Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 3

< August 2	August 4 >

August 3

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nevin

Politician page, should be deleted as precedent for advertising states. --Titoxd 00:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Titoxd 00:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political ad. If he's elected he can consider getting a page. The number of people who run for elected office in a given year is staggering. Not even all those elected are notable. -R. fiend 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This election concerns over 950,000 voters, that's larger than a US congressional race - Nevin has already raised over $575,000. He is a real candidate. I think more information is always better for voters. If people disagree with the content of the article, please update / add new content. Mblinder 00:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC) Mblinder[reply]
- He is a real candidate. Thank God. I was afraid at first that he was an artificial candidate. --Calton | Talk 12:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per R. fiend. WP:ISNOT a personal webhosting service. --malathion ^talk 00:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an exercise in self-promotion; can't imagine the article would have appeared if he wasn't running for California State Senate. Flowerparty ^talk 00:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Has held other elected offices including mayor of Daly City, a city with a population of over 100,000. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Capitalistroadster but someone needs to get the POV toned down. Who endorses him in his current race in not encyclopedic. DS1953 01:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and oh yeah, I really need to pick up some eggs when I go grocery shopping. —RaD Man (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When he gets elected, we can recheck <drini ☎> 04:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a serious candidate. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. He hasn't even gotten the party nomination yet, let alone won. And being mayor of Daly City is most certainly not a mark of notability. --Calton | Talk 12:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Regular advertising on Wikipedia is bad enough, but political advertising just seems too much like a violation of political ad laws. Maybe it'd be a keeper without the POV, but that might not be worth the edit unless he is elected. --Several Times 13:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I'm not saying that it's a violation, just that it's kind of a gray area these days. --Several Times 16:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my rewritten version--mayor of Daly City pushes him over. P.S. This in no way violates election law. Meelar (talk) 14:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Several Times --BradBeattie 14:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--BirgitteSB 16:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hamster Sandwich 17:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Former mayor of a city of over 100000 ppl meets my notability criteria, especially when we have other gems like Andover Elementary School that are considered "notable". Keep. --Scimitar ^parley 17:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten Youngamerican 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. A notable individual. Gateman1997 17:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Has held notable office, has verifiable positions on issues, and (as a now-NPOV article) summarizes information which might be useful to voters. Jason 18:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if 950,000 potential voters are involved, that's certainly "notable enough." Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- He has to get a nomination before it affects any voters. -R. fiend 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Hall Monitor 19:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While the article has definitely improved since I nominated it, and even reads like an appropriate Wikipedia article, it's still not notable. True, he's a "real" politician (whatever that means), and he has held political office before, but come on. He isn't even a candidate, he's a pre-candidate, which means that he might not get to the ballot anyway, even if he were the frontrunner (remember Howard Dean?). If he had been the mayor of San Francisco or Los Angeles, well, maybe we could keep him. But Daly City isn't big enough (and for disclosure purposes, I live in a city with a population of 250,000). In my opinion, city leaders should only get articles if they have won a seat in a major metropolitan area with more than 1,000,000 people. Sorry, but my delete vote stands until he wins the seat, which as a fellow Democrat I hope he does. --Titoxd 20:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. David | Talk 20:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principal that size (isn't all) that matters when it comes to where officeholders served. I'd accept the long-time mayor of Key West as notable, and that city only has about 20,000 people. I don't know Dale, but neither that nor POV problems are criteria for deletion on their own. DavidH 01:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds notable enough to me. - Thatdog 04:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mayor of a fairly large city. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:R. fiend. JamesBurns 04:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as re-written. --Mrwolf359 18:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodloe Byron (novelist)

Vanity? This guy doesn't seem to google well, but I guess he has published a couple books; I haven't determined if they're vanity presses or not. His sales ranks at amazon hover around 2,000,000 for one book and a wee bit better for another. Lots of redlinks here. -R. fiend 00:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sales rank at about 2 million, doesn't sound very noticeable to me. Delete. --Titoxd 00:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, needs serious cleanup. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete, doesn't seem notable. --BradBeattie 14:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable--BirgitteSB 16:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete I cleaned up the syntax inasmuch as I was able (the intended meaning was really not all that clear). The guy's grandfather appears to be fairly famous (put a mention there?), but no reviews after a year on Amazon for his second book. Eldereft 17:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, and doesn't inherit any from his grandfather. -Splash 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Carnildo 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, he is published by a vanity press, PublishAmerica. Check out the Wash. Post article on that company. --Etacar11 01:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to grandfather, and mention. Septentrionalis 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn author. JamesBurns 04:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

get a life, get a job, go to work, my PP in your wife's mouth

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Liese

Keep Jessica Liese is a well known writer and blogger in NYC, fools.
Non-notable vanity. Come back when you've found that fortune. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vanity --Bayyoc 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You want mah dough. I say NO. -BrowardPIaya 03:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Agree it's a speedy, under the new criteria. Btw, check the new template {{nn-bio}} [1], and Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles <drini ☎> 04:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, vanity. Alex.tan 05:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete non-notable and vanity. --W.marsh 06:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse for reason of personal association. The New York literary scene is probably the most vibrant and original in the world, due in part to people like Liese who nurture the growth and development of new writers. Nicemodernism is not a widespread term, but I cannot find a better one for the social phenomenon. Eldereft 17:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the risk of our weltanschauung. Hamster Sandwich 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and punt "nicemodernism" to urbandictionary.com.
Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 19:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly Vanity MicahMN | Talk 01:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Definite vanity. And no picture to see if she is cute! And a phone number would be nice. . . FunkyChicken! 03:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Maybe if the Village Voice or some notoriety outside of her sphere on her were in the article, it'd be alright. As is, it's a nn-vanity. I assume the comment at the top is hers, maybe she needs to put some more niceness into nicemodernism...Karmafist 02:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brian Peter Cook

Not yet notable. Possible vanity. Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete for unabashed use of British jargon: "4 wickets for 29 runs off 8 overs" Huh? --Bayyoc 01:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's cricket jargon. Were this article a keeper, it could easily be edited. Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Bayyoc - it's simple enough. I'll explain. 4 wickets mean 4 batsmen (who although batting might well be bowlers) are now out. Not out as in the middle of the field and so in. But out as in out and no longer in. So 4 batsmen are out. Easy huh? And 29 runs are 29 times they have scored. That's even simpler. Of course they may have scored 4's or 6's - but that depends. And 8 overs. Well really. That just means 8 lots of 6 balls. Isn't that obvious? ;) --Marcus22 14:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete. Otherwise my best figures of 5 for 34 off eight deserve mention as better than his. And if it were a 'keeper there wouldn't be any bowling figures :) Grutness...wha? 06:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He may one day go on to be worthy of being in the encyclopedia, but for now, Delete. --DavidConrad 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Club cricketer in 4th grade South Australian competition so he's a long way removed from being selected for South Australia let alone Australia. 136.153.2.2 04:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, that was me. Capitalistroadster 04:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He can get his own article when he becomes famous. Alex.tan 05:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
stop ya whinging, its gone now.
Comment. Given that the creator has removed the content, can this be speedied. Capitalistroadster 06:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deleted --Henrygb 10:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 00:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bart McQueary

