members, and owner of two buildings in the center of Delft that are both considered monuments. The rest of the article, at present, is a promo for the society in question, but I'd say this establishes notability for its sheer size as student societies go. Keep. Radiant_>|< 11:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Radiant and remove promotional stuff. Mgm|(talk) 18:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please agree with what is already said Yuckfoo 21:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be notable student association. Capitalistroadster 00:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Was not deemed worthy of translation on PnT, where it stayed the whole 14 days without being touched. The English version is much better than the Dutch. No vote. Physchim62 20:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No, the English version is much longer than the Dutch, but contained such cruft as "Om uit te vinden hoe de sfeer op Sint Jansbrug is, moet je gewoonweg langskomen tijdens de Owee en het allemaal zelf meemaken!" (which means roughly, "to find out what the atmosphere is at Sint Jansbrug, you should simply drop by during the Owee and experience it yourself"). Radiant_>|< 10:10, Jun 16, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Leeds May Day Group[edit]

not clear why there needs to be an article on this group, not notable AYArktos 09:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE [I am not a fan of communism]. STORM LEGION666 15:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) — (The text in brackets was originally written by Newkidd and has been refactored by android per WP:RPA.)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia, STORM LEGION666. I've noticed that, with you're newly created user account, you've already managed to cast votes much like this one in seven vfd's (although you've done nothing else). -- BD2412 talk 16:28, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
    • New account. mikka (t) 16:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have reported this user for Vandalism in progress. Please remove this paragraph when problem solved. -Snorre/Antwelm 16:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. mikka (t) 16:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable.--Kross 20:15, Jun 14, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Process bias[edit]

This is marked as a proposal, but it's a dicdef of the neologism "process bias" that gets ~500 google hits (most of which are not related to this term, but to processing biases, or biases in process, or something else). I'm not sure why this is in wikispace, either. Delete. Radiant_>|< 09:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, dic def in Wikipedia namespace. Mgm|(talk) 10:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nominator. --FCYTravis 08:37, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Vermont Community Botanical Garden[edit]

WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. At this website it states the garden is planned to open in a few years. Context shows this was written five years ago (year 2000). This website says "First phase to open in 2004." That was last year and it is still in the planning phase. Predicted events don't always happen, and this garden doesn't look like it has enough support to make it. A pity, because it sounds like a wonderful concept. SWAdair | Talk 10:08, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Paladin class starship[edit]

It's a stub; it's a Trek-stub; it's a Trek-stub to a supposed class of ships I've never heard of, and which the article does no more than name. It's been around over a year and neither the original author nor anyone else has said why these ships are notable, or given one example of one, or of an episode in which they're played a part. VfD for minimal relevance. 62.25.106.209 10:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete only Google hits seem to be WP mirrors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-canon unless someone can provide episode/film citation for its use. Question, however: are anonymous users allowed to post VFDs? 23skidoo 12:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? They're members of the community. --Xcali 15:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • No biggie. I just thought there was a rule that only registered users can VFD. 23skidoo 17:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Only registered users can vote, but, oddly enough, anyone can nominate. IP nominators cannot have their nominations counted as a vote, though. As for the article, it's a stub and fiction. Geogre 18:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I still don't see this rule in the official policy. It only says that anonymous votes may be ignored at the administrator's discretion. 132.205.94.190 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not canon. But anonymous users can also vote. From the VFD main page "Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.". Note the "may be discounted". If the closer is convinced that an anonymous vote was made in good faith, it may be counted just like any other. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Canon, schmanon, this is Wikipedia, not an official Paramount website. This article sure could use some expansion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-canon cruft. Quale 23:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft Proto 14:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think something necessarily has to be canon to deserve an article of its own, but it does need to be notable. I don't think this qualifies. -- Captain Disdain 23:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be fan-fiction. http://www.trekmania.net/art/paladin_class.htm says "Paladin Class is a vessel of my own invention...." Fictional fiction stubs? Nah. Gary 00:32, 20 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.

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 already merged with list of minor Star Wars characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Granta Omega[edit]

A page on a minor Star Wars character, I suggest merger with the list of minor Star Wars characters CunningLinguist 10:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • So do I. Merge. Radiant_>|< 10:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I merged them :) Now what? -CunningLinguist 11:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • So this discussion is no longer relevant :) Radiant_>|< 11:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now redirect to wherever you merged it. Geogre 18:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Its done, it now redirects to List of minor Star Wars characters where it was merged. However, could someone check out how the name on this character works? Is Omega his last name or some kind of title? I put it under a G alphabetically but it seems most of the other entries are done by last name, Id appreciate if someone checked that out or fixed it as they see fit. -CunningLinguist 20:49, 14 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.

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 Redirect to American studies. -- Jonel | Speak 06:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Americanology[edit]

I find nothing on google when i look for 'Americanology Darcy Ribeiro'. Maybe someone can get more info on this? CunningLinguist 10:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. Looks like hoax. But the article Darcy Ribeiro is neded. mikka (t) 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It was a knee-jerk reaction. It turns out there is the de:Amerikanologie artikel in wikipedia. In Germany there is "Institut für Amerikanologie", which is traditionally translated as Institute of American Studies.
    • therefore my current opinion is prety much split between delete as neologism or redirect to American studies. mikka (t) 23:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to American studies. JamesBurns 05:46, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Santiago Martínez[edit]

This was listed on Speedy Delete as a Vanity article however I dont think thats a valid Speedy Delete criteria, so I have brought it here CunningLinguist 11:28, 14 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.

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. —Xezbeth 12:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chad Muska[edit]

This was on Speedy Delete, but Im bringing it here since Chad Muska is one of the most notable skateboarders ever, "Chad Muska" brings over 30,000 hits. It was listed on Speedy Delete as "self-advertisement" but I see no evidence that Chad Muska himself wrote this article. CunningLinguist 11:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Quite possibly, but you have to admit that the present article is rock bottom. Weak delete unless rewritten as something decent before VfD ends (which does seem likely to happen anyway, but given the article's state I can see why people would speedy it). Radiant_>|< 11:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme cleanup rewrite for this extreme sports article. Nestea 11:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or complete rewrite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable athlete. Eliot 14:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Ian Pitchford 14:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable person. DS1953 14:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable. It needs expanding, but then how many articles don't? Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable sportsperson.Capitalistroadster 00:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten. JamesBurns 07:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. knoodelhed 18:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Brad Darius 17:14, 29 Jun 2006 (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.

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 7 votes to delete, 4 votes to keep... err... that is not a two thirds majority so this will have to be called a no consensus result (keep) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Olchfa footbridge[edit]

This one probably goes without saying. Not specific enough to be relevant to a wider article on the school, area, or city. No significant history to separate it from millions of other unimportant footbridges. Might be worth keeping if there's somewhere to showcase examples of articles people shouldn't write. Otherwise, bin it.

  • Keep. It's a civic structure that has an appropriately sized article written about it. I'd like to see an external reference or two, but other than that, this article appears to be pretty well complete and proper. --Unfocused 15:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it's not a "civic structure that has an appropriately sized article", it's an ordinary footbridge. You won't find an external reference, because it's an ordinary footbridge which is in no way, locally, historically, politically or architecturally important. It's just one of millions of footbridges over millions of busy roads all over the world. This bridge is less qualified than your average Wikipedia user to have an article. This is "dangerous precedent" territory. 62.252.32.13 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I saw reference to "a number of accidents" prior to its installation. It's local importance is obvious for public safety. There is no "dangerous precedent" unless you think we're running out of paper, which we're obviously not. Average wikipedians are not civic structures; are not public works projects. "Ordinary" is not equal to "worthless". (Millions? Really? Where do you get that number?) I could even see where a little more expansion would be welcome. --Unfocused 17:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        I say millions, based on the fact that UK railway network alone has some 10,000 footbridges across its length (around 2000 at stations), and that along 10 miles of major roads in this city, there are some 50 footbridges. I think millions around the world is a safe assumption.
        • Comment Find an appropriate place to MERGE it, and you'll have no complaint from me. --Unfocused 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment User:Thryduulf created this virtually all in one swoop, including the photos. Based on his other contributions, he's obviously a good contributor. But he's on vacation until the 26th or 27th of this month, so this vote will be settled by the time he returns. Please consider Jimbo Wales' opinion on what to do with trivial articles from good contributors. --Unfocused 12:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • This doesn't in any way suggest anything remotely related to articles on trivial subjects. It deals with "X is a Y in Z", i.e. content-trivial, articles. 62.252.32.12 14:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • No, you didn't read the link I posted carefully enough. Jimbo Wales very specifically says "trivial articles". He very specifically says to cut good contributors some slack on their addition of trivial articles, even if we wouldn't want thousands of such articles in the encyclopedia. He's very clear about giving good contributors some room to do what interests them and that doing so is completely harmless and should be accomodated. Nuking a good contributor's well written article while they're on vacation (that they even posted notice of on their user page) is a very unfriendly, anti-community thing to do. I would suggest that we at least wait the additional week or two as a courtesy to User:Thryduulf. See WP:DICK --Unfocused 20:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, not notable. However this article may have some content (e.g. images) that should be included in the footbridge article, which is currently just a very short stub. KFP 17:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge somewhere per Unfocused. Kappa 21:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. RickK 21:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this a joke? It's a footbridge, people. Gamaliel 21:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a footbridge across a road, no more notable than the other million or so footbridges across roads. Change a few names and dates, and this article could be about any of those million others. --Carnildo 21:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sub-trivial. Radiant_>|< 09:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the other delete votes. Quale 23:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Dare I say merge with the school? If no one makes an article about the school, keep until such time. --SPUI (talk) 14:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really specific to the school, so it wouldn't belong there. I would suggest merging into the city as a whole, if it weren't for the fact that there are too many footbridges to fit into the article, and they'd all need equal mention (NPOV, etc). 62.252.32.12 14:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia needs more well-researched and written articles of this nature, not less. Mundanity is in the eye of the beholder. Keep. --Centauri 04:38, 17 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sara mansi[edit]

Not notable. Vanity. DJ Clayworth 13:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete--the most notability the article claims is serving as a backup dancer for Justin Timberlake on his European tour. Meelar (talk) 14:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- infamous? StopTheFiling 17:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 20:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:47, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE — Gwalla | Talk 22:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vulch[edit]

Oh no, another lame gaming neologism. And it's transwikied to Wiktionary already. Eliot 22:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and/or soft redirect. Transwikied dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 18:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable (if antisocial) gaming tactic. Kappa 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable gamecruft. Kappa's votes are becoming more and more bizarre. RickK 21:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Carnildo 21:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 05:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 09:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Air_Warrior, as the term comes from there, although that article could use a subsection for online flight-sim slang --63.240.15.99 21:04, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Procartel Technologies[edit]

Vanity page. Cut & paste job from the website of the company (http://www.procartel.com/en/home.html) and edited by User:procartel, specially created for this purpose. There are hundreds of companies like this in India(where the company is based) and it is not noted, by which I mean it is not listed on any stock exchange(IMO) and a google search listed in a very few references. pamri 14:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I love how a signifigant contributor to the article is User:Procartel, who removed some NPOV that was added by User:209.36.244.254. --Robojames 14:19, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lewis Sell[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete as above Ashibaka (tock) 18:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teenage vanity. --Etacar11 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Tp 07:38, 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.

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 Note: the nominee withdrew the nomination. Normally this is not the reason for closing the discussion, but I believe this case is pretty much evident, so no reason to be strictly formal. mikka (t) 18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Self-induced abortion[edit]

Original Research: A google search for "self induced abortion" returns 3650 hits [20] A google search for "induced abortion" and "spontaneus abortion" return 109,000 and 164,000 hits respectivly [21][22] Tznkai 14:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Nomination withdrawn--Tznkai 15:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Original research (coining neologism). I believe most of this article has been stated in various places on wikipedia, but if not, a merge is in order.--Tznkai 14:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) see below

  • Keep. I'm absolutely stunned to find this on vfd, a day after I created it. 3,600+ Google hits shows that this is hardly a neologism, or original research (I've cited at least a half-dozen sources, including references to scientific studies using the term). This topic was not thoroughly covered anywhere else in Wikipedia, so far as I could find, and the abortion article is certainly long enough to justify a separate article on this related but distinct topic. -- BD2412 talk 14:45, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
I obviously havn't gone through all 3000+ hits, but the majority that I saw had the world "self" tacked on as alliteration, not as a seperate term. compare to say, "assisted suicide" (684k hits) vs suicide. The two are sigificnatly diffrent enough because of the host of moral and legal complications, while I don't think self induced versus induced abortion is (yet). My point is that "self-induced suicide" is not a term used on its own, just the world self tacked on as an adjective.--Tznkai 15:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is hardly an alliteration if it describes a circumstance that is distinct from an "induced abortion". An induced abortion is any abortion intentionally induced by anyone. A self-induced abortion is not merely a medical term, but a sociological concept, motivated (as the literature shows) by factors distinct from those responsible for people seeking abortions from doctors. -- BD2412 talk 15:13, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Let me try another analogy to get my point across. If you get it, but disagree, thats fine. There are cars. There are also sports cars. There are also red sports cars. Red sports cars are distinct both from cars and sports cars, but not enough to be its own term. Also, I've never heard the term used in medicine before, and couldn't find anything to lead me to believe otherwise. If it is a sociological concept and you can show me some textbooks, I'll drop my contention for VfD however.--Tznkai 16:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, look at the Ghana study cited within: "To obtain information on induced abortion, for example, interviewers asked women whether they had ever terminated an unwanted pregnancy, and if so, whether they had had a self-induced abortion or what type of facility they had visited to obtain an abortion." Clearly this is a distinct use. Per you analogy argument, a better analogy would be between race-cars and home-made race cars (a sub-category which I think would merit an article). -- BD2412 talk 17:02, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Well, I see we're both on the same page just of diffrent opinions, I am just not convinced that this term is as widley used as you are. Again, please show me the term used in a textbook, and I'll drop my contention.--Tznkai 18:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I'm not in a position to go looking up textbooks, so we'll just have to leave it at the sources available on the internet for now. I suppose you can go tell Gabriela Flores that the activity for which she's being prosecuted and may go to jail is not a real concept, so she's free to go. Or tell that to the Mississippi legislature, which passed a law that classifies self-induced abortions as deaths which affect the public interest, and requires physicians to report them to the local medical examiner. The statute describes "death caused by criminal abortion, including self-induced abortion, or abortion related to or by sexual abuse." [23] -- BD2412 talk 18:57, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Theres no need to get snippy or make inflamitory statements. I have been as civil as possible during this entire VfD.--Tznkai 20:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
True, you have been civil and presented a logical case. I apologize for the snippiness. However, I rest on my contention that the sources cited in the article (and many additional similar references that can be found on Google) provide more than enough proof of the notability and pedigree of the topic to justify an article without using textbooks for support. -- BD2412 talk 20:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
As a point of intrest, that bill died in commitee. My major problem here is I want to be convinced that the term we're using is right. in the adhd article, we've been having problems with chemical imbalance theory which had a similar number of hits. Unlike in that case however, sorting out the bias of sites is very difficult, so I went with a gut feeling and put it on VfD. I still have reservations, but I can see I am going against consensus here. I'm going to wait a day for addtional comment, then I will remove the VfD.--Tznkai 20:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not to be nitpicky, but it was a proposed amendment to an existing statute that died in committee. The requirement that "self-induced abortions" be reported to the medical examiner is very much the law in Mississippi today, as it has been since 1972.[24] The National Library of Medicine's PubMed search engine returns 16 journal article discussing the topic, from 1954-2000.[25] -- BD2412 talk 21:32, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep, I can find instances of the phrase being used by governments, activists on both sides of the abortion issue, news media, etc. Article is detailed enough to warrant its own page. Eliot 14:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. DS1953 15:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep. I think our VfD nomination process isn't very instructive if people are reading the instructions and still nominating articles like this! --Unfocused 15:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note There was a vandalism vote that was removed here. See history if intrested--Tznkai 20:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and described phenomenon .mikka (t) 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep obviously. Dunc|☺ 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well written article, not to mention very notable issue. Blackcats 19:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While this topic is worthy of mention, I'm not sure that it needs its own article. However, because it's brand new and well written, I think we should keep it around for a while and see where it goes. --Xcali 20:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, well-written, not a neologism -CunningLinguist 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too it is a good article no reason to erase it Yuckfoo 21:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written article on notable topic. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well written and notable. Frankchn 02:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Independently notable practice, often distinguished in abortion laws/abortion debate. Xoloz 04:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable topic. JamesBurns 05:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - No Reason to remove. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn--Tznkai 15:38, 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.

}

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 no consensus --cesarb 14:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Elyse Sewell[edit]

  • KEEP - Active working model, author, noted blogger, and a personality to boot. Those who say that this should be deleted because she was just the "loser of a game show" and other similar comments obviously do not know enough about her to be able to have any valued opinion on this.
  • KEEP- Elyse is a Top model of Hong Kong, she published a book, she has a famous blog, she appeared on a reality television show, she has 3 modeling agencies, she was named one of Wired's 10 sexiest geeks, Hong Kong's Cover Magazine named her the face of 2005, she has been in countless advertisements and on many magazine covers, she was in a 'Shins' music video, etc. She is overqualified to be on Wikipedia, this is ridiculous!
  • Keep- Easily the most entertaining and captivating character on the first season of a successful show. Many fans of the show favored her over the winner and her modeling career is steadily growing, whereas the winner has all but given up on modeling.
  • Loser of a game show. Non notable. Alphax τεχ 14:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable for anything. Copyrighted images need to be deleted as well. Ashibaka (tock) 14:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable. "third to next top model" is not fame. mikka (t)
  • Abstain. Potentially she could be notable as a model (i.e. for work done after her appearance on America's Next Top Model), although more evidence would need to be provided. --Metropolitan90 04:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep marginal notability. JamesBurns 05:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, come back when you win something. Radiant_>|< 09:04, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep-- Elyse is absolutly notable. She is a role model. She is one of the most successful girls Top Model has ever produced. She was in a nationally-airing television comercial and has appeared on several magazine covers. One of her confessionals was rated number 16 on E!'s Most Outrageous Reality TV Moments. She was one of the most notorious girls from her cycle of ANTM. "How non-notable!!!!!!!!!!"
  • Keep--Flagger commented that Elyse is non-notable. This person is starting to be very very well known. In fact, the E channel took note of her this year. E placed Elyse as 16th in their All Time Most Outrageous Moments. Please note that all other placers on the show are noteworthy. Elyse is also burning the internet wires. Statistics on internet searches this weekend showed that searches for Elyse zoomed more than 500% where as the actual winner's searches zoomed only 250%. Elyse has been on covers of magazines. The winner has not. We know that runners up often achieve more than actual winners do. With all the other stupid stuff I have seen on Wikipedia in doing my pre-writing work, I cannot believe you would consider deleting her. Please go to the referenced blog and read thru more than the current entry. If there is a problem with the pictures, I'll switch them out. I see you used pictures from the show Elyse was on at the America's Next Top Model page. If there are no problems with those, there should be no problems with these. Also, Elyse Sewell's name has been listed on America's Next Top Model page as a contestant because writers of that page, not me, felt the listed contestants are what the show is focusing on each week for more than a couple of months. She did not appear for just one show and that was it. She was narrating sections each week for months. Now the show is being broadcasted over and over again on VH-1. Thank you Writer of the Article, College Professor, Also known as Pictureadder
    • Comments regarding sockpuppets, honor, any other subsequent allegations and this process I will write on my personal page. ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE GO TO MY PERSONAL PAGE Pictureadder 16 June 6:33am
  • Delete The fact that Pictureadder is a professor somehow makes Elyse Sewell more notable? Could rename it to the "next to the next to the next top model". --Xcali 17:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keepish Someday, somebody's going to need to look her name up. Gzuckier 13:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The entry on Elyse should be kept, because she is the only contestant on any season of Top Model to amount to anything in the modeling world that wasn't simply given to her by Top Model's producers. Elyse has appeared on the cover of an Asian edition of Harper's Bazaar in addition to working steadily in Hong Kong and other locations around the world. Keeping her entry provides a useful contrast to the sadly lacking modeling careers of the so-called "winners" of this increasingly laughable reality TV show and highlights its haphazard judging.--Schreck37 21:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Whether she's making a big name as a model is irrelevant; the point is that she has a good sized fan base and is going to be of ongoing interest to them, and to those who hear them mentioning her. She may not have won the TV contest, but she was by most reports the main reason the show was a hit -- such a significant hit that the UPN network remade their entire schedule to try to appeal to young female viewers, discarding boy shows like Star Trek: Enterprise. Since she has been published more than once as a humor writer (which ought to be mentioned in the entry), and her blog audience is growing exponentially due to her wit as a raconteur, this is not someone who is going to drop out of the public eye just because of not being a superstar in modeling. --Paul Kienitz 00:27, 16 Jun 2005 (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 Keepkju 05:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Non-referenced, pure advertising, and non-notable person. She was on a reality show 5 years ago. Delete! 71.199.240.158 21:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again- This article was put up for deletion two years ago as the dates here indicate. Since then, the article was kept and has undergone a high volume of edits over the years. Many people keep track of what she is doing. As the history indicates, she was named "Face of the Year" by a major magazine in Hong Kong. She appeared in a commercial with Chow Yun Fat. She has written a popular book. Most of the information in her entry could be sourced by the book she wrote. I don't make a lot of Wikipedia entries or updates so I didn't write a cite myself. In Wikipedia, models have their cover and campaign credits listed so readers know what the people are famous for. Elyse has a multitude of credits. ThanksUser:Pictureadder July 3, 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep She is the most notable of the models (especially as an American in China), and the only model from the show I know of that is working in that field as a result of her appearance of said show. With a book too, that should solidify her article's status as a keeper. Jimcripps 04:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is the most notable model from the show, and has written a book. She appears in a lot of decent magazines in HK, and has appeared in a TV commercial with Chow Yun-Fat. That's notable enough for me.kju 07:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Aside from her notoriety as a reality TV star and her notoriety as an international model, she is also a blogger of note. Her livejournal blog is an interesting look at the world of modeling from the inside, but also a humorous commentary by an American living and working abroad. She has a clean, quick, modern writing style; her viewpoint is open and curious; and she is passionate about the diversity around her. She's a great role-model for the future-- the new global citizen. Mary919 July 9, 2007
  • Keep - She is a published author, a printed model, and a face recognized by America's Next Top Model fans internationally.
  • Keep - Elyse is a internationally recognized blogger, book publisher, model, and cult icon to millions watching ANTM all over the world.
  • KEEP- Not notable? She is an author not only of a published book but an internationally famed blog which is read by thousands every month (if not more). She is one of the ONLY contestants of "America's Next Top Model" to actually have and sustain a successful modeling career - perhaps the only one to do so at an international level. How she is not a notable figure is beyond me...