First VfD (in April) resulted in no consensus. I'm renominating, since a lot of the contents are unverifiable other than an archived personal web page and some untagged images. "Bart McQueary" -wikipedia receives 615 hits on Google. ral 315 01:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep The guy show up on *GOOGLE* for christs sake - he MUST be included. He meets the only important criterion that you sad gits seem to have. 212.101.64.4 16:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, I have 82,000 Google Hits myself. Xaa 18:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's painfully obvious that Bart McQueary or someone who knows Bart Mcqueary has been editing the article in favor of McQueary, and there's no way that he/they are ever going to let up. This is probably a rare instance in wiki, someone vandalizing their own entry in their favor; but if Mcqueary can't play by the rules, and he won't allow anyone else to play by the rules, well, I see no great loss by removing his entry. He doesn't exactly... well... matter, anyway. Im sure there are plenty of other bible thumpers and porno pushers out there to take up the clout.Timmybiscool 02:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete I've tried to work on this the best I can. Honest to God I have. I've done my homework. I've combed through page after page of McQueary's own archived websites looking for the truth. I find the man despicable, but I have put the positive information I found on him in this article. I could have easily neglected that he did in fact raise money for children's charities, that he was in fact harassed unjustly by the police, that his statutory rape arrest was due to a piddly three year difference. I did no such thing. The good and the bad are both in this article. But McQueary doesn't want the latter of those two included, apparently. Case in point: Bart McQueary is trying to edit the article to remove the fact that he once advertised his page as an escort service. For over two years now the web archive service has featured the page proving this. It was linked to here in the article, and for the past week or so you could click on that link and see it for yourself. Now that McQueary has come in and started editing the page, the "escort page"-- which for YEARS has been out there in the web archive for all to see-- has suddenly been disabled by a robots.txt. Coincidence? I think not. And of course he is going to come in here, boorish as he is in real life, saying, "PROVE IT. PROVE that it existed." Well guess what, Bart, I could've, if I'd have known you were going to block the page. I could've saved the page to my PC and uploaded it to another server for all the world to behold. But you got rid of it. And now, no, I can't "prove it." And the only reason is because of you. McQueary is trying to manipulate what people can know about him. If that's the case, there's no need in having an entry on him in Wiki; he'll only allow information about himself that he WANTS to be known.69.154.189.180 02:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity... have you ever looked up Robert Million in the Harrodsburg listings?
- Sign your posts with four ~ so people can see who you are. Yes, there is a Robert Million in Harrodsburg, per the Kentucky white pages. I will check in a moment to see if this number matches the one on REM Entertainment. If this truly is the operator of REM, it brings up a new question-- if McQueary had truly been "born again," why would he enable the furtherance of pornography by selling his business to someone else to continue marketing his stuff-- including homosexual porn? Why didn't he shut down the site? And why did REM Entertainment go down in the same time frame as McQueary's page? Bart McQueary, hater of homosexuals, not only sells his porn page rather than shut it down, but he sells it to someone in the exact same town he lives in, who keeps McQueary's phone number on the page for an extended period of time, and when a new number appears people call it and claim to have reached Mcqueary, AND it goes down at the same time McQueary's page goes down? Let us use Occam's Razor here. By the way, while I was at it, I looked up Bart McQueary and found zero results. Also zero for Bartley McQueary, and the only B McQueary was a "B.M. McQueary" in Louisville. [2] Even Fred Phelps keeps his number listed. And what do people have to gain by saying they called REM and got ahold of McQueary? The people to post on AIA aren't the only ones. 69.154.189.180 04:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Golly, isn't that funny? After two years of being able to access Bart's Stuff/REM Entertainment's archived pages via archive.org, in the past few days they have mysteriously been blocked from viewing by the site's owner! Isn't that a splendid concidence to protect the venerable name of Bart McQueary? If his life is such an open book, why does he feel the need to hide these things about himself? This article needs to be deleted on the sheer basis that McQueary is actively destroying information about himself. 69.154.189.180 04:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timmybiscool. An article on Fred Phelps is appropriate, but I can't see that Bart McQueary is anything other than an attention-starved moron. Are we going to give every thug his own article? Besides, as has been said, if he (or whoever) can't leave the article alone, it's really not worth the trouble. Don't feed his 300 pound ego any more. --~~4.253.71.19~~ 02:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is this user's first contribution to Wiki. (Not that I'm complaining)69.154.189.180 02:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - For some reason, I was not logged in. My correct signature: --Bayyoc 02:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contents of the article do appear to be unverifiable.--nixie 02:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete apparent vanity, (or proxy vanity?), and I don't see what is supposed to be notable about this guy. Brighterorange 03:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ok, I noticed two articles that are up for WP:FAC wound up on here: this one and Tucker Max. Should the FAC be completed before the VFD process is started? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn <drini ☎> 04:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to say it's because this guy comes across as such a flaming jerk. But really it's just because he's good ol'-fashioned non-notable except in his own mind. Denni ☯ 04:59, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable. Capitalistroadster 05:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether legitimately members or not, I feel that cult members do not necessarily get to have a page over non-cult members for doing the same acts. Any of his actual activities would not legitimize having a Wiki entry, and the fact that he is trying to modify it means that even if valid, the article's existence will always be less than reliable. I say the safe thing to do is just snip it away.Smoove K 04:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment taken from discussion page
Delete as uber vanity. McQueary is obviously trying to destroy his dirty laundry so that the only factual information that will be able to be sourced will all be self-fellating congratulatory garbage. It was a good article, but in his quest to cover his past up, McQueary has shot himself in the foot. Mistergrind 06:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, not notable, terribly POV, uninformative, only serves to make a point...these all scream delete this now! Harro5 08:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but I could be convinced otherwise, I think. Right now the article does a good job of illustrating his insane bigotry but doesn't give me much impression of notability. Everyking 10:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, barely crosses the notability threshold, and there's plenty of info, apparently. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Classic vanity. Agentsoo 13:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the above usersare right, I cited this article as a source for a paper I wrote on hypocritical attitudes of members of the adult film industry, and when I went to check the links last week they were all active and showed what the other editors say they showed. i believe that mcqueary is taking down info about himself to protect his image.216.7.251.106 15:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above.--Mitsukai 15:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nauseating self-promotion. --Scimitar ^parley 17:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. I might suggest he gets professional mental health therapy. Maybe Scientology. Hamster Sandwich 17:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonnotable. --BirgitteSB 17:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for reasons already stated. Note that at the end, the article pushes his POV about someone being a bitch: clearly the article is just vanity-rampant. -Splash 19:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Vanity. Well documented, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient for an article. JDoorjam 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A super vanity article by a nn bully whose real life is so pathetic he has to use wiki to try and validate himself. wouldn't be surprised if he is 'timmyb' acting out a revert war with himself.207.70.152.126 20:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. If he really was the instigatory party of the (very famous) ten commandments lawsuit, then this is both notable and verifiable. Much of the other information (i.e. what was on his website when, what kind of porn he likes/peddles, etc.) is not encylopaedic there is little or no reason for its inclusion. If kept this should be about a two paragraph article. Fawcett5 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he wasn't the sole instigator, just one of many people across the country who complained to the ACLU. It just so happens that he--surprise surprise-- was the one who dove headlong onto the publicity wagon. 65.71.127.228 21:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this travesty against of all that Wikipedia should be. --Alabamaboy 20:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MicahMN | Talk 01:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. FunkyChicken! 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Do we really need this article? All this guy has done is create a website and spit in the public's eye. Actually, I'm probably going to make McQueary's "Hell bound" list on his godhatesharrodsburg.com site for posting this. It makes Kentucky look bad; yes, I know this is an encyclopedia that archives information, good or bad, but really he's not worth having his own article. If he gets an article, I should get one! ;PDannyMac
- This comment taken from talk page
Delete. I don't see any notability. David | Talk 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No. Civ.A. 01-480-KSF. United States District Court, E. D. Kentucky, Lexington.: "The plaintiffs, both Mercer County resident Bart McQueary and the American Civil Liberties Union (hereinafter "ACLU"), seek declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. [section] 1983, alleging that a display in the Mercer County Courthouse violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment." This says he's notable. If this article is deleted I will write a new one citing that important case and using reference material from the current one. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would then be eligible for speedy deletion if nominated. The Wikis have looked at the facts of the case and it looks as if nn is going to be the rule. If Bart belongs anywhere on Wiki, it is as one of the litigants in an article on the ten commandments case. Do all of people who sued have their own articles? 65.71.127.228 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A completely new article on the same subject as a deleted article is not eligible for speedy deletion. ACLU v. Mercer County is not just your average lawsuit. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would have no problem with McQueary being a section in the ACLU Ten Commandments Lawsuit, kept strictly to being about his lawsuit. As it is, the article now is about him as a person, and thus requires looking at the whole scope of him: Sex offender, charity fundraiser, champion of the law, pornographer, philanthropist, hypocrite, radical, liar, crusader.65.71.127.228 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ironically, 65.71.127.228 you are the one who wrote the bulk of it! Now that some of your claims are being disputed, you are leading the charge to have it deleted.
    - Another unsigned comment by 66.32.122.23365.71.127.228 22:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - SIGN YOUR COMMENTS'. I led the charge to have this deleted last time, too. But since it didn't go through, I figured the truth about McQueary might as well be known. Now that another opportunity has come up... My "claims" as you call them only became "claims" a few days ago when Bart McQueary blocked the archives of his webpages in order to get the information taken out of wiki per lack of evidence. Before then, they were not claims-- they were indisputable facts. Hey, Bart, how about you get rid of your robots.txt so everyone can see that I'm telling the truth? Oh, I forgot-- the truth isn't what you're interested in. If McQueary truly had repented his old ways, why would he block the archived pages, unless they were evidence of a crime he didn't want known? Paul of Tarsus certainly didn't try to cover up that he was a murderer.65.71.127.228 19:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Ten Commandments we also have this case [[3]]. The article just needs to be re-written with irrelevant things like forum squabbling deleted.
- Unsigned comment by user 66.32.122.233

NOTE: Is there any way for an administrator or someone to check and see if sock puppets are voting to keep this article. With one exception, the votes to keep are from anonymous users. --Alabamaboy 21:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect. Why muddy the waters by making patently false statements? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, most of the keeps come from registered users, as opposed to anonymous ones.65.71.127.228 03:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I miscounted--there are only two anonymous keeps. However, percentage wise this is almost half of the votes to keep, as opposed the vast majority of deletes which are registered users. My statement stands, if slightly reworded.--Alabamaboy 12:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-aggrandizing non-notable. --Carnildo 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doing one potentially borderline notable thing in your life does not give you leave to publish your entire life story in wikipedia. -R. fiend 15:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overlong useless autobiography of borderline notable person and rewrite a brief bio-stub per Tony Sidaway. FCYTravis 18:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per R. fiend. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've lived in Harrodsburg, and I have no doubt that Bart is editing his stuff. I used to see him coming into Wal-Mart to buy the packing envelopes for his videos. And you know what? After he "sold the page," I STILL saw him coming into Wal-Mart and buying packing envelopes en masse. Make no bones about it-- his "conversion" is an absolute joke. Bart has either gone insane, he was never firmly based in reality to begin with, and thinks he is Phelps, or he has become Phelps because his pleasure in life is hurting others, and who has done that better than Westboro. It was a real ugly thing when his brother died, I think that might have something to do with it. And his the whole business with him and the girl. Take it from someone who's met him and had to deal with him: This guys ten commandmetns lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to feed his own bloated, hateful ego. He doesn't give a damn about the ACLU or anybody's freedoms, only causing trouble for others and stirring up crap. Mention him in the lawsuit if you have to, but keep it to a bare minimum; anything more is inviting him to ooze his way into the cracks of Wiki and poison it. 216.7.251.54 17:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is this user's only contribution to Wiki65.71.127.228 21:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And so the reason to delete is?...
- YET ANOTHER unsigned comment by 66.32.122.233 65.71.127.228 21:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tony Sidaway; article clearly needs complete rewrite but he has been involved in at least two prominent law suits. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete,""" vanity206.109.17.11 18:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is this user's only contribution to Wiki65.71.127.228 21:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after a rewrite. The article is too long, in fact it is longer than many movie stars. It should talk about the ACLU Ten Commandments article, the lawsuit with the Kentucky slogan, briefly touch upon the association with Fred Phelps and then end. We don't need to go into forum squabbles and an exchange of words in Wal-Mart or calling someone a bitch. That belongs on "Wikidimenovel". 66.32.122.233 19:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is this user's second vote in the same VFD65.71.127.228 22:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry bout that. 66.32.122.233 22:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tallon Zek times

This seems a small message forum, with little impact outside its users. Joyous (talk) 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity page for small user forum, no notable content. Bnielsen 03:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I almost nominated this one as soon as it was posted, but I wasn't quite sure. Glad someone did it. --Bayyoc 03:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This forum is the preeminent PvP server forum for the online game Everquest. The game is a cultural phenomenon in the online community. The uniqueness of the mindset of the PvP gamer community represented on this forum has created a place of surpassing breadth and depth.

It is unlike any other space online.

As such it is a vital part of online history. Those who will someday care to find out what it was like at the beginning will want to know about TzT.

Flyhalfer

Delete. I wouldn't mind seeing a good Zek (Everquest) or Tallon Zek article, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the image Image:Tzt drama.jpg is a copyvio. It is a rip off of the TNT logo. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Parody is generally considered fair use. — Olathe 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm not sure if that image is indeed "copyvio". <drini ☎> 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity. Alex.tan 05:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

"Do Not Delete", There is much more then little impact outside of our users. Our users have invented words that are now stored in your Wikipedia, and have jihad-ed boards that wish they were as awesome as ours. In terms of Message boards, we are very much the best one there is about a PvP Server on Everquest. Joyous (talk) 02:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Somehow, 24.88.253.77 accidentally signed my name here. Yes, we notice things like that, and it doesn't do any good. Joyous (talk) 14:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

- It does you little good to vandalize other peoples' votes. Please don't do so in the future. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I played EQ for years, though not on any of the Zek servers. However, I note that the article itself doesn't even mention EQ except for a description of one area of your forum. Also, the entire article needs to be rewritten to confrom to encyclopedic standards. If you could provide verifiable examples of how TZT had some influence on the game or was in some other way notable, I will change my vote. The burden of proof is on you, though.--Bayyoc 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, now that someone edited it, it doesn't mention Everquest at all. Also note that the previous post signed, Joy Stovall, was actually posted by 24.88.253.77, whose only other posts are related to this nomination--Bayyoc 13:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, no notable content, and entirely unencyclopedic. - JogCon 10:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, not notable. Alexa rank is 2,150,411 Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete windvane. — Olathe 14:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Everquest.
Keep Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 28.600 de "Tallon Zek". (0,22 segundos - SADDOS. 212.101.64.4 16:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's nice, but this isn't a VfD about Tallon Zek, it's about "Tallon Zek times", which gets 73 unique Google hits, not all of them relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Game-cruft. Kids are out for the summer. Patience and tolerance, patience and tolerance... Hamster Sandwich 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--BirgitteSB 18:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

WTF I JUST sharted...
Keep This forum has shaped the form Tallon Zek politics for more than 5 years. Even if the server no longer exists, it was a cornerstone for most of everything that happened there, which was a semi-major personality changing point for many children like Tulli. -KacerRex (Vote by KacerRex (talk · contribs))
OMG 73 Google Hits....SEVENTY-THREE! Come on, that HAS to mean something. am i rite? (Unsigned vote by 208.54.94.89 (talk · contribs))
Delete nn forumcruft. --Etacar11 01:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable website vanity! FunkyChicken! 03:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giga Character Set

The Giga Character Set is vaporware, that has not materialized in any form in the five years since it was announced. It is implausable that it will materialize in any form; as stated in the primary source, it's only a step above a perpetual motion machine. And the only source is one article. It's linked to from two pages, in lists of alternatives to Unicode, which it could probably be deleted from since it's just vaporware. Prosfilaes 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of 2005, Coventive has never published the details of Giga Character Set for examination, nor has it ever been implemented in any publicly available application oh why on earth do they think this is notable then? <drini ☎> 05:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- <drini , could there be a possible copyright violation with this [4]? The wording of the first paragraph seems to be the same. Manik Raina 05:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vapourware. Advertisement. I'll believe it when I see it. Alex.tan 05:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
keep, IBM articles mention it [5], so it's notable. I don't see how this could be considered an advertisement, more like the opposite. Kappa 13:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if IBM has linked it, Wikipedia's not a crystal ball. The cited article contains technical gaffes that make me doubt it will come to anything. Gazpacho 16:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete <Simultaneous_nearly_identical_reply> Vaporware, and it's still a crystal ball attempt, even if IBM is peering into their crystal balls, as well. </Simultaneous_nearly_identical_reply - poke, poke, you owe me a coke!>Xaa 16:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-ballery. Hamster Sandwich 17:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--BirgitteSB 18:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's hard to have any ability to independently research and verify the topic without any release of further information about it; when Coventive gets around to that, it'd be reasonable to revisit the creation of a page about it. Jason 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find all sorts of things that Some Person At IBM made a passing reference to. Many of them would not be notable, this included. - Thatdog 04:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a hypothetical advertisement for theoretical vapourware. Nandesuka 12:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA Summerliga

This page is complete nonsense on a topic which has no Google hits, created by a user, User:Venisday who has recently been vandalizing another article on Wikipedia Bnielsen 02:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bnielsen 04:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, indeed a big hoax, stalin has nothing to do with soccer.
Delete, nonsense. Alex.tan 05:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleted --Henrygb 10:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science today

POV essay. No factual content to be salvaged. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV rant. ManoaChild 04:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also suspect copyvio, but I guess it's from some page too new to be indexed by google. <drini ☎> 05:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. Alex.tan 05:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, reeks of Time Cube. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Are you all mad? copyright violation? too new to be indexed by google? no original research? "I guess..." - "..just nonsense.." It is clear that none of you have any idea what you are talking about; sadly --peter 06:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC) -- unsigned comment by Verbewarp (talk · contribs), author of the article. Verbewarp's nine edits are all to the article, the article's talk page, or this VfD.
- Verbewarp, from your comments here and at Talk:Science today, it seems you're misunderstanding at least some of the comments that recommend deletion. In particular, your essay is not being criticized for containing "no original research"; it is being criticized because it violates Wikipedia's principle of no original research. Your article is a very detailed explanation of what your opinion is and why you hold it; there is absolutely nothing wrong with you holding that opinion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with you sharing that opinion. However, there is a problem with you using Wikipedia's resources to try and share and promote that opinion, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and sharing your opinion is not the purpose for which Wikipedia allowed you the use of its resources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar - Your comments are accepted - But, please explain "I also suspect copyvio" Please explain "No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. " Please explain "reeks of Time Cube." etc., etc.

Your comments are not consistent with the deeds in evidence and you are misunderstanding the nature of your own judgemental issues. Let me explain to you that this submission under Verbewarp has been a test of the intgerity of the Wikipedia process - not an intention to publish, although cloaked in that guise. This article was taken from my blog to be found at http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/ as purely a test case. This test case has arisen due to a number of other rejections and judgements posted by your colleagues - upon other matters. The result is that your active judges are mostly and clearly unqualified and inexperienced individuals inflated to egoistic status embedded in a high level of arrogance and misunderstanding of their own abilities and the issues at stake.

Science can never be consensual - that idea is ludicrous - and this type of "peer" review appears to be derived from the "lowest common denominator" of social attainment; the beginning of life processes rather than from lives hoary with sagecity and experience. As a consequence of this test, my students and colleagues are to be issued with a warning notice as to the integrity of Wikipedia - or lack of it - that is not to say that Wikipedia will be black listed but more framed in an aspect of suspected oversight that needs strong referencing for support. Or, use only as a last resort but only if supporting evidence can be established from other more reliable sources.

Nothing personal about your intentions to create something useful, but before embarking on such adventures that have such huge and serious social implications, particularly for the unsuspecting youth, and in light of this site becoming a social point of reference and therefore a possible milestone for intellectual reference, I would strongly recommend that you all review the implications and possible damage that this effort, built in flawed and thoughtless conception, will bring upon our civilization. Wikipedia is a technology which is posing as a vault of intellectual knowledge and far better that there should be warning to your Users that the information contained within comes from a self appointed group of unqualified and inexperienced individuals acting out judgemental roles in some sort of immatured order. Far better that you train those that judge. far better that Wikipedia clearly declare itself a purely a store for societal storage or warehouse for trivia.

My article 'Science today' should have given you some clue as to where this was taking you as it sketches the basics of what and why general mainstream science today has no integrity and no future. You missed the point due to the fact that you didn't take time to consider the article, finding the construction thereo, uncomfortable and painful to your delicate and spoiled minds. This is no insult. Aristotle wrote of this over 2000 years ago, quite clearly and yet it persists today - rote, imitation and practise. You failed to adjudicate correct and according to your own rules. You took delite with insult. You alleged slander knowing that you couldn't be held responsible. You failed.

Your efforts will build more "dogma" in this world already overflowing with the emotional sewage of the wanabees and false pretenders and as a consequence will Wikipedia only assists in furthering the destruction or devolution of human achievement - dogma and practised thinking together with immatured opinion represents a danger to civilization more horific in its footprint than war; atomic war.

To teach would be more worthy of your time than to record.