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

AnimeOnDVD[edit]

Web guide. If anything, this deserves to be just an external link on the Anime page. Ashibaka (tock) 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web guide. JamesBurns 05:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It just isn't encyclopedic material. -- Captain Disdain 23:10, 16 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

WeB[edit]

A guide to some nonexistent website? Ashibaka (tock) 14:46, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Genetic Wuz[edit]

I've tried to move the personal attacks/conversation below the line. Please put votes above it. --Xcali 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once you filter out the crossrhythms site which lists every album on every page, you get ~30 hits. Obvious vanity, article written in first person. --Xcali 15:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for above reason and for the butchering of the english language.--Kross 15:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • but the entry was only put up today so maybe you should wait and see. And besides I could find alot of bands on this encyclopedia that YOU (Xcali) don't know. And you there mr. "Butchering the english language", if only english first language people wrote on this site it would be SO much smaller. --80.229.167.70 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. First off, don't create a new header just for a comment. Second, where did I say only english speakers should be allowed to edit Wikipedia? Oh wait, thats right, I didn't.--Kross 16:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Just trying to make the point that the reason that Wiki is a user based encyclopedia is so people can correct mistakes aswell. Don't knock just correct. --Granted 16:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I may not know them, but if they're notable, Google probably will. If Google doesn't, then it's up to the Wikipedians to decide. --Xcali 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Excuse me but Google does know them --Granted 19:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: user seems to not be open to contributing in a positive sense to wikipedia. jglc | t | c 17:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • SEEMS not to be?... your going to have to tell us how a page about a music group (that some people would obviously want to read) can be negative?
--Granted 17:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody wants to read your garbage. By wasting our time to delete your nonsense, you are affecting the Wikipedia community in a negative manner. jglc | t | c 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Right, you are having a go at a page that is about a music band from Denmark, but you overlook the complete 40-year-old living with his parents, humping a blow-up dole nerd? His page is a freaking “list of ancient Jedi"? How about you get rid of that useless piece of crap, and keep something that is actually relevant to this plant, and not another Galaxy someone called Nigel cares about?
(unsigned comment by User:81.156.248.154 —Wahoofive (talk) 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC—Wahoofive (talk) 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Grant Fletcher is being pretty petty and tried (half assly) to VFD an article I created. Next time, use this, sport. By the way, I pride myself in being a nerd, geek and dork.--Kross 18:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Relax Kross, I never accused you of being a nerd, geek or dork. Plus (this is for Wahoofive) if U start talking about WP:MUSIC then maybe u should read point 5: stating that if the band has been featured in major media then it is worth hearing about. Half of the entry is a reveiw from a music magazine. And at the bottom of the entry is a link to a radio station that plays the album quite often.--Granted 18:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • That would make it a copyright violation, then, would it not? Also, I don't think I'd refer to Crossrhythms as "major music media." It's a nice publication (I've read a couple issues), but it's still a niche publication. I don't think your comments on this page aren't helping your cause.--Xcali 20:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Deanna (Revolution Radio) - I enjoy playing Genetic Wuz. They have a unique sound which portrays the younger musicians in Europe who are having a go. I'm sick of commercial music. Its rubbish! Genetic Wuz is fresh and creative, which in my opinion shows up a lot of the commercial music we play it along side. I think this album is taking the next generation of musicians in another direction - young people are wanting to be different, to stand out, more than other generations have in the past. Of this, I'm a massive supporter. Unsigned edit by 84.92.81.108 (talk · contribs)
  • Right guys here is the deal! Why are we having a frikin sh1tfit over the Christian version of Slipknot? This stuff belongs in the bible and not in an encyclopedia. This is the place where I copy paste my history essays from.
Ummm....and being a nerd is not a good thing to be and foreigners should not be allowed to post on wiki.....ah crap that counts me out.
Anyway Granted rules....but grant is a (genetic) wuz...???!!!???
20:13 June 14 2005 (manually added the date yay)
Unsigned comment by 172.212.142.34 (talk · contribs)
  • Well since this many people know this band then I think it should stay on. --Granted 19:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Who? A bunch of puppets? They don't carry much clout around here. --Xcali 20:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The above discussion is enough evidence, I think. jglc | t | c 20:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. voted twice. jglc | t | c 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well seeing that we have had the Star Wars complication, it looks like we have hit the X-Men one too. Where do all you sad gitts come from? I didn’t know our Ex-colonial friends grew them, in such vast numbers. So I have to finish off with something a very famous Irish man thought of:
“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”
Sorry chaps but there is more room for something real, then an 8ft tall teddy-bare with a stupid name, and a man with iron claws in his arm… Scipio Aemilianus
Pseudo-signed edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
    • While you're going on about nationality and race, how about this: Go get drunk. jglc | t | c 13:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - My sensors detect a sockpuppet overload. --FCYTravis 20:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep it. How is the above discussion evidence enough? what point are you trying to pull atention to? I have a point to pull atention to: If we look at what Wiki itself states in WP:MUSIC point 5: stating that if the band has been featured in major media then it is worth hearing about. As I said half of the entry is a reveiw from a music magazine (a mag is media guys) and at the bottom of the entry is a link to a radio station that plays the album quite often (plus one of the DJ's posted her own opinion). There should be no more discussing: keep the page (WP:MUSIC says so). (and are those puppet remarks directed at me? give a reason FCYTravis). --Granted 20:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
The sockpuppet remarks are directed at the jillions of unsigned new users voting here with no other contributions. Those are considered sockpuppets. As to your other point, airplay on one station and an article in one minor magazine does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Regardless, the sockpuppet tactics will backfire because articles supported by sockpuppets generally tend to attract real delete votes on principle. --FCYTravis 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:MUSIC is not a set of rules. Allow me to quote: "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable" (emphasis mine). You have also failed to establish how this group meets the criteria on that page. --Xcali 20:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity, sock-puppet supported. --Etacar11 20:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying to figure this lark out. vanity maybe but that is because I know more than anyone on the subject (though half of this article has now been deleted anyway). There are other people other than me who have looked at this site aswell. Plus I knew many people who wanted to hear a non-bias opoion about this band and how can they get it of of there official website. So if WP:MUSIC is not a set of rules then we have nothing to go by. except it does state that wiki editors like to use it as guidelines when deciding what to delete meaning this article would be fine. Criteria was radio and magazine coverage aka major media. Plus I remember someone saying crossrythms is a minor magazine? well sorry America but over here in Europe we might just have some different magazines than you do over there. Plus GW has been played on more radio stations than one (mostly in the UK though, sorry USA you miss out). --Granted 21:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that we don't have evidence of the notability of this group. They may be played on radio stations, but we've got no way of knowing it. Just getting on a few radio stations may not be enough. Had you read my comment, I said that I was familiar with Crossrhytms. I event went so far as to try find its circulation numbers, but I failed in that attempt. I stick by my original statement--it's a niche magazine for those heavily into Contemporary Christian Music. Finally, an English wikipedia will tend to be somewhat US-centric due to the number of English speaking internet users in the US versus the number of English speaking internet users outside the US. It's a systemic bias that we constantly have to deal with here. --Xcali 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • My group has been played on the radio twice or thrice. It doesn't mean jack squat. I don't deserve a wikipedia entry, and neither do these guys. jglc | t | c 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sock puppet and personal attack limits have both been exceeded. RickK 21:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I was just going to ask where RickK had been :-) Sockpuppet limit was reached a while ago. Delete as minorbandcruft supported by anonymous sockpuppets. Hermione1980 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC, and there's a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 22:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability and these sockpuppet edits are just oo much... Despite that, good luck in the future and maybe we can write about you someday once you do meet the notability guidelines. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At this stage, they appear not to be notable enough to warrant inclusion at this stage. The heavy presence of socks detracts from the cause. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if only for the impoliteness of supporters. Also, non-notable. Xoloz 05:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Commenting again. Okay I can see you guys (except for a few of you) don't think this band is important enough to mention on the (non-paper) wikipedia at the moment though I have tried to establish that such things as the fact that it has had frequent radio play in the UK and that it has had a larger feature in a magazine. Maybe you guys don't think that is enough. It is obviously one music geek Vs. quite a few SW and comic book geeks (not trying to be offencive by the way, Kross admits it). Okay here is the thing: Sick of the sock puppet larck (what the heck is up with the not liking new people). You do know there are lots of people that use this site that don't have users right? well whatever guys it is up to the boys upstairs to decide i guess (wish i was one). oh yeah Sasquatch has been the biggest dude yet (except for DJ Dea of revolution radio) --Granted 13:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because whenever a band gets a huge defense from a bunch of anonymous users, it makes me think that they're in Wikipedia to get notability, not because of notability. --Scimitar 14:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • comment to Scimitar. Well the name is so odd you would have to know the band allready to find them on wikipedia. You wouldn't just random search would you now.--Granted 17:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Every little band with a 7" has their own Wikipedia page. As long as they're not hi-jacking a title (and I don't think that Genetic Wuz is likely to refer to anything else) there's little harm in letting the page stay. Pburka 16:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • Guys, listen to yourselves, you sound like old women!? Don’t you have anything better to do then go and criticize someone’s page? So what if the English is broken? They are foreign for goodness sakes! And I agree with the statement that if you took of all the foreign contributions, there would be little left. So stop being such nurds and get a freaking life, rather then hammering on something so trivial?Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
  • If it's so trivial, then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. --Xcali 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I would just like to mention that you are not a nerd. Nerds do well in school and then end up making lots and lots of money, such as Bill Gates and even the giver of life to this sad and pointless being, namely Start Wars, George Lucas. You on the other hand have achieved nothing. Nerds are good and what they do best, for example, figuring out how to get to the moon. Something worthy of society, whereas you have done nothing except written down a few people who don’t exist. So don’t pride in something you are not. 18:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)Scipio Aemilianus Pseudo-signed edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
    • Comment: User's only edits are to this page and to the "List of ancient Jedi" VfD discussion. --Xcali 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well to be honest, its not like you are doing anything to contribute… Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
    • My 1000+ edits speak for themselves. Your 0 edits outside of VFD space speak for themselves as well - via deafening silence. --FCYTravis 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That is a very sad thing to admit, 1000+, do you have a life? And on the point of Sockpuppeting, I don’t even know Genetic Wuz, but someone has to tell a jerk that he is one. This is probably the single biggest reason why Americans are hated across the world. I can only restate what I have said before:
“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
  • First you say I'm not doing anything to contribute then you attack me for having a lot of contributions. Which is it? Get your personal attacks straight please. --FCYTravis 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Your contributions to the “Wuz” referral are minimal if that, and I don’t care how many contributions to exhaust pipe licking you have made.Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
  • I don't contribute to articles that ought to be deleted as unencyclopedic. I vote to delete them. Thanks for playing. --FCYTravis 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, this has been thoroughly entertaining. I wish to thank you all for you help in giving me a rather enjoyable evening, even if it was at your expense. For this I salute you, my ex-colonial friends. May King George V look down in delight…what a fine nation Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
  • for crying out you guys this guy just put on something personal thats all. Just give him the page don't you have anything else to do? Go and critize other sites which contain racisim or anyother of abusive stuff!Unsigned edit by Ceasium (talk · contribs)
    • First edit ever by User:Ceasium. --Xcali 19:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah so does it matter???? i just found out what i could actually do with Wikipedia and found out that this was possible after i saw it was up for deletion and i read all the reasons and arguments, i found it so ridiculous that i thought that i might as well say something. give him the site he is not doing any harm is he????--213.78.64.116 20:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Not only is it his first edit ever, its his *only* edit. Same with you. Question: Would the encyclopedia have entries for every small time musical group, especially one that hardly registers any hits on Google? Didn't think so. Like the others have said, maybe if Genetic Wuz becomes famous or even more notable, then they can have a page on Wikipedia. Maybe this'll make a nice goal for them. :)--Kross 23:07, Jun 16, 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.

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. —Xezbeth 12:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Babes of Broadway[edit]

The article only contains a thumbnailed picture. No info at all. Kross 15:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for above reasons.--Kross 15:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We are told that it is a "One-shot pin-up comic", but there is no indication to its notability. Sonic Mew 15:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as article with no content. -R. fiend 15:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. No content. Article created by a newbie who seems to have disappeared (no edits since May 26), so I think it's kind of a newbie mistake - created an article due to a redlink and thought that book cover images are appropriate articles. Check out Broadway Comics. This is the parent article (and, frankly, possibly another VfD candidate; company existed for one year 10 years ago (although I haven't (sorry) the time or energy to research this or list it)). Another linked article is another cover image and is CSD'd. Soundguy99 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote - OK, fair enough, DS1953 added some content so it's no longer a speedy, but I now think (after doing some research) that a Merge and Redirect to Broadway Comics would be appropriate. I mean, c'mon guys, it's a one-shot pin-up; what kind of article could possibly be written? B'way Comics is definitely keepable, but it's short, and IMHO merging all of the stuff in the subsidiary series articles would be a nice way to expand it. Soundguy99 16:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I added a couple of sentences of content to put it into context so its now a stub, but I am not voting. DS1953 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep DS1953 03:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub as expanded by DS1953. Legitimate comic from a legitimate company (which was run by the same company behind Saturday Night Live incidentally). Certainly it's no longer a speedy candidate IMO now that there is some content. 23skidoo 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as stub. Meelar (talk) 23:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new version - nice turnaround. Ah, the magic of vfd... -- BD2412 talk 05:03, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. Well done DS1953. JamesBurns 05:58, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

A state of affairs[edit]

Wikipedia still isn't a dictionary. Sonic Mew 15:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Support - Can't see how this can turn into anything else either. Secretlondon 15:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I've read it four times and I still don't understand the definition... need more coffee... -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The text of this entry looks more like a definition for actus reus (which already has a better page on Wikipedia) than a definition or explanation of "a state of affairs". --Metropolitan90 17:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The first bit is actus reus, the rest is who-knows-what. Xoloz 05:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic - almost a speedy candidate with its lack of content. JamesBurns 05:59, 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.

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 I speedy deleted this as nonsense. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marrana[edit]

Nonsense. - Possible candidate for speedy deletion? --Ian Pitchford 16:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. KFP 17:07, 14 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Computer hacking types[edit]

User is a known vandal, whose edits were reverted. In addition, the page is titled nonsensically ("computer hacking types" - what, types of hackers? Different system attacks? Types of computers?), and is both non-wikified and non-encyclopaedic. I could see how the content of the page, as it stands, might be useful, but it really needs to be (a) cleaned up and (b) retitled. jglc | t | c 16:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. --Xcali 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an article. Gazpacho 02:35, 18 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.

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, BJAODN. mikka (t)

Wikipedia:Write like this we should[edit]

I saw this page created in April, and added it to my watchlist, to keep an eye on it. I had forgotten about it until today, when cleaning up my watchlist. Nothing has been done with it, no-one else seems to have picked up on it, and I feel it is a worthy candidate to delete. --Daniel Lawrence 15:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incomplete VfD nom left over from April. Looks like late April Fool's joke attempt. Completing VfD process; my vote is Delete. Niteowlneils 16:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apologies for not fully completing the VfD process. Thanks for finishing it off for me. I'd also like to note that this page has been heavily edited since putting it on VfD only a couple of hours ago. --Daniel Lawrence 17:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--not just Yoda English, but incorrect Yoda English. Meelar (talk) 16:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Where's the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Yoda English)?—Wahoofive (talk) 18:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, you don't need one. Yoda English simply mimics German sentences structure, with predicate at the end of the sentence. It is a known source of jokes among syncronous translators: a German sentence may end with "nicht" ("not"), thus inverting the whole sense, to at unpleasant surprise of a parallel interpreter, especially when the sentence was long and translated piecewise: "We agree with all your conditions, stated henceforth and herewidth, blablabla,... not!" mikka (t) 00:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Potentially funny idea (BJAODN attempt, maybe?) that doesn't go anywhere and doesn't quite sound enough like real Yoda talk to even be amusing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stuff like this is why BJAODN shouldn't exist. It only encourages the creation of useless pages with the sole intent of trying to be funny. Random vandalizers are already running around being disruptive. We don't need users to be doing the same thing. -ÅfÇ++ 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete to BJAODN we should. Laughed much I did, although Star Wars fan I am not. --Idont Havaname 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Hey, at least it wasn't in the article namespace. -- BD2412 talk 21:45, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. I thought it was funny. :) Sincerely,  Short Verses  (talk) 22:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh dear... I fear this was indirectly my fault. Someone made a vaguely inane suggestion at the village pump - something like that that all articles should appear in US English, UK English and simplified English (thereby tripling the number of articles). I suggested yoda-speak as another viable alternative and pointed the reader to this (then non-existent) proposal. Seems like someone thought it was too good an idea to resist... BJAODN Grutness...wha? 00:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN/delete This is one of the better jokes I've seen lately. Ashibaka (tock) 01:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to meta, where we keep humour. James F. (talk) 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN "delete this.. we must". JamesBurns 06:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Send it to BJAODN we should. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or remove. Slike2 22:38, 24 Jun 2005 (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 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 no consensus; therefore, it's getting merged. -- Jonel | Speak 07:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Georgia Hanias[edit]

User has created and edited three pages: Georgia Hanias, her husband, Iain Overton, and one on Prix-CIRCOM. While Mr. Overton is, according to Google, a somewhat important executive and producer, Mrs. Hanias seems to not be; "Georgia Hanias" + "cyrano media", the alleged name of her media consulting firm, returns zero hits on Google. jglc | t | c 16:51, 14 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.

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 speedily deleted as sandbox exercise

Seite bearbeiten[edit]

This page in German is a copy-paste of the cover text of a book about Fernando Botero's paintings ([26]). I don't think it's worth translating and its copyright status is unclear. Sietse 16:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Almost certainly a copyvio; replace text with {{copyvio}} tag rather than listing it here. Actually, considering the title of the page just means "Edit page", speedy delete as user test. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • done.mikka (t) 23:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Interestingly, it has already been deleted once Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/May 30. mikka (t) 23:58, 14 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.