I wish you all well but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your future and priorities. This effort that si Wikipedia - just ain't worth wasting your lives on! Verbewarp --peter 06:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. silly rave Mccready 06:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Sec. 1.3, in its entirety, but particularly 1.3.3 and 1.3.4, applies here. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dull rant. Oooh, I wonder whether my vote will be accepted! Agentsoo 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a messy, convoluted rant which has no place here. --Several Times 13:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 1373-word article that literally tells the reader nothing and is so dull it's actually painful to read. Xaa 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per astute observations above. Hamster Sandwich 17:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Merovingian, the first thing I thought of was Time Cube, and then a small portion of my brain exploded. Jason 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research--BirgitteSB 18:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/O.R. --Etacar11 01:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"And the meek shall inherit the Earth" - They did and they guard their dogma well. Thank you all for your contributions, Verbewarp --peter 22:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC) -- unsigned comment by Verbewarp (talk · contribs), author of the article. Ten of Verbewarp's twelve edits are to the article, the article's talk page, or this VfD.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SHOPA Show

Delete. Wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete <drini ☎> 05:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Alex.tan 05:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I've gotten more information by reading the label on a can of beans. Hamster Sandwich 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SHOPA

Delete. Wikispam — Fingers-of-Pyrex 03:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete <drini ☎> 05:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. Alex.tan 05:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertisement. Hamster Sandwich 17:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement.--BirgitteSB 18:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supti

This is just a definition of a name, and so doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. Unsigned nomination was by user:57.66.51.165 at 23:00, 2 August 2005. The Literate Engineer 04:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete <drini ☎> 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - concur w/ above. If we had someone famous by that name the information could be included, though.Eldereft 17:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sanskrit Dic-def Hamster Sandwich 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy's Shrine to Chevys

Non-notable website; Google lists 33 pages containing the phrase "Kathy's Shrine to Chevys." tregoweth 04:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable - Chairboy 04:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable--BirgitteSB 18:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Mario Party 2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction Duet

Stage in Mario Party 2. Delete. A Link to the Past 04:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

But if you delete it, what will happen to the comprehensive project to catalog useless fancruft like the individual Mario Party minigames? (Delete, of course.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete <drini ☎> 05:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's already a list of games in the Mario Party 2 article, simply merge this one sentence there and be done with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, not notable all by itself. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above. --Several Times 13:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This information isn't all that valuable. Someone could add this information after it is deleted, not like this information needs to be preserved to accomplish this. -- A Link to the Past 13:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  - Not true, as there are licensing issues at work here. Under the GFDL, we must retain attribution to the original author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The merge target in question doesn't list a description of each game, nor does it need to. --BradBeattie 14:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth merging. To prevent a split between "delete" and "merge" resulting in a conclusion of "keep", this vote may also be interpreted as a "redirect" or a "merge" if doing so would allow a consensus to be formed. --Carnildo 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, describing the minigames in the list would provide useful information. Just because the others haven't been described doesn't mean we shouldn't start to. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nothing here worth merging or keeping. JamesBurns 04:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge or expand, but I haven't seen anyone quote any relevant part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. arj 21:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mariocruft? -- A Link to the Past 14:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I searched for the word "cruft" in the deletion policy, and couldn't find it. Please look at Wikipedia:Fancruft for reasons why I find it unnecessarily antagonising in deletion debates. arj 14:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's hardly antagonising. It's useful to note that one minigame out of dozens that only has one sentence in it is Mariocruft. -- A Link to the Past 19:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 'delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey blanket

nn local band. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. if they were a professional group it would go w/o saying that their rhymes are of professional quality. Nateji77 10:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for same reason as nominator. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Band-itry. No label, no releases, no tours, no dice kids! Have a nice summer! Hamster Sandwich 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable--BirgitteSB 18:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus default to Keep. Essjay · Talk 08:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

WebSideStory

Blatant advertising. --malathion ^talk 05:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising - Chairboy 05:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. Alex.tan 05:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 07:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising. Not notable - --213.179.58.29 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. --Mysidia 08:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable--BirgitteSB 18:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Within the web business domain, they are notable, and are listed on NASDAQ (WSSI). But the article needs to be redone totally to get rid of press-release-ness. Eclipsed 02:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes after edit of 7 August:

Keep as a public company stub. Eclipsed 02:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable within their field. Rob Church 02:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it recorded notable web statistics. --minghong 08:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) but move to the correct capitalisation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Santa fe street outreach resource center

obvious non-notability Robinh 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to a correctly capitalised title. Notability is not established as a relevant criterion for this kind of article. arj 21:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Gossamer Commons

nn four-month-old webcomic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has an Alexa rank of 810,525. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable--BirgitteSB 18:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge with Eric Burns. --Carnildo 23:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it amusing that, at 78 comics, it doesn't even pass the author's own proposal for inclusion (which VfD very consistently ignores), which basically kicked off the Webcomic Wikiproject. Nifboy 08:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eric Burns- Alexa rank of 709,074, an increase of over 100,000 since mentioned above four days ago. Gossamer Commons recieved an Mention for Outstanding Newcomer (one of two Honorable Mentions) in the 2005 Web Cartoonists’ Choice Awards. I'd like to keep it, but apparently it doesn't match up with the guidelines for Wikipedia inclusion (which I don't particularly agree with, but those are the rules), so I say merge. I am the creator of the page, fwiw. Quentin mcalmott 00:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Eric Burns, as ironic as it is for me to vote this way. At this stage, Gossamer Commons is well under a year old and doesn't have sufficient depth of archive to justify inclusion at this time. The honorable mention does bespeak a certain significance to the webcomics community, but it can be argued said significance better fits within the general "Eric Burns" entry. --Eric Burns 06:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Iharthdarth

nn three-month-old webcomic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been gathering quite a following, but it fails every single WP:COMIC test known to man. One day it will have its own article, I hope--and deserve it--but that day is not today. Delete. Marblespire 09:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverted vandalism / Keep vote by IP 202.156.2.91. Marblespire 18:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it's quite possibly the Worst. Webcomic. Ever. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Marblespire. --BradBeattie 14:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urg. That was terrible. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:COMIC guidelines. --Carnildo 23:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molatar

Second vfd for this article, see here for the first one. Same reason as before. It appears that the article was restored after deletion based on some question as to whether or not the article fit under the CSD, but the subject is still non-notable. --Mysidia 05:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Otherkin, and redirect there. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I don't see anything important enough to merge. It was a website "only up for a few days" according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, probably vanity. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --BradBeattie 14:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When did Wikipedia go from becoming "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the encyclopedia that everyone should edit"? -R. fiend 15:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Previous VFD was valid, and VFU consensus was to keep deleted. R adiant _>|< 15:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus), although it should be merged with Mytharria when an article about this game is created. For those interested in vote count we have one conditional vote, which is counted as a delete here, leaving us with 4 deletes and 3 keep and/or merge votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Ross

Character in a game that is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. JamesTeterenko 05:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Mytharria to requested articles. If that is a redlink, Delete. If that is a bluelink, Merge. Sirmob 06:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, wikipedia is not paper, random page users should not be its priority. Kappa 11:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable character in a non-notable game -Soltak 16:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual game cahracters are not usually notable, and i see no indication that this is an exception. DES ^(talk) 20:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Kappa. Notability is not a relevant for criterion for this kind of subject. arj 21:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Midwest - unspecified state

~~This page gives vague information about a location in a Scott Turow novel. However, "Unspecified State" does not appear to be the actual name of any fictional location, as Google results indicate.~~ Following this revision by User:Teklund, I withdraw this nomination, but I strongly suggest that this article be moved to something like Midwest (fictional state). NatusRoma 05:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Probably not even worth redirecting to Midwestern United States. Delete. Grutness...wha? 06:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:06, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Coffee 14:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SquirrelKabob 14:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete detail that nobody is going to look for. Gazpacho 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SadGit NatusRoma has said it all 212.101.64.4 16:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --BirgitteSB 19:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really notable, but maybe mention it in the novel pages? FunkyChicken! 03:56, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kindle County would be an acceptable entry IMHO, but this page gives no pertinent information. --Howcheng 17:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not eligible for deletion as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Notability is not relevant for this kind of subject matter. arj 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alesha Webster

page appears to have been created by a one-time user about themselves, with no evident claims to notability. Material is more appropriate for a User page. Text also includes substantial advertorial content for a publication supposedly produced by this person. It's been flagged as PotentialVanity for about 2 weeks, the user has not added anything else in that time, so probably time to delete this. cjllw | TALK 06:02, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Comment: This looks like a copyvio (I did a quick Google check, but no luck there), unless it's an ad and posted with permission. --MarkSweep 06:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potential copyvio and magazine is yet to issue a single copy. No indication whether it will reach notability guidelines if and when it is published so its editor/publisher is not yet notable. Capitalistroadster 06:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, as the magazine has not even been published yet. Thue | talk 08:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, vanity. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not speedy, as vanity/advertising --Henrygb 14:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity. Hamster Sandwich 18:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity/ad. --Etacar11 01:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instant intranet

Blatant advertising. --malathion ^talk 06:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 07:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads as advertising, notability unsubtantiated.--cjllw | TALK 07:12, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Delete. Madd4Max 11:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising.--BirgitteSB 19:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertisement. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move the rewritten article to Redmoon Theater. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Red Moon Theater

The article is a sentence and a bundle of "please improve" templates. There's no indication as to where this theater is, and Google's total of 150 hits turns up theaters of this name in both new York and Chicago. Unless there is serious improvement, this needs to be clubbed on the head. Grutness...wha? 06:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite, but move to Redmoon Theater. Good work, Rx StrangeLove Grutness...wha? 01:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Delete. Unless someone has some worthy input to add to this entry, there's no real need to keep a vague, one-sentence entry. Not at all encyclopedic. - JogCon 06:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only the original article creator could know from this which entity is being referred to here; since they've not since updated it, it can safely be removed, no harm done.--cjllw | TALK 09:26, 2005 August 3 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, probably ad, confusing as hell. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible to do anything else with. --Several Times 13:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found information on this theatre company readily available. It may be true that it has links to both New York and Chicago. If so, this make such a company doubly notable. This article needs to be researched and expanded. Hamster Sandwich 18:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written there is no indication of notability. If expanded, that would be different. DES ^(talk) 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep if notable or presents unfamiliar contexts in a reader-friendly way. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment I rewrote it, I think it's good enough to stay now. Turns out it's in Chicago and fairly interesting. Plus all those templates gave me a headache. Rx StrangeLove 05:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually one word so if it stays a redirect fixup is probably in order. Rx StrangeLove 05:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after new edit and expansion by Rx StrangeLove. Nice work! Hamster Sandwich 23:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established, advertising. JamesBurns 04:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as advertsing goes I have no connection to the Redmoon theater and in fact had never heard of it before I did the rewrite. Having said that, if you could let me know what there is about the article that stikes you as an avert I can try to adjust some of the wording. Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 13:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, potential for expansion has been demonstrated, so the reason for nomination no longer holds. arj 21:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice job Rx StrangeLove. I think that JamesBurns saw "high profile productions" in the first sentence, and when you're looking for advertising, it shows up clear on the radar. That then twists reading the rest of the article. -JJLeahy 23:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kew School

This primary school no longer exists, having been merged with four other schools in Invercargill. Was previously VFDed when it was still open, with the a slim vote for keep. Evil Monkey∴Hello 06:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, informative article, a verifiable and important subject which made a unique contribution to education in its area. Wikipedia is not a news or directory service, so that fact that it no longer exists is not relevant. Kappa 11:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 16:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I get the impression that antipodean schools are significantly more likely to be listed for deletion than schools elsewhere--though on the evidence of the current example this can have nothing to do with article quality. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable schools. That it is in New Zealand does not make it more or less notable, and it clearly isn't notable. Dunc|☺ 17:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools. As above, Wikipedia is not a news or directory service. ESkog 17:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Anshu 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable primary schoolGateman1997 17:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable former school, although the fact that teachers were allowed to say "don't do that" is pretty unusual. --Carnildo 17:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Closure is not relevant. Wikipedia should serve as a historical record. Osomec 19:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please how could someone want to erase this great article Yuckfoo 21:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a school's closure is insufficient reason to delete it. We don't delete articles on dead people either. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Primary schools are not entitled to articles on wikipedia solely by virtue of existing or having existed, but this is a well written article which has already survived one VfD. I would suggest it be renamed to e.g. "Kew School, New Zealand" as there are bound to be other schools called Kew.-gadfium 00:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Better luck in 2007, kids. —RaD Man (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real place, good article. --malathion ^talk 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good article. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:00, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see something shutting down as justification for deleting. If that was the case, then we would need to VfD many more articles. As an encylopedia keeping information on our past is important. Vegaswikian 04:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historical reasons and Wikipedia schools arguments. -Poli (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia schools arguments and the inherent notability of schools. Being an item in history is only evidence that it is more important that this article be kept here; there is no longer a staff to carry on an "institutional memory" of it. Un focused 19:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We keep railway stations. We keep suburbs. We keep bridges. we keep highways. We keep schools.--Gene_poole 06:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even buy the inherently notable argument for operating schools, let alone ones that have shut down. However, probably shouldn't have been listed, as these just don't get deleted. --Scimitar ^parley 14:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the worst wiki-garbage I've seen in a while. Grue 19:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. arj 22:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More content and references than most of the school articles that get listed here. I'm not quite sure why this one was nominated. Factitious 08:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABC D✉ 02:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Sultan

presumably created by the article's subject, the only demonstration of notability given is to have won 32nd place in a sausage-making competition...for mine, this does not quite cut the mustard (excuse pun, please!). Nice try though...Has been flagged as PotentialVanity for about 2 weeks now, and since the only other contribs of the original creating user have been to articles associated/promoting his business, it's probably time to delete this. Abraham can put it up on his user page if he wants - but not in the main namespace. cjllw | TALK 07:01, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First place in a sausage making competition isn't notable let alone 32nd. Capitalistroadster 07:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, I am notable, because I got 68 of a possible 72 points combined in the exams of a first-year University math course. =) — JIP | Talk 10:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but stick it on BJAODN. That's some good vanity right there. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN because it feels like a hoax but smells like vanity! The best of both worlds. --Several Times 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Hamster Sandwich 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although interesting biography on someone's close friend. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swerd

Delete Just some kid trying to take credit for a neologism. Necropenguin 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't these punks tell the difference between Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary? >:( --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Neologism. Maybe we'll force him to look that up. Wikipedia IS educational! Hamster Sandwich 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, uninformative article on neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Punkmorten 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Click (band)

Band vanity. --malathion ^talk 07:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. They've got 3 albums. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They have entries on major music sites. [6] [7]. NSR (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable enough. - Longhair | Talk 12:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable enough. I've rewritten the article slightly, adding the external references, but more is needed. Punkmorten 14:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Punkmorten's rewrite. These guys meet WP:MUSIC by having three albums on a major label - two on Jive Zomba and one on BMG. Capitalistroadster 18:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rewrite of the article has established their notability. --malathion ^talk 21:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. --Etacar11 01:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Ertel

nn, no hits on google, probably vanity posting. Usrnme h8er 07:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unencyclopedic. Possible vanity. Hamster Sandwich 18:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Non notable--BirgitteSB 19:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as vanity. Binadot 00:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Bándérász Csengery and Special:Contributions/Ozzkaro. Punkmorten 14:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flyff Quest Guide

Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.com. Wikibooks isn't either, so they don't want it as a transwiki. The results of the previous VfD were two delete, two transwiki. --Carnildo 08:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 10:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Madd4Max 11:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even any Q to the FAQ. Eldereft 17:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game-cruft. Hamster Sandwich 18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flood fill example in C

Wikipedia is not a programming guide. Wikisource already has it. The results of the previous VfD were 2 merge with Flood fill, 5 transwiki, and 1 delete. --Carnildo 08:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is source material, not an article, besides, see Wikipedia:Transwiki_log Flood fill example in C → Wikisource:Transwiki:Flood fill example in C... --Mysidia 08:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (Yes it is on Wikisource, see [8]) --Mysidia 17:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I can see that the previous vfd had no consensus, I really don't see anyone posting to that vfd who felt it should stay as its own article. Usrnme h8er 09:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplication is bad and wikisource is a more appropiate place. 09:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (unsigned vote by Cate)
If it's already in Wikisource, then delete. — JIP | Talk 10:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Madd4Max 11:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delēre. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above arguements.Hamster Sandwich 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted - There's an overwhelming consensus to delete when rampant sock/meatpuppetry is ignored. FCYTravis 00:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Webcest

Neoligism that is neither notable nor encyclopedic. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what's going on here. It looks like The Bob Talbot started the VfD, but Thirty3, who created the Webcest article, created the VfD subpage without the template and then blanked it. I am trying to remedy things and get the VfD properly set up, since I do think this article deserves a VfD. DavidConrad 08:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (Amended 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

This was the first VFD I'd ever been involved it, so I wasn't trying anything malicious with the VFD page - I put my vote for keep up and then removed it because I wanted to see what kinds of comments would be put on the page before commiting to that vote. Sorry for the confusion. Also, I don't think most of the no-user comments are from sock puppets, though they obviously aren't from people who care a lot about the wikipedia's process. Thirty3 01:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's something that's out there, is not going away and should be known to exist! 16:52, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Extremely useful word that can be used to describe certain aspects of the internet without having to explain too much; the definition should be clarified, but other than that a handy phrase. HooTuckEye 20:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful new word. Describes social implications of the internet, and social interaction not possible before the existence of the net.

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- Has an essential and unique function. While it is not yet notable it will, undoubtably become the greatest word ever invented

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best new word of our time Karmicthreat 21:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- Perhaps could use a bit of cleaning up, but is certainly a worthwhile page to have up.

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- This term is worth having around. It's got huge usage potential, I just think that its actual definition will need to be clarified a bit. Once that's happened, there's no reason not to keep it. AnthonyRichardson

User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- Any term's power lies in its potential utility. This is a "High-concept" Neologism, and as it does not duplicate or usurp another, more acceptable term with the same definition, I'm for keeping it.DocStout

Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP --- Its a great word written by a great man.

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --- Cmon, just dont look at it if you don't like it.

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- Keep it on the site, because it is awsome.

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- It is educational, and fun. Think of the children!

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- It's sexy!

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a term created on the 2nd of august (yesterday) can not possibly be of sufficent notaritety to warrant an encyclopedia article. Usrnme h8er 09:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism --malathion ^talk 09:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictdef, neologism, crystal ball - wide range of reasons to delete this. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madd3Max 11:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:Not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delēre, neologism. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, crystal ball, neologism. Sliggy 13:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. This should have been gone shortly after it came up.--Mitsukai 16:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 18:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. If webcest.com or webcest.org is ever established in the geek psyche I might change my opinion. Carl T 21:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --- Don't delete it. Webcest has staying power. I can see it becoming the next blog of neologisms. SenorFred 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Camw 00:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have amended teh paragraph at the top, removing my vote from this VfD. I am not impartial wrt this article, and am abstaining from the vote. --DavidConrad 02:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Also, sorry for not putting up an explanation! I had intended to but I was doing about five things at once and somehow got distracted. I just remembered the whole deal today and checked on it.The Bob Talbot 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would agree that it is a neologism, yet, I think that the basic concept, a sexual practice made possblie by the internet, is a an identifiable conecpt that should have a term. the label would be helpful in discussions. This is English, after all, essentailly a chimera of neologisms words stolen form other languages. The influx of technology, and the resultant new methods of interaction are rapidly increasing the speed at which a neologism is accepted. Blogging, podcasting, Googling, Etc. Gearyster 16:33, 5 Aogost 2005 (oTC)

Comment: This vote is the user's second edit. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is true. However, I think my point is still valid, for what it's worth. Gearyster 20:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wiktionary - I created the page becaose I didn't get to the part aboot neolgisms being inappropriate. Personally, I feel that if a neologism is extremely onstable, the page will change all the time and the chorn will make it an obvioos candidate for deletion, otherwise why not gamble with a coople of k of disk space? I think that a lot of words are created and no one knows how or by whom, I wanted to track the history of a word being created. Thirty3 17:58, 5 Aogost 2005 (oTC)
Keep - I'm already osing this word. 207.193.69.153

Vote by non-user -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. claviola (talk to me) 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think you should have to work a little harder than this to get your new word into an encyclopaedia. sneakums 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Enough of wikipedia is nonsense already. fuzzie 18:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A needed word in today's society! Inanechild 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perahps you didn't catch that Jeffrey Rowland coined this. On what planet is that not enough? reznite 19:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I used it today when my uncle was talking dirty to my sister on the internet. If it's usable and applicable to everyday life, and it doesn't get in anybody's way, why not keep it?
Delete - This VFD is not about Jeffrey Rowland or his web comics. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BenKimball 21:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Wiktionary - This doesn't seem like a term unworthy of being defined, but as Webcest is not yet a cultural phenomenon, I don't think it deserves a Wikipedia article.
This is not a real user. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism, obviously fails the google test, not encyclopedic, etc. JZ 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Might as well, since it will only be used more and more often. Flying Hamster 00:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, proposed by a fairly prominent web personality. RMG 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it's pretty awesome; also sweet. Jonathan Rosenberg 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is not actually by a registered user. --FCYTravis 08:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are plenty of neologisms on this site already, deleting this one just because certain people don't like it is rather foolish, and the term does have its place within a fairly wide audience. Krinberry 05:32, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This entry is not really misleading in any way; it is not as if it is incorrect. Webcest seems like an interesting linguistic experiment. I for one would like to keep around to see what happens. Besides, who is it going to hurt to keep it? 6:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wiktionary - Same reasons above, doesn't belong here without cultural relevance. MMZzach 19:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP while the word may be new, the concept it describes is not, and has been noted and remarked upon before. --Tosei 11:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, We've been looking for a term for the obvious, and as this grows there will be only more content. Perhaps a brief introduction?