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 no consensus; therefore, it's getting redirected. -- Jonel | Speak 07:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Padavona[edit]

Inconsequential page that is already contained by Ronnie James Dio. --Flex 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No real content. DS1953 18:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If there are no other notable Padavona's, redirect. -- BD2412 talk 22:11, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate content. JamesBurns 06:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap. Alphax τεχ 08:02, 16 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.

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 personal attack page deleted as requested by subject. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 23:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Clemo[edit]

Page is allegedly about a "notorious gay rights campaigner in the 1960s". A Google search for "Andrew Clemo" + "gay rights" returns 0 hits. A Google search for "Andrew Clemo" + Slough (his alleged hometown) returns 0 hits. There are no references in the entry, and it has only one contributor, the creator: 212.219.8.187. If no one steps forward with true, verifiable, information, I can only conclude that the page is either a personal attack or patent nonsense. jglc | t | c 17:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) yes he is real, look at this site: [27] added by User:212.219.8.187, who also vandalised the initial poster's userpage

  • Delete - Sounds like patent nonsense to me. →Raul654 18:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - What do we know about the underground world of homosexuals? That isn't rhetorical if you feel like answering... Why don't we ask some gay people from Slough if they've ever heard of him? After all, we shouldn't be prejudiced just because he's led a weird life, now, should we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.8.187 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 Jun 2005
  • Delete - Nonsense, possible personal attack. -- [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 18:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • KEEP This is quite possible true, so we'd better keep it for now. If it is a personal attack, who is going to be offended? I for one would not be if I were accused of sticking up for a noble cause. I think that you are all homophobes added by User:212.219.8.187
      • Comment: This user proceeded to vandalise my userpage. jglc | t | c 18:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, no I didn't— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.8.187 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 Jun 2005
        • This diff says you did. --FCYTravis 21:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks. jglc | t | c 21:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Well... I am in a large educational facility using the same internet connection, so there is a chance that it wasn't me, matey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.8.187 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 Jun 2005
  • Delete absolutely: "What do we know?" Well, that's a good question, since all Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Without verification, delete. Geogre 18:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. unencyclopedic. --Ian Pitchford 18:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, this seems to be a personal attack (see User:212.219.8.187's contributions and user page history). KFP 19:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Mateys Hello mateys, this is Andy! I was *sooo* pleased to be on Wikipedia. Please don't delete me! See you, mateys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.8.187 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 14 Jun 2005
  • Delete. Probably some guys insulting their 'friend'. Google "Andrew Clemo" with no qualifiers get 7 hits, none relevant. DJ Clayworth 20:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This page has already been speedily deleted twice - by me. Looking at the deleted edit histories it's someone from Winchester College taking great delight in posting false information about someone at the same college. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • As a second thought, would it be advisable to contact Winchester College admin with regard to this? If it is a personal attack I wouldn't want to have this sort of information posted about me. I'll put together a draft email to the college. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I have sent an email to the college. If anyone would like to see it please email me rather than leave a message on my talk page. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense --Xcali 21:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probable prank. --Etacar11 22:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete attack page. JamesBurns 06:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - repetitive derogatory personal attack - Skysmith 09:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am at the college myself. This is patent rubbish - I know the person to whom the article refers personally. I also know the person responsible for writing the article. Both are juvenile teenagers. Please delete without further discussion. --Nick Stenning 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Aecis 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, either invented or non-notable. Take your pick. Sockatume 15:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have received an email from the Head of ICT at Winchester College, confirming what Nick Stenning has already said about the poster and subject of this article, and asking for it to be taken down forthwith. He has also blocked access to Wikipedia from the college until the article and any reference to it has been removed. I am therefore using my admin discretion to remove this article from Wikipedia before the VfD time is up. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 22:07, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Rotimi Fashanu[edit]

Was listed as speedy del:vanity. May be notable, my vote is neutral Gblaz 17:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • --Keep-- found several references on Google M0nster0 17:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Mere verifiability does not warrant an article (Wikipedia is not a mere collection of facts) - why is his business notable, and he for founding it? I mean, he's no Jeff Bezos in terms of importance. In fact, four google hits, one of which is Wikipedia, suggests nobody really cares. Looking at the google hits for 'BetterFragrance' produces a rather dubiously high level of irrelevent hits. Delete. Average Earthman 20:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I consider myself and Average Earthman, so I'm going to side with him on this. Delete --Xcali 21:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:05, 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.

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Klamboe[edit]

Delete as a dicdef (has already been transwikied to Wiktionary). It seems that the word "klamboe" is only used in the Dutch language. KFP 17:33, 14 Jun 2005 (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 --cesarb 15:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bion Franklin.[edit]

Doesn't explain notability; full text is "According to Madeleine L'Engle, her son Bion Franklin was the model for Rob Austin, a character in Meet the Austins and her other Austin family stories." Can't think that this would be a very useful redirect either. Meelar (talk) 17:55, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - The correctly named title might be an acceptable redirect to either Meet the Austins or to Madeleine L'Engle. But unless more information about Franklin himself being notable comes to light, he should not have his own article. And unless the claim here can be verified, it should not be added to any other article. Abstain for now. -- Jonel 18:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per James Burns.--nixie 05:28, 23 Jun 2005 (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 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. —Xezbeth 12:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

White Dawg[edit]

Prior VFD discussion : Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/White Dawg/2005 May 25

this rapper is not notable and his annoying wiki edits are ruining our great encyclopedia. F White Dawg 18:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sup, BrowardPlaya? How does it feel to be up for deletion AGAIN? HAHAHAHAHA.... we're gonna keep putting this up until you get taken down. You have to win every time, and we only have to win once. That Bentley ain't yours. You ain't from no Westside. And you sure as hell have no right to call yourself a "nigga." Someone's gotta slap the teeth out your mouth, FOOL. I vote DELETE! Also I eat cock. TRU THUG 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. This page has no business being on an encyclopedia. Keeping it up makes wikipedia look like a JOKE! Fan of REAL Hip-Hop 18:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep - Artist had a Top 20 hit on the Billboard rap charts in 1999, thereby meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines for inclusion. I'm also seeing a possible personal vendetta/abuse of VFD here. Sockpuppet limit has been reached at two. --FCYTravis 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - VfD is a joke. Ashibaka (tock) 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relistings should be valid but not within such a short period of time. Everyking 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. White Dawg is an embarrassment to Caucasians, the south, hip-hop, and himself. That being said, he is, quite unfortunately, notable. jglc | t | c 19:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as I despise (C)Rap music, this guy has over 16 million hits on Google.--Kross 20:11, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Hey now. No need to get offensive on rap music, there. After all, you do listen to Evanescence.jglc | t | c 20:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, if you put quotes around it, you get under 900 total for the "WhiteDawg" and "White Dawg" variants. --Xcali 21:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this shouldnt be allowed Yuckfoo 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Yo, I see that tha haterz have been active lately. It's aight, tho... it's all gravy. I ain't gonna let it get me down. But if you foolz seriously have a problem with me, let's quit playing internet games and handle this in the streetz like real gangstas! You heard what I said?! BrowardPlaya 20:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This justifies my dislike of the rap genre.--Kross 21:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's the exact same logic that a racist uses: In high school, a white teacher acted in ignorance towards me. Therefore, all white people are evil. All this statement does is justify your (and my) dislike (if not outright contempt) of this one guy. jglc | t | c 01:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Except that's a race, which doesn't define intelligence, and contain both intelligent and unintelligent people. Rap on the other hand... -- Natalinasmpf 16:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree 110% with above. -Hmib 20:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, though I'd like to see the main picture replaced. The hand jesture is too easy to misinterpret as something offensive. --Xcali 21:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, has already survived VfD. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, has already survived VfD and does (just) meet the relevant criteria. --Jamieli 22:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; on grounds that even if the article is presumed to be a waste of time, space and bandwidth, we're wasting more having to vote on it again and again and again. Samaritan 23:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do a Request for arbitration or the likes if you have a problem with his edits, not another vfd. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to meet Wikimusic criteria. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per my previous vote on this. JamesBurns 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, bordering on speedy keep. This is the third VFD nomination on this article. I feel this is getting silly. This musician is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The user, on the other hand, has got to go. I agree strongly with CCrustacean. jglc | t | c 13:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Who, the nominator or BrowardPlaya? Everyking 15:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Can't we just wipe all of them out? (I wouldn't mind if "TRU THUG" was disappeared, too). jglc | t | c 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't know of any wrongdoing...this nomination was a little questionable consider the short span of time that has passed, but that isn't something we really punish. Everyking 15:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • I would usually agree - the base policy being not to jump on new users - but looking at the comments left by "F White Dawg" and "TRU THUG" makes me fairly certain that their only purpose on wikipedia is negativity aimed at one particular user - BrowardBulldog. For a nice sample of his activities on Wikipedia, just look at the VfD entry for Wiked Wood. He has also been known to vandalise entries by placing an image of "White Dawg" next to a Bentley automobile in completely unrelated articles (such as Wealth and Rich). jglc | t | c 15:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The original nominator of this article, "User:Fuck White Dawg", was infinitely banned from Wikipedia yesterday for vandalism, establishing an offensive accout name, and violating the 3RR. Why is it that the history of this page begin with jglc's edits and not that of the nominator? Hall Monitor 16:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm confused: I don't think that it does. When I look at the History, it begins with UncleG's edits (x2), and then mine. jglc | t | c 16:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • After looking more carefully at the edits, I think what happened was that the previous VfD on White Dawg was still active; therefore, when it was nom'd again, people began adding comments to the bottom of the previous discussion. UncleG archived the previous discussion and re-posted the pertinent (current) comments all at once. I made the first edit to the freshly reposted VfD discussion. jglc | t | c 16:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP Yall just hatin on White Dawg cos he be flossin his ice and drivin in his Bentley. Bitches. -BrowardDon 02:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Account created less than an hour ago. --cesarb 02:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Likely a puppet of BrowardPlaya, with absolutely no name creativity. The people on both sides of this are being extremely obnoxious. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:20, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • I would guess that the people on both sides are really on the same side: that is, they're just a bunch of puerile simpletons who want to use Wikipedia as their little internet playpen. The fact that one of them happens to be notable enough for a Wikipedia entry is probably the most truly unfortunate coincidence that I have ever encountered. jglc | t | c 05:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet this user nominated 8Ball & MJG for deletion as "non-notable" --newkai 10:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - VfD vandalism ("we're gonna keep putting this up until you get taken down. You have to win every time, and we only have to win once.") Aecis 09:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I personally hate all rap music and I've never even heard of this guy before, but he has about three albums out and is obviously notable, so it's idiotic to delete it. Cyclone49 10:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's obviously notable. Yup, our man White Puppy looks gormless enough for me to believe that he's popular. -- Hoary 08:11, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is just another attempt to take down a rapper's article because of personal dislike. Same is going on with 8Ball & MJG right now. newkai 09:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let the artist stay. He don't have to be popular or even "good" to be on Wiki. --Anittas 18:49, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep in accordance with WP:MUSIC and mitigate VfD vandalism. Hall Monitor 21:29, 20 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Undertaking[edit]