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 11:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, This is such a widely practiced hobby in today's culture that its begging for a term to be made for it.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If you don't keep this, you are lame.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense neologism.--nixie 18:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete i like Jeff as much as the next man, but this needs to get soem prominence before it can be accepted. You can't get prominence via Wikipedia. -vee

'keep(provisional), keep this, but this article must be improved. an article containing nothing but examples is not up to par. improve content and add additional media citations. further info on the history of the term might be gathered (who had a hand in creating the word and the context of the creation). i reserve the right to to change my vote if i decide that webcest is not yet ready for wikipedia. -- I'll own my words, don't strike me out!! btw everyone who voted delete should have another look at the page in question. it's filling in nicely. the rewrite by Tosei is quite good. my provisional keep is not so provisonal.. as to my being a new user.. i do not dispute this but i'm a long time user of wikipedia, and now that i'm here, i'm here to stay... hit me on my discussion page if you have any questions or comments. --Michaelcoyote 10:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's second edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --- It's all in good fun.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do most of the things described as meeting the requirements for webcestuous behavior on a daily basis. It's about time i knew what i was up to.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, C'mon, guys. Don't be taking this so seriously. Wikipedia is here for informational purposes and provides information as well as the next.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The practice is far too popular to not have a proper name, and Webcest is as good as any.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a term for unsavory cyber-sex related actions is necessary

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this word shall benefit all those at a loss for words when recently unnameable e-deviancies are commited. Fearbeer 21:50, August 6th, (GMT -08:00)

Comment: This user's only two edits are to this VFD page. --FCYTravis 08:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This word has already entered my vocabulary, and is posed to be a phenomenon.

This is an unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. there are way too many sockpuppets/new users/unsigned votes in this VfD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 07:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - supported by jillions of new users/sockpuppets and the closing admin should take note of this. I've taken the liberty of striking through all anon votes as meatpuppetry run rampant. FCYTravis 08:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-admitted neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete note the sockpuppetry, people!Borisblue 08:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's already been mentioned in casual conversation within earshot of me twice since the 2nd. -- evilskull 01:57, 8 August 2005 (EST)

User's first edit. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Use is expanding already. Wikipedia ought to be on top of these things as they happen; if we have to wait until it appears in the Queen's speech before something emerges we might as well use paper encyclopedias instead. Marijne
Keep not every new word spreads so fast but this one has, and in doing so demonstrated how valid it is JCS 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no word that is not neoligism, except maybe Fun-tastic, which was in wide use even when the mighty stegosaurs towered over fearful tiny mammals in the sun. deleting this entry is stymying change and progress, the combination of forces that is responsible for a crazy newfangled internet-cyclopedia in the first place. -shirou

Unsignedish vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The necessity of this word is simply staggering. Within the confines of its very definition fall a plethora of calls for e-morality. Without this word, who is to say what can be considered "right" or "wrong" in the inky vastness of the internet? The rampant and widespread shenanigans that can be perpetrated on the internet with virtually no recourse are astounding, this word will bring to this nameless, faceless amalgam of users what they truly need, guilt. People choose to ignore their conscience so long as there are no true repercussions, but this word will bring their conscience back to them. -BarbaricSushi

User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Wikipedia is not a tool for spreading a neologism; it is for recording a well-established one, at best. WWC 19:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - a useful word, without a doubt. jtgotsjets

User's seventh edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the useful functions of wikipedia is being a kind of pop culture mirror. silentthomas

User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Langauge is an ever changing and evolving concept of verbal communication. As such new words with merrit must be kept in some sort of record (hence Wikipedia). As all words were new once, word age cannot be considered a valid reason for discontinuation. Also, considering that the average person's vocabulary is less then 25,000 words (Psycholinguist Dr. Catherine E. Snow - Harvard Gradruate School) and there are more than three times that many 'official' words in the English Langauge (Oxford English Dictionary), one cannot assume common usage as an appropriate moniker for a word. Most importantly though, the word provides an adequate label to "innapropriate internet behavior", something that has yet to be done; therefore, the word has a place in the English Language and a justified exsistence.

Unsigned edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)</wiki>[reply]

Keep - It's an incredibly valuable addition to the lexicon of english language. It's useful, and has become part of my daily vocabulary. --Thelatespaceboy 21:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In essence this is not an argument for whether Webcest should be a word or not, that will be decided simply if it cathes on or not. This argument concerns the ability of one to post a usefull and catchy neologism on this site. Therefore the question which is actually being voted on is this: "Is Wikipedia a place where language can evolve, or is it merely another online encyclopedia?" Jake Mercer

User's first edit -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of new ideas. It is supposed to describe the world as it is. You are arguing that we should violate policies on self-promotion, verifiability, and the ever-important No Original Research. Everyone vote to keep is a vote to ignore the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia.

Keep

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put what useful information there is under Overcompensating or Jeffrey Rowland, either of which are just significant enough for articles. Wikipedia is not the place to put invented words -- Urbandictionary.com is. Come back when use of "webcest" is at least as common as "santorum". Silly Dan 21:38, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place to push for usage of a new word. There're other avenues, and this really is a vanity page, nothing more. While I've enjoyed the comic that originated this term, (and came to this specific page from there), I don't agree with the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a puppet of someone's neologistic agenda. neesha

Keep - Language is continually changing and moving forward. deleting this entry because it hasn't reached a national level yet will simply show that everything in the world including the wikipedia likes to halt change. this being a small example, but you get the point. within a couple of years this will be a regular use term and there is no reason to wait till that happens to leave the page up.

Unsigned vote -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism Steve McKinney 22:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You use the term Neologism like it's a bad thing. As the person above me said, there is no reason to inhibit progress. Allowing this entry to stay isn't going to hurt anyone. If the word takes off, then you will have a good page about a new word. If it doesn't, then in a few months or a year you can remove it. As of right now, it is a new word, so the entry should not be deleted only a few days after it was created. Vince Berry

Appears to not be a real user-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let him have his fun. It's a valid term too, despite it's novelty and recent inception. ElVaquero 16:48, 8 August 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But cleanup. -Splash 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dracunculiasis

More or less verbatim plagerism from the CDC site on the topic Scott.wheeler 08:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conservare, but un-copyvio. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Clean. Works-for-hire for the federal government are PD, but it would be more polite to give a brief summary and keep the CDC link. Eldereft 17:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the problem?--BirgitteSB 19:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that it was verbatim copied (and this wasn't actually noted). At any rate, I think it's far to do as Elderleft suggested. Scott.wheeler 05:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is an informative, accurate article. Why should it be removed? Perhaps it could be stated differently to this page it has apparently been plaugerized from, but still it should stay.138.130.214.5 10:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When looking for information on plagerized articles it suggested first deleting an article and then recreating it so that the plagerized version did not remain in the WP history. Since this content seems to be PD, then that's probably not a necessary middle step. Scott.wheeler 06:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Lots of useful info could be summarized down to a paragraph or so, and then a link to the original source provided. Or chunks could be quoted? Not worth throwing away. Ramk13 20:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. This is a near-unanimous "not delete", but there is an even (or nearly even split) over whether it should be merged. Thus it is kept.-Splash 19:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenogears terms

Fancruft. Some of it is obvious, and all of it would be better on a fansite or Xenogears wikibook or something. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's in Google, saddos. can't you even check for yourselves anymore? 212.101.64.4 16:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's in Google, saddos. can't you even check for yourselves anymore? 212.101.64.4 16:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is claiming that this stuff was made up by the authors, just that it's not encyclopedic. The fact that you can find this info with Google isn't relevant. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Per nomination. A lot of stuff links to this page, though. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I don't know how notable this article is so not sure of whether it should be deleted or not. If not then it should at least be rewritten with an introduction to the article. --Sleepyhead81 11:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mergere with Xenogears or whatever. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Xenogears. Either that or send it to a wikibook. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--Mitsukai 16:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As it appears that this page is the result of a lot of other merges, I'm going to vote weak keep. Feels like having a "Schools of X County" article as a compromise. ESkog 17:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep to "List of Xenogears terms" or Merge with Xenogears. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: It should probably be moved to List of Xenogears terms like Y0u said. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:17, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
Keep: Merging with Xenogears would bloat the article. Moving it to "List of Xenogears terms" as others have suggested sounds like a good idea too. Someone42 06:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into Xenogears or Delete as fancruft. Nandesuka 12:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. R adiant _>|< 13:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename to "List of Xenogears Terms." If we go around deleting every so-called "fancruft" page, it will take a long time. There are detailed lists on the characters, factions, and so on. This page provides a list of all the "other" terms. Its information could be added to other articles, but it may be wise to keep this as a place where other pages describing these terms can link to, so that excess description isn't needed.Deckiller 13:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Xenogears. JamesBurns 04:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fancruft. Eclipsed 09:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Battlefield 2. Done. -Splash 19:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlefield 2 vehicles

Wikipedia is WP:NOT GameFAQs. Battlefield 2 ably describes the sorts of vehicles in the game; a list of each individual vehicle is more appropriate to GameFAQs or the game's own manual. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above - Usrnme h8er 09:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all info into the Battlefield 2 entry. This does not deserve it's own encyclopedia article. - JogCon 09:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Battlefield 2 article. Its valid information but shouldn't have its own article Cynical 10:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevent to Battlefield 2. Madd4Max 11:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mergere. --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, K1Bond007 19:28, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge per above. -Splash 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its useful information about the vehicles in Battlefield 2. 218.208.195.129 04:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. anyone wanting info on BF2 should just go to the article for the game, no list is needed. --Bcshell 04:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, AS LONG as the information is kept to the article's level of detail, and no loss of information occurs. This is a useful article, and unless a link is provided to an article on another site, it shouldn't be deleted. Oh, and may i quote:

  "a list of each individual vehicle is more appropriate to GameFAQs or the game's own manual."

I don't own this game, so this wouldn't be very helpful. Jack Hayman

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jintokuan

Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Shamoru and Aggo, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or at best nn. Delete. Agentsoo 13:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it is also unverifiable. -Splash 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. --Etacar11 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shamoru

Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Jintokuan and Aggo, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or at best nn. Delete. Agentsoo 13:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it is also unverifiable. -Splash 19:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. --Etacar11 02:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggo

Seems to be a hoax. Nothing links here (besides Shamoru and Jintokuan, both of which are also on VFD, and Google turns up nothing for Jintokuan, Jintoquan, or Shamoru. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or at best nn. Delete. Agentsoo 13:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; it is also unverifiable. -Splash 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. --Etacar11 02:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forex Trading

advertisement. Page is just an outside link Usrnme h8er 09:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exchange rate. It has a section on foreign exchange markets. Capitalistroadster 10:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grégory Leclair

Article was created by anonymous IP 84.30.80.16, which has been warned twice for vandalism on its talk page. After seventeen edits by that user (including one removing my Speedy deletion tag and adding minimal content), the article is still basically blank. Even were the user to properly fill out the article, Googling "Grégory Leclair" returns only 430 hits, most of which do not seem to refer to a classical guitarist in any way. Delete. jglc | t | c 10:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Madd4Max 11:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.30.80.16
I'm going to speedy this as vanity. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena, there is not a clear consensus for outright deletion. If anybody wants to merge parts of this, I will leave the history intact so that people can do this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naked and Petrified

This article was nominated for deletion in September, 2004 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naked and Petrified). The vote received 21 Delete or Merge votes and only 8 Keep votes. For some reason the vote result was listed as "no consensus" by the admin. I believe this article is basically pure trollcruft, similar to the hundreds of other minor examples of trolling that people keep trying to add to the internet troll page. There is some web presence, but over a quarter of the first 100 Google hits are Wikipedia or Wikiquote mirrors, and many of the rest are not in reference to the trolling. My vote is Merge and Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena or Delete. — Asbestos | Talk 11:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena. Madd4Max 11:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, don't see why the nominator didn't just merge it instead of bringing it here. Kappa 11:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Had I pre-emptively merged it, and the result of the vote was Keep, then the information would have been unnecessarily duplicated. — Asbestos | Talk 13:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anyone can merge or redirect even if the result of the debate is "keep". Some closers don't do redirects, allowing other users to do them. Not really sure why. -R. fiend 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's covered elsewhere (see Slashdot). I don't think it needs its own Wikipedia page; it's not that important.WolfKeeper
Trolling is not notable and not interesting. No one cares. Delete. Agentsoo 13:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trollcruft. (Note: in order to avoid "lack of consensus" from a split in the redirect and delete votes, miraculously leading to a keep, this vote can be couted as a redirect if it will help build consensus). -R. fiend 15:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to slashdot trolling phenomena; where Naked and Petrified is already mentioned. If the nominator had just done this, instead of wasting VfD's time, the question would be over. Septentrionalis 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator in question preferred only to waste the time of those editors who could be bothered to post here. As the nominator saw it had already been through VFD once and was kept, he thought it might be prudent to ask the opinion of the community. He decided not to waste anyone's time who did not want to vote here, however, and so chose to make this vote non-compulsary. — Asbestos | Talk 23:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an article on the activities of a single troll on Slashdot. If it were the ONLY troll on Slashdot, it might be notable. Unfortunately, given the way Slashdot is, an article on a user who WASN'T a troll might be more notable. ;-) Xaa 17:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Martg76 18:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pompeii. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Septentrionalis; delete content. — RJH 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to slashdot trolling phenomena as above. Brighterorange 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who cares about a troll, foldy-roll? In case of non-deletion, redirect per Septentrionalis. -Splash 19:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since this troll is already mentioned in slashdot trolling phenomena no need for a merge, nd this is not a term people are likely to look up, so no need for a redirect (although no harm would be done by one). DES ^(talk) 19:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not independently notable; akin to writing about our favourite wikipedians. Flowerparty ^talk 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Flowerparty, but if deletes can't build a consensus, Merge or redirect. CanadianCaesar 21:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC) CanadianCaesar 22:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a minor variation on the theme of Slashdot trolling. To prevent a split between "delete", "merge", and "redirect" votes from resulting in a conclusion of "keep", this vote may also be interpreted as "redirect" or "merge" if doing so will result in a consensus. --Carnildo 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again. Please. Nandesuka 12:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trollcruft. Uppland 12:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Slashdot trolling phenomena. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single troll on slashdot. Encourages trolls (and others) to create an entry. Wikipedia isn't Trollopedia. KevinGovaerts 13:08:14, 2005-08-05 (UTC)
Delete nn troll. JamesBurns 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator.--nixie 22:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and somewhat incomprehensible. McPhail 19:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ;Bear 21:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider ~~~~'s vote to be valid. To follow it would consitute harm in and of itself.WolfKeeper

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). For those interested my vote count shows 9 to delete, 5 to keep which is short of a two-thirds majority anyway. Furthermore, there is agreement that "Jumping the couch" is a neologism, but the keep voters are arguing that this neologism is notable for some reason, and have backed it up with some evidence. Second, there is at least one delete vote which wants part of the article moved to Jumping the shark, this would probably require at least a redirect to be left behind to remain GFDL compliant. I also get the impression that many of the complaints to this article is that it is awfully similar to the more common "Jumping the Shark" phrase. I would like to point out that my closing of this debate as a "keep" does not mean that it's impossible to merge this article with something else if anybody will be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the couch

Seems to me to be not-notable. A google search for 'Jumping the couch' and any of the examples name's gives three hits or less. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as neologism. Some of it could be moved to Jumping the shark, as the phrases are so similar that they may be used in many of the same situations. --Several Times 14:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone UrbanDictionary. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Hamster Sandwich 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no different than jumping the shark. It also received a front page link on IMDb yesterday. -user:Fallout_boy
Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Jumping the shark" is not a neologism, whereas "jumping the couch" is. Also, the examples used are highly POV. Punkmorten 14:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the examples are highly POV right now. Sounds like a vote against the content of the article, instead of a vote against the article itself. -Macuxi 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think we could even get a little more people on this list. It amuses me. -GamblinMonkey 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hardy think 'it amuses me' is a good reason to keep. Surely this is BJAODN? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Oh, fine. It's non-notable (unless the phrase actually catches on someday) and very opinionated. Despite its humor, it should be done away with. -GamblinMonkey 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move an example or two to Jumping the shark, which already has a sentence to explain the phenomena - "Hein also uses the 'jumping the shark' concept to describe other areas of pop culture, such as music and celebrities, for whom a drastic change was the beginning of the end." --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 05:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a neologism, so what? I think we need a bit of everything here. Purple Rose 13:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was recently featured on imdb.com's daily news [9]. Yes, it is definitely neologism, but I think this term is gaining enough notability (and notoriety) to be kept here. --Death phoenix 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This particular neologism is getting a fair amount of press coverage, and gets far more hits than indicated above. Seems to indicate "realistic evidence of existence". In time, this phrase may just fizzle out, but it's too early to tell. -Macuxi 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, I can't consider this a term so much as it is a current media joke: it's a pun-- the equivallent of having an article about a quip that Letterman said last night in his monologue. It might catch on as slang but even if it did, this article would only serve as a dictionary definition followed by POV examples. BarkingDoc
Keep, and for three reasons.

The assertion that this article's topic is "not notable," especially when that assertion is not backed up with evidence or argument, is no reason to delete this entry. There are many entries in Wikipedia that most people would not consider notable. That gives us no reason to delete those entries, however. Wikipedia aspires to be a collection of all human knowledge, whether that knowledge is notable or not. Indeed, perhaps the more esoteric an entry is, the more useful it is; it serves a purpose that is likely not served elsewhere on the web.
That the article is allegedly POV is absolutely no reason to delete it. If it's POV, then alter it so that it's neutral. Many people believe the entry on President Bush is POV. Does that give us a reason to delete that article, though? An article's non-neutrality is no reason, by itself, to delete the article.
The fact that this entry has been referenced by another website, and a significant one at that, is further proof that this entry is serving a useful purpose. Shouldn't we be doing everything to make sure that Wikipedia is a popular and frequently used reference source? Deleting this article would be doing precisely the opposite.