An ad for a "strange forum with less than 200 members". No Alexa data, no inbound links. --Cryptic (talk) 18:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - what rubbish UkPaolo 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable You (Talk) 20:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Subtract ("This is not an add for the site"). Sorry, can't resist. -- BD2412 talk 21:48, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:08, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dymt[edit]

Non-notable term. Author of stub refers to [28], a nonsense thread on Tech Report Forums only significant for its subsequent number of following nonsensical posts. Znode 18:31, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

what the *%$&?! delete UkPaolo 18:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete My "Why should I care?" alarm is going off. --Xcali 20:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable acronym. JamesBurns 06:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm quite sure this will be increased beyond all wildest dreams. Alphax τεχ 07:50, 16 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tears in a vial[edit]

The slippery slope thing -- this song is already mentioned in the article The System Has Failed as being track #5. It'd be one thing if this song were like "Happy Birthday" or even "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", or at the very least had more than one line about the social and political implications of the existence of this particular Megadeth song. This entry doesn't even have that -- delete. StopTheFiling 18:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Most songs are not notable in and of themselves. --Xcali 20:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable song. JamesBurns 06:09, 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.

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. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of Ancient Jedi[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted: This entry is too big and is a waste of Wiki space. If this is not a waste of Wiki space i do not know what is. --Granted 18:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikiepedia is not paper! :) --maru 19:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure George Lucas didnt have this in mind when he started it all off! He did it to have some fun and make some money. This is going to far! Who on earth cares?! A bunch of made up ugly as hell characters, that have no meaning to life, as we know it. I am sure everyone that has contributed to the probably saddest thing I have ever witnessed in my life, could do something more productive then this! Go do something with your life, ANYTHING! But is this really your donation to society? No wonder all is screwed up in Virginia! And if you believe in a creator, do you honestly think this is what he had in mind when he gave you life? And if you dont believe in a creator, do you think your parents thought of this when they gave you life? You might die any day, so dont waste your life. 18:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Scipio Aemilianus

I am sure Kross didnt have this in mind when he started it all off! He did it to have some fun. This is going to far! Who on earth cares?! A bunch of made up allegations and bogus VfDs, that have no meaning to life, as we know it. I am sure everyone that has contributed to the probably lamest revenge I have ever witnessed in my life, could do something more productive then this! Go do something with your life, ANYTHING! But is petty revenge on Wikipedia really your donation to society? No wonder all is screwed up with you! And if you believe in a creator, do you honestly think this is what he had in mind when he gave you life? And if you dont believe in a creator, do you think your parents thought of this when they gave you life? You might die any day, so dont waste your life. Make some actual contributions. --maru 19:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it It is Star Wars Histroy collected though books and games. It should be here so Star Wars Fans can look up info if they need to. Also EU authors could use this when writing Star Wars books, it is very useful information for a Star Wars Fan.
  • Keep and Comment. Grant disliked the fact that I voted to delete an article he created and in a really halfass attempt to spite me, VFD'd this article. He messed up though and didn't follow the deletion process, so I removed the notice (after considering who he was and why he did it), but I've deleted for kicks and so he can't claim I removed the notice without cause, I decided to complete the steps he didn't. Anyways, most of the entries on the list had their own pages, but I felt they should be condensed into a list (some of the entries range from 1-2 sentences to barely a paragraph). --Kross 18:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My own opinion is that the various SW lists need to be rationalized (does it really make sense to have separate lists for ancient, and minor, Jedis? and etc.), but simply deleting them is emphatically not the way to go. This whole VfD seems pretty lame- see also the VfD for the Wookies. The fact that the starter, and only other hostile user, are claimed to be the same person casts considerable doubt on the validity of this deletion request. --maru 19:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep; I haven't looked into it thoroughly, but this VfD nom shows every indication of being a revenge nomination. The list is encyclopaedic, looks clean and well-formatted, and - though Mr. Fletcher may not think so - is within the Star Wars canon. jglc | t | c 19:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • To all of the SW fans I am sorry i offended you by calling this list of ancient jedi a waste of space. Though I still belive this file to be too big (and what is up with the "It should be here so Star Wars Fans can look up info if they need to", need it?). And I would like it if people stop calling me spitefull just because I VDF'ed an entry by a person who VDF'ed an entry of mine, it is not spite I just check his user profile thingy and saw that his two articles seem to be a bit less usefull than, lets say, a certain genetic Wuz article that I entered. Oh yeah, sorry if the VDF was a bit incompleete (thanks for correcting it) this is my first.--Granted 19:34, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Check List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. Its 45kb. It used to be over 54kb in size. This list is far from oversized.--Kross 19:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's "VfD," not "VDF". Secondly, Wikipedia Is Not Paper. Thirdly, "spiteful" is spelled like that. Fourthly, "incomplete" is spelled like that. jglc | t | c 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listen up mate, you obviously knew what i meant so why did you have to try and use my spelling against me. Hvis du vil have at jeg skal skrive dansk så kan jeg også bare gøre det ikke også. I don't see what anyone acheives by pointing out spelling mistakes to anyone (let alone someone who doesn't have english as there first language). and by the way; no one said wiki was paper boys. And thank you for pointing out that the SW universe inside of Wiki is shrinking. I can still not see how this SW entry can be usefull but if you guys use it alot then so be it let it stay. (Sorry, I was trying to clean up the trash). --Granted 20:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • keep this please Yuckfoo 20:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why Yuckfoo? Do you use this Article often? --Granted 20:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

And what if he does? --FCYTravis 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - based on the fact that nomination appears to be revenge-motivated. --FCYTravis 21:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Look dudes you have got to stop coming back to this revenge thing. I have already dismissed it. plus the "And what if he does?" comment seemed to be a bit on the spite side. re-lax man i am just trying to figure out if anyone even uses this article and so far I have not heard of one person who has found use for it. --Granted 21:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) (vote struck through, duplicate)
Every one of this user's edits is to one of the two articles in question or their respective VfD nominations. User admits he searched User:Kross's contribs page. "Dismissed" or not, looks like revenge to me. --FCYTravis 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a heck of a lot better than having separate articles. Besides, it's a bad faith VfD nomination. --Xcali 21:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I can see how it is better than seperate articles but would you need the seperate articles? ever!? the question still stands. --Granted 21:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

(One vote per user. Feel free to add comments. --FCYTravis 21:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep, valid information, as crufty as it is, and the nomination was made in bad faith. --RickK 22:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd just like to state that I hold no anger or anything towards Grant. This was amusing.--Kross 22:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep bad faith nomination. --Etacar11 22:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. This is a bad faith nomination and clearly not a waste of space. Gateman1997 09:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Kross i have gotta say you have a wierd idea of fun. Anyway if this List of Ancient Jedi is usefull. For anyone. at all. ever. then sure we should keep it that is what Wiki is for. But if it is a useless (as I assume it is) then chuck it. --Granted 13:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I did use wikipedia to learn about the Expanded Universe.--Poli 13:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a viable fictional universe entry. --GaidinBDJ 19:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I dont know if it was necessary to seperate Jedi and Ancient Jedi. (this is not a vote)

It's not a bad idea- it is a natural categorization, since just about every known Jedi either originates from the movies and subsequent novels; or from the Dark Horse comic books; those two time periods are narrowly circumscribed with minimal overlap (yes, there are odd-balls like Ood B'Nar, but still...) --maru 22:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why not? I can well imagine people finding this information of interest. --democracys 00:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that out of this users seven 7 total edits, only one was non-VfD. --maru 01:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The original reasons stated for deletion result only from the complaining user's bias against Star Wars. Absolutely no claims of any validity are made to support deletion. Frankly, the deletion attempt is so wafer-thin that I wonder why it is even being seriously considered. --Pathogen 16:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A good point. It seems the overwhelming consensus is a simply keep, so why don't we close this VfD? It is unlikely that 15 or 20 users will come along and vote Delete, no? --maru 16:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I dropped Granted a friendly note on his User Talk Page. Let's hope that he learns something from this (and Genetic Wuz). If not, I will report him to administration. jglc | t | c 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but give All of the KOTOR I and II characters their own articles.
  • Keep The information was of interest and value. Your lack of interest doesn't affect another person's need. If you don't care to know about blue-crowned pelicans, don't look them up, but don't ask the encyclopedia to remove the entry for your sake.
  • Keep I found it useful information.
  • I'm kind of having mixed feelings about this article, as IMO much of the information here are nothing more than just minor Jedi characters. IMO Wikipedia only needs to keep the major Jedi and Sith characters. So unless there are actually some Jedi Characters worth mentioning, I would say delete judging that almost all of the Jedi listed on this article are just minor Jedi characters. -- Vesther 19 June 2005, 0:57 Hours CDT
  • Keep There are a few jedi in here that are just under the bar for having their own articles. Nomi Sunrider, for example, had her own long entry in the Essential Guide to Characters. The KotOR characters are likewise important.-LtNOWIS 00:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd like a reference if I want to find out more about the characters, in games, movies and the like! Nothing wrong with it! Anyway, is it using up your server space?
  • Keep While just movies, the Star Wars films are part of popular culture. --phogan June 21st
  • Keep Too much information to purge.
  • Keep Ive been using this to study starwars heavily I also use it as a reference for my starwars power metal bands lyrics
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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Barrett Lyon[edit]

vanity page Biot 19:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: vanity page Heat- 19:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vanity page Alexander Guy 19:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity.--Kross 19:39, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Definite vanity. Some kid using Wikipedia as his playground. jglc | t | c 19:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Big pic always gives it away. --Etacar11 22:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Xunil 15:57, Jun 14, 2005 (PST)*

Delete. Vanity. User:Gates 17:34, Jun 14, 2005 (PST)

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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lariska[edit]

delete useless, no info RabidMonkeysEatGrass 19:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I was going to say the same, but then decided to turn the article into a stub; the character's name has been announced, and it will theoretically show up in the series soon. I would suggest keeping as a stub, or merging info into a Bionicle characters list. jglc | t | c 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

deletethis info is already on the Dark Hunters page Denjo

  • Delete. Fancruft. Wikiacc 01:31, Jun 15, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jingyu Zhou[edit]

Seems to be another PhD resume that pops up. I'm not in the field, so I am unsure as to whether or not he is well-known, but Google returns only a few hundred hits for "Jingyu Zhou," and none for "Jingyu Zhou" + "Santa Barbara", supposedly his current institution. The fact that the user who created the entry (also its only contributor) has no other edits or contributions, and is an anonymous, is also fishy. jglc | t | c 19:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • delete wikipedia is not a vanity listing, or I would be on Wikipedia, too. RabidMonkeysEatGrass 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for great justice! No really, this guy isn't really notable enough.--Kross 20:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete at least until he has his first post-PhD publication with his own name at the top. -- BD2412 talk 21:49, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Grad students are by definition non-notable. --Etacar11 22:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:10, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tony "The Tongue" Flores[edit]

Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity.--Kross 20:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. And a hoax. -- BD2412 talk 21:51, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/probably a hoax. --Etacar11 22:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:11, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Perine[edit]

Vanity. "He is famous for holding the world record consecutive absences for a high school student" is unverifiable and probably not noteworthy enough. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity, stupid vanity.--Kross 20:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Its either vanity or an attack page -CunningLinguist 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete please it is not verifiable and probably an attack page too Yuckfoo 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity or attack (absences aren't anything to be proud of, stay in school, kids) --Etacar11 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete please... we have more than enough of these. Sadly enough, there's no way to stop them. Oh well. jglc | t | c 01:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete attack page. JamesBurns 06:12, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dylan Henstock[edit]

Looks like vanity. I cannot find good credible sources to verify how this person is noteworthy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I found nothing verifiable either. Not notable. Likely vanity. -CunningLinguist 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:12, 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.

I do not believe this article is vanity. New kach movement is a very famous movement worldwide and was started by the same person, Rabbi Meir Kahane, who started the Jewish Defence League. The New kach movement Johannesburg chapter was the first NKM chapter to start in South Africa and I believe that this is something noteworthy for the movement.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ramdenee[edit]

Another vanity article of a non-notable college student. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • How many college students are "brilliant"? Oh. Delete --Xcali 21:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Really, we should create a special space for vanity bands and non-notable college students. Then we could tell them all, "oh we didn't delete your article, we moved it to the special place!" -- BD2412 talk 22:03, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Delete nn college vanity. --Etacar11 22:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Is that anything like telling someone they're a WP:VIP? --Xcali 23:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Something like it, yep.  :-D -- BD2412 talk 04:58, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:13, 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.

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 Already deleted when I got here. Golbez 01:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay[edit]

Attempt by an editor to fork the lengthy and well-supported article called Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay with a POV version.--Lee Hunter 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Apparent POV fork. Content disputes need to be worked out in the article. --FCYTravis 21:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge - I created it to thwart the bias in the main article. Contributors have openly said they intend to limit the scope of the article to US abuse of the Koran. Either they must permit the Pentagon POV to be described there, or in a side bar article. (By the way "POV" is not the same as bias.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
In fact that's not true at all. What's been happening is that Ed has been trying to make prisoner abuse of the Koran the main focus of the article - at one point he went so far as to remove the military abuse of the Koran from the intro and replaced it with prisoner abuse of the Koran. Other editors readily accept that the prisoner abuse should be mentioned within the article but find it distinctly odd that it should be elevated to the central issue when the world at large is not discussing it. --Lee Hunter 21:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I did, it was accidental (or more likely, temporary). I mentioned in talk that I want a balance. Where do you want the prisoner abuse of the Koran to be mentioned? In the same article as the US military abuse, or in a separate article? It's got to go somewhere. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV fork. The notable story is about desecration of the Koran by US personnel. Alleged "abuse" by detainees hasn't really got much to do with anything. It barely merits a mention in the original article. 80.203.115.12 21:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to main article.--Kross 22:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV fork. RickK 22:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Consensus here is in direct conflict with consensus at the main article. But I guess this vote trumps that vote, so I'm deleting. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. The editor has deleted it. However, for the record there have been far more occasions of prisoners at Guantanamao Bay desecrating the Qu'ran than the one or two occasions it has been harmed by the guards. Al Queda members are trained to make allegations of abuse while in custody and any allegations have been thoroughly investigated. Unfortunately, the media doesn't seem to be interested in offering fair coverage of this so I agree with Ed Poor that the bulk of the article should be about the actions of the detainees. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Really Capitalist? I didn't know that you spent that much time at Gitmo so that you could be so certain that what the U.S. military has reported is the truth. Even the Red Cross has had trouble getting access to that prison. I'm impressed that you have such unimpeachable inside information. Quale 23:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See:

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.

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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dick's Creek Baptist Church[edit]

Non-notable Church in non-notable town. Nothing links to it, no outgoing links. Pointless article Bobbis 20:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Jackson County, North Carolina Barely relevant on its own, but perhaps it would be useful in its county's article -- RussellG 09:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just as important to have every church that ever existed as it is to have every school that ever existed. RickK 22:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Observation: fails google test. Ambush Commander 23:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RickK. I got this one hit (with Yahoo): [29] so it does seem to exist. Kappa 23:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, 102 year-old churchs are significant enough, let's have more. --Zero 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reason RickK says keep. (I.e., it isn't that important.) --Xcali 04:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 06:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. There's plenty of room at Jackson County, North Carolina for this blurb, if the building or congregation are at all notable. (Note to RickK, The sarcastic use of converse accident is an unconvincing deductive fallacy and seems to be backfiring.) Dystopos 23:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep democracys 00:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • User ID created in November of 2003, only one edit until today, all edits today to VfD pages. RickK 04:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Jackson County, North Carolina (leaving the requisite redirect, of course). -- Jonel | Speak 03:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Radiant_>|< 10:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Rick's comments. --Centauri 04:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't indicate notability. Gazpacho 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, churches are generally notable (especially 100+ year old ones), wikipedia is not paper, etc etc etc . . . - Jersyko talk 14:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Jersyko. -- Zantastik talk 22:54, 21 Jun 2005 (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 --cesarb 15:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Symbol Of Software Piracy[edit]

It seems the presented symbol is not what the article claims it to be and as such, the article appears pointless Michał Kosmulski 20:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge, I'm pretty sure I've seen these before. Abstain towards a delete, ah wait, that was a copyleft symbol. It's used in an improper context. Ambush Commander 23:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with what? It's just another stupid and tedious attack on Free Software by an idealogue who represents not to understand the difference between releasing one's own work under a free licence and misappropriating someone else's work. Delete. Ben-w 00:21, 15 Jun 2005 (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 keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Koara (disambiguation)[edit]

Are there any other uses for this word other than the one listed? If not this disambiguation page is redundant and should be deleted. Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • A quick glance at the page history shows this: (Remove fish since it is spelled "koaro"), I think this merits a delete. Ambush Commander 23:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and re-introduce the fish as a see-also. Even the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary makes this misspelling. If it is a misspelling; "fish koara" gets many more Google hits than "fish koaro", although perhaps the aboriginal Koara are fishermen. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless dab page. JamesBurns 06:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wahoofive.  Grue  17:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per JamesBurns. Radiant_>|< 19:07, Jun 19, 2005 (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 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 nomination withdrawn. WP:MUSIC has wide acceptance, and since the subject meets the criteria, the eventual outcome of this discussion would most likely be to keep the article, so I'm closing it early. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dharma bums(band)[edit]

Supposedly a great 1980s band, but "Dharma bums" + "Jeremy Wilson" (singer's name) only gets 73 Google hits. The article mentions the band Perfect Circle, but the band does not have any members of A Perfect Circle. Nevertheless, it doesn't look like a hoax, just band vanity. --Idont Havaname 21:07, 14 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.

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. —Xezbeth 12:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Grace Thaxton[edit]

There is a woman named Grace Thaxton who is 110+ years old and one of the oldest living people in the US, however I found nothing claiming she practiced witchcraft and even minus the witchcraft information there is a question as to whether merely being old merits notability on Wikipedia. CunningLinguist 21:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • comment I also looked it up and found nothing on witchcraft. I say it goes on BJAODN. RabidMonkeysEatGrass, It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine (and I know you will feel fine, too) 21:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep. Living past 110 is still quite notable in my book. Take out any unverifiable (e.g. witchcraft) stuff, and replace with verifiable info, if there is any to be found. If so, keep. If not, well her info is already in supercentenarian, so I guess make it a redirect. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 21:58, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect, depending on whether or not we can add more info. Passes google test. Ambush Commander 23:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems notable. JamesBurns 06:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please Keep this page. The study of supercentenarians is a topic that interests me, and I see no reason why the top ten oldest shouldn't have their own pages.
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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Heart Sold Separately[edit]

"up and coming", non-notable, likely vanity. StopTheFiling 21:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Deleteski. Non-notable. Maybe if they actually make it big, but not now.--Kross 22:03, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • When they're up, let us know. Until then, Delete --Xcali 22:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails google test. Ambush Commander 22:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 06:19, 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.

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 Merge. -- Jonel | Speak 07:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disorientation[edit]

dicdef and no hope of becoming more Gblaz 21:31, 14 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.

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. Kelly Martin 02:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

H-cluster reductions[edit]

This page was nominated for deletion by someone using the IP address 205.188.116.71 but was not put up at VfD. I'm completing the nomination process, but I vote to keep, as mentioned below. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article says that some people say yooj for huge. That's not true. Only lazy people say that. That's a mispronunciation, not a dialectal feature. 205.188.116.201 June 14, 2005

  • Speedy keep, no valid grounds for deletion given. As for the linguistically naive statement above, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP This shouldn't even be listed here. Lachatdelarue (talk) 21:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks fine to me. Ambush Commander 22:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:NOR I'm not sure where this falls. Outside of wikimirrors, this appears on one site. I'll admit, though, that this is a narrow field of study that's not likely to see a lot of press. --Xcali 03:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to google for because they're not always called "H-cluster reductions". Some people call them "Glide cluster reductions", and some people don't group them together at all, just calling them the "wine-whine merger" and the "yew-hew merger" (or some other set of words that illustrate the point), and some people don't call them by any name at all, but just talk about the loss of /h/ before /w/ and/or /j/. But they're definitely both notable phenomena in the phonology and sociolinguistics of English. The loss of /h/ before /l/, /n/, and /r/ isn't so notable; it's just one of the many sound changes that happened during the course of Middle English. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a genuine subject. Maybe it'll never make it to the evening news on tv, but this is an encyclopedia. Bambaiah 13:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see that another legit article from Category:Phonology has been put on VfD by a user from IP number 205.188.166.xxx — Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reduction (linguistics) Bambaiah 05:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not always called by a consistent name, but if I studied it in an intro linguistics class it belongs here. --Laura Scudder | Talk 15:41, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Globosearch[edit]

Search engine spam. NSR 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as spam. User:83.237.17.93, the creator of some links to the article and possibly the article itself, has vandalized this VfD. Martg76 22:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: spam, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam? Hmm... Where?
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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan white[edit]

Textbook vanity CunningLinguist 22:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • You just barely beat me to the delete, literally seconds before I was about to submit my own VfD for this article. I concur. jglc | t | c 22:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Short article with little to no content. --Xcali 22:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with great speed...and justice! :P--Kross 22:38, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Martg76 22:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletize plz. kthx. --FCYTravis 22:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, google test is a bit strange, maybe there is a notable Nathan White, but it's probably not this one. See [30]. Ambush Commander 22:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. Someone can create an article on the Nathan White who died in Iraq, with correct capitalization, if they want. --Etacar11 23:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:22, 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.

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Starry-marry split[edit]

Delete as neologism. (Google gets no hits at all for this or for "marry-starry split".) Nor is it a genuine phonemic split, since it is not a question of a single phoneme splitting into two phonemes over time. It's just different diachronic behavior of a vowel before a morpheme boundary (star-ry) compared to morpheme-internally (marry). Not a notable linguistic phenomenon. Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unverifiable, not notable, not encyclopedic, neologism, it's a veritable smorgasbord of reasons to delete. --FCYTravis 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - The difference between the vowels in starry and marry is phonemic, otherwise they would rhyme. Also, tarry /tɑri/ and tarry /tæri/ form a minimal pair, so the difference is phonemic, because a minimal pair is formed. Also, the distinction between /ɑr/ and /ær/ is not even morphemically predictable, compare marry /mæri/ and sari /sɑri/. Sari has only one morpheme. Steve, Jun 14, 2005 (actually 64.12.117.14 22:32, 2005 Jun 14 according to edit history. Uncle G 23:51, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC))

Quote-These developments (historical linguistic sound changes) had the effect that many related words would then have had different pronunciations, depending on whether or not the word contained a suffix beginning with a vowel. Thus related words such as "star" and "starry" would have had different stressed vowels ("star" would have the new lengthened vowel, while "starry" would have the original short vowel). To avoid such disparities of pronunciation between morphologically-related forms, (i.e. pairs of obviously related words), there occurred a process of analogical replacement (not a regular sound change), by which forms with intervocalic [r] (such as "starry") came to have the same pre-[r] long vowel as the forms with non-intervocalic [r] (such as "star"). (It was impossible for the analogy process to work in the opposite direction, since shortening the long vowel in the form with non-intervocalic [r] would have violated the phonological requirement that no non-schwa short-vowel could occur before word-final [r], or before [r] followed by a consonant.) This analogical replacement process is the reason why in modern standard English dialects the word "starry" now has a vowel which is similar to that of the word "star", but which is different from the vowel of the word "marry". (The original short vowel in "marry" remained unaffected by analogy because in the case of that word there was no morphologically-related form in which the "a" vowel wasn't intervocalic.) 64.12.117.14, 23:51, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

  • Merge with phonemic differentiation like the others. Kappa 22:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If sources are cited, Merge, as the others. If no sources are cited, as is currently the case, Delete for being unverifiable. Uncle G 23:51, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
Comment if it's to be merged anywhere, merge it to History of the English language. It is not a phonemic split in the sense used at Phonemic differentiation and so it has no business there. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 06:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neolog. Radiant_>|< 09:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with phonemic differentiation. 205.188.117.74 13:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research/neologism. The phonemic split might well be accurately described, but the term for it is a neologism unless evidence to the contrary (WP:CITE) is provided. — mark ✎ 10:26, 16 Jun 2005 (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 discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:14, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Schyl perry[edit]

Not notable. Vanity. Unverfiable. Failed the Google test. No results which means it failed the IMDB test. Trying to find a speedy delete criteria but seems that VfD shall do. The creator also vandalised a movie page just to put the person's name on an article. Chill Pill Bill 22:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed non notable. Delete. Ambush Commander 22:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete does not exist. freestylefrappe 22:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/possible hoax. Surely someone honored at the white house would get some hits on Google. --Etacar11 23:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even if somehow the son of a notable person as the article claims, that's all he is. Not notable on his own. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this fruitage of his labor. -- BD2412 talk 04:56, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 06:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unholy abomination in my sight. "fruitage of his labor"? Yeesh. Also, no such person. democracys 00:53, 16 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.

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 Speedied by Lommer. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 02:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Aquinas[edit]

Irrelevant, not appropriate for Wikipedia 68.198.155.64 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy nonsense. Possible attack. --Xcali 23:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible, hoax/attack page. --Etacar11 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as attack page. --Idont Havaname 00:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, nonsense, and I've tagged it as such. (Isn't that one of the guys from bumfights?) AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:50, Jun 15, 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.

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 redirect Unas CDC (talk) 16:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wenis[edit]

I don't see this term in anatomy books. Looks like a hoax to me. mikka (t) 22:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It's contemporary usage, check Urban Dictionary's definition. Transwiki to wiktionary. Ambush Commander 22:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Urban Dictionary is, to put it simply, pretty much no authority at all when it comes to how a word is defined. This definition is a prime example of UrbanDictionary codswallop. This is not the meaning of that word at all. (The only evidence that it is, is UrbanDictionary and people quoting UrbanDictionary. No-one actually uses it in this way. This is still a protologism.) No transwiki. Redirect to Unas because [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/unas.htm it is an alternative spelling] of the name of that Pharaoh. Uncle G 23:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
  • .Transwiki, let them take a look. It does seem to get a lot of use, judging from google results. Kappa 23:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 06:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually the wenis is quite famous and the source of many jokes. It's a part of the anatomy, anyway, seems like we should have an article on any part of the anatomy. Everyking 01:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Prove it. I didn't find anything other than direct and indirect references to UrbanDictionary. (The jokes were, as indeed they were here on an earlier version of this page, because of the obvious rhyme, and nothing to do with elbows.) Please cite your anatomical reference. Uncle G 01:44, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
      • Um, I don't have a reference, but I have heard "wenis" jokes before. Everyking 01:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd rather conjecture the "reverse etymology": weenie + penis + Venus -> weenus, wenis, and only after that a suitable anatomic part was attached to the word. In some surgical pages I've seen elbow skin is called just thusly: Elbow skin : A 5-cm transverse incision is made 2 cm distal to the elbow skin crease. Also, there is Elbow Skin; tell them it is wenis. mikka (t)
          • Well, I'm not voting keep, I'm just pointing out that it is more than a internet inside joke. Everyking 02:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I think it should be moved to the Wiktionary, because what more can you add to this?
  • Redirect to Unas. -Wiccan Quagga 09:48, 19 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Joe McGuire (salesman)[edit]

Not notable. Memorial? According to the article, he is just a salesperson like the title implies. There are millions of salespeople in the world. Failed the Google test with "Mr. Retail"+"Joe McGuire" = no results. In addition "Joe McGuire" "car salesman" = low unrelated results. Chill Pill Bill 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- sounded like a nice guy, but perhaps not notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair | Talk 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I find this kind of interesting, and he sounded like a pretty cool person, but a car salesman just isn't an encyclopedic topic, even a successful one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:30, 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.

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. Kelly Martin 02:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Parry (musician)[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Uh, this is Arcade Fire we're talking about here, not Joe's basement rockers. He was on a Macleans cover. Notable by any Canadian musical measures. -The Tom 05:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable musician of notable band and from notable family. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: comments at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Richard Parry (musician) from a contributor who would rather "improve the entry than delete it". DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Cover of a national newsmagazine suggests notability to me. — mendel ☎ 20:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Spinboy, has Ottawa lost radio contact with planet earth lately? A member of Arcade Fire, non-notable?!? (And demonstrably not vanity, either; the article was created by someone in Pennsylvania, and TAF are from Montreal.) Stephen Harper's messing with your Bytownian heads, man...and yeah, for the record, that's a keep vote. Bearcat 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article establishes notability to my satisfaction. --Deathphoenix 14:19, 17 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.

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Bad Acid Trip[edit]

Non-notable band, just released first CD. From their website: 15 years after its inception Bad Acid Trip ... seems to have solidified their line-up....their seemingly constant line-up changes has never compromised anything for the band except their ability to tour extensively, but never you fear for B.A.T. may soon have a show in your hometown,or somewhere near. Well, write again when their "ability to tour extensively" (or some other WP:MUSIC criterion) resurfaces.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete band fails wikipedia guidelines. JamesBurns 06:33, 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Glycemic Records[edit]

Record label which has yet to issue its first disk. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn, vanity, crystal ball. RickK 23:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons listed by RickK. --Idont Havaname 00:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with RickK. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 06:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per RickK. --FCYTravis 06:38, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_14&oldid=1081092328"