Hydriotaphia 17:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

- Comment on the last post - In reply to your points
  1. The pressure should be on the keep camp to prove notabilty. NOT on the delete camp to prove non-notabilty. Proving notabilty (if notable) should be a lot easier, anyway.
  2. I agree here. POV article should be edited, no deleted. Non-notable articles should be deleted.
  3. I personally wouldn't consider being linked to by one site (even a major one) proof that the article is notable. However, I can understand that others would. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)

Reply. Curious. Why should the burden of proof be on the "keep" camp? Because of the open-endedness of the Wikipedia project, it seems to me only natural that the burden of proof for non-notability should be on the "delete" camp. Please explain. Hydriotaphia 06:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied. Grue 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tremeltoi

Seems to be a neologism at best and total nonsense at worst 59.92.135.73 11:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. I own a corgi and I've never heard the term. Hamster Sandwich 18:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As far as I can see, "tremel" and "toi" aren't Latin words like the article claims, hence it's pure nonsense. I believe pure nonsense is speedy delete. Punkmorten 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joder

A[n] ~~rambling~~ extended, multi-lingual dictionary definition. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Offence unintended, poor word choice. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article does seem to be discussing the word as much as defining it, so it's more than just a dicdef. Still I'm unsure if Wikipedia is the place for this sort of thing. Abstain for now. Will watch this one. Agentsoo 13:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC) The article presents facts about lenition and clear cut examples of usage, and I may come back to add quotations if I can find them. Such will not be feasible on the fuck article, as that is already large and broad that a quotation/in depth explanation from a random word attached to the end of the article would look very contrasting to the rest of the article. Instead of redirecting, I added a "see also" link for the curious reader wanting to have a broader perspective. The entire purpose for my writing the article was to make the Spanish profane term less vague. I, therefore, believe that this article can stand on its own. However, I respect 195.194.4.65's opinion. I also wrote the article on Chingar in collaboration with Hajor, and it has expanded quite rapidly. I see no reason why this article could not do the same. D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Aaron Brenneman: I believe the article has more than a simple dictionary definition, which has been stated by both the previous editor and I. I don't believe that brash statement belongs on top of the page anyway, as it will probably bias other users' opinions becuase it looks as if it is a summary of the article. Take care, D. J. Bracey (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New idea: Create a redirect as User:195.194.4.65 suggested, and merge extra info from Joder to the Chingar article. D. J. Bracey (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. If we're going to do this for the Spanish word for "fuck" why not every other verb in every other language? Bad idea. -R. fiend 15:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --BradBeattie 15:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per R. fiend Hamster Sandwich 18:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete foreign lang dicdef of a word we already have an article on in English. Do not redirect or merge.. -Splash 19:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 04:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Carr

Keep. Though her publicity is somewhat due to her husband, she has shown many considerable achievements, and thus should be considered notable.

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, straight to the point. Someone should add more to it though so we can get more information on her. 10.18, 3 August 2005 Unnotable, delete as it stands. UkPaolo 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- doesn't claim any separate notability other than via marriage. Average Earthman 12:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless she's actually done anything notable. Has she? DS 17:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Eldereft 17:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)</> [reply]

Keep revised and expanded version, a glorious success for collaborative editing. Eldereft 21:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob Carr, unless she is shown to be notable. Thue | talk 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited, or married into. Be notable in your own right before getting an article. -Splash 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Helena Carr is notable in her own right as a self-made millionaire. I have expanded the article to reflect this. —Theo (Talk) 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see no change to the article. -Splash 20:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! Nor do I! Ho hum: an hour's writing wasted. Sigh … —Theo (Talk) 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Notable as owner of printing company employing over 1000 people until recently. see [10]. She has her own entry in Who's Who in Australia 2005 (page 379) Millionaire in her own right. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have expanded on the article. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inheritable. R adiant _>|< 13:47, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, seems some people think wives can't be notable. :D New version by Theo and Capitalistroadster is actually a very pretty little article. --zippedmartin 16:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable wife of a fairly boring and mundane (ex) premier. JamesBurns 04:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in her own right, ~~not~~ and also because she is ~~someone'~~a leading politician's spouse. Anyways, there are a few articles on spouses/offspring of US pollies - where's the dividing line to be?.--cjllw | TALK 08:43, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
amended text of my above comment, as it did not read quite the way I had intended. Spouses of leading politicians will often be deserving of notability - IMO.--cjllw | TALK 09:05, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional physicians
[edit]

Does a list of fictional physicians have any relevance to anything? No. Delete now. It does not belong on wikipedia. --Differentgravy 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets 165 google hits. 'nuf said 212.101.64.4 16:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what? "Pink Fluffy Bunnies" gets over 3700 hits on Google, and I made that phrase up just now. Delete, the list verges on pointlessness. Xaa 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - relevance. A good score of people have added to this, but the only link:to on Google appears to be someone else's copy of the same list.
Sorry, new. Eldereft 17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems odd to be accept the relevance of a list of fictional military people, a list of fictional postal employees, a list of fictional alcoholics, a list of fictional computers, and even a list of fictional characters with one eye but say that a list of fictional physicians is irrelevant. Jason 18:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're right - if someone nominates a list of fictional characters with one eye, I'll probably vote it off the island, too. ;-) Xaa 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One-eyed characters are very important in fiction, and have been so since the times of ancient Greece. CanadianCaesar 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Jason. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep The deletion of this article shouldn't even be up for discussion. D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep; this nomination doesn't appear to contend that the article satisfies Wikipedia's deletion policy. Brighterorange 19:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is according to policy, and the given criteria aren't all-inclusive. WP:FAITH. Also, keep but convert to category. R adiant _>|< 13:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

keep keepy keep. Splendid wiki list article Robinh 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its purpose is clearly defined in the title. It's interesting, if a little long and cluttered up with General Hospital characters. Just needs a bit of a tidy-up. Flowerparty ^talk 20:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fitting WP:DEL criterion of "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic". The Literate Engineer 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree it can be cut down a little and defined a little better, but it works and can be of some use. Notable characters included. CanadianCaesar 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some lists about fictional ... (fill in) may be irrelevant, but this one isn't and neither are the others mentioned in this VFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep take an aspirin and lie down. JamesBurns 05:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kukielka
[edit]

Speedy-ed, but author removed tag and added claim to notability, so [11]. Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

unnotable, delete UkPaolo 12:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

first picture is from an Internet Photochop meme, not an actual notable figure. delete Lomn 13:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence meeting the WP:MUSIC criteria. Sliggy 13:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

nn. delete. Agentsoo 13:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --BradBeattie 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Garbage. --Scimitar ^parley 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Tours? Releases? Label? none of the above? Hamster Sandwich 18:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but commend for failing WP:MUSIC quite so thoroughly. -Splash 19:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Page Smirnoff C-Flow (Adam K) IS a hip hop artist in Australia. I saw him perform live last year when I was down in Adelaide, considering there are far less noteworthy rap artists around, this page stays as far as I'm concerned. August 04, 08:32:19 UTC

User:Smirnoff has 21edits, two of which are uploads of the images used on the Adam Kukielka page. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Fails google test with six hits, none of them notable. --Viriditas | Talk 09:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page, not notable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Nazi scum. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been expanded quite a bit since I nominated it. Trying to focus on the body of it, I can't confirm from the information given if this conforms to WP:MUSIC, and on the face of it seems unlikely. (That is to say, Humus' characterization might make major labels avoid this arist.) Can anyone confirm any tour dates, etc? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm.. I can vouch for the historical part, I've read some of his 'works' however biased/controversial they may have been, and I've heard of C-Flow, seen some posters advertising a performance (sometime last year)- you know, the type you see around telegraph poles etc. but never actually seen a performance. --SSaint | Talk (UTC)

User: SSaint has six edits, four of which are to an article about written works by Adam Kukielka, Polish Hill River. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Athough not one of my favourite artists, I saw C-Flow perform in Wollongong during his east coast tour (summer 2003) and I was one of maybe 400 people there. Considering Wollongong isn't huge, and Australian hip-hop isn't very popular, 400 people is a massive turnout, and it was only in a school hall, so it was pretty full. I heard he drew much larger crowds in Sydney and Brisbane, and my friend is a big fan. I don't see how he isn't notable, and I'm surprised you other aussies haven't heard of him. --MC Grave | Talk (UTC)

User:MC Grave has two edits, both to this VfD. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Please note that despite the name, this is not a vote. Numbers alone will not win the day, and the administrator closing this case can choose to discount votes from very new members. But if you provide verifiable facts (e.g. references, links, publishing details) then those are often taken into consideration. Thanks! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note on retention Smirnoff By wikipedia rules C-Flow passes the following: 6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. The city in this case is Adelaide and the style is Pacific Hip-Hop. Additionally C-Flow easily passes the google test (27000 hits). 12:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seve Juncal
[edit]

hoax/schoolboy joke

Oops, forgot to sign. Obviously, no such revolution occured. Why this isn't a speedy candidate (and I checked, hoaxes aren't) I don't know. Average Earthman 12:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Though you'll likely never see "hoax" on the speedy criteria list, since there are a few historically-important hoaxes with real articles (see Cardiff Giant for one), an article in which every word (or nearly eveery word) is a blatant lie can and should be speedied as vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete as no remotely plausible assertion of notability (deletion of vanity articles) Sliggy 13:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, hoax, the 'Student Revolution' never happened and the 'Generalisimo' is, by the DOB given in the article, sixteen years old. Xaa 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kids have such vivid imaginations! And it only took two minutes of my life to read his story. Two minutes I'll never have back... Hamster Sandwich 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 02:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy under A7. The student revolution turns out to be a disagreement with a teacher at best and a hoax at worst. Capitalistroadster 02:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- now. Punkmorten 11:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge with Smash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Relax
[edit]

Non. Notable. Every song from a major album does not need an entry Sensation002 13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep, no need to deny users information about songs from major albums. Kappa 13:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more pertinent information can be provided about this particular song. --Several Times 13:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the song is 25 seconds long and spoken. Sensation002 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the album's article, this provides extra information. CanadianCaesar 21:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Smash. This wasn't a single and wasn't even on the cassette version of the album indicating that it was a marginal track. Capitalistroadster 02:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge if there is no consensus for deletion. Nandesuka 12:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold and having merged it into Smash, I think delete is appropriate. Punkmorten 15:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the rules are when you merge something, you turn it into a redirect, you don't delete anything. CanadianCaesar 22:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I just put the relevant information into Smash. I don't reckon Time to Relax is worthy of a redirect page. Punkmorten 11:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Punkmorten. JamesBurns 05:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Tamar
[edit]

Same reason as here. Delete DMTsurel 13:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. due the decision to keep the page of Nimrod Kamer, it is only necessary now to kepp this page as well, a page that brodens the activities of the artist.
That article was kept because of no consensus. Hardly a ringing endorsement for this. --Etacar11 17:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ken 13:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure this would even be appropriate for IMDB. Eldereft 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are hundreds of thousands of movies all around the word. This is just another minor film. Yonidebest 20:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn short film. --Etacar11 02:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gilgamesh he 09:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. The article was transformed during the VfD and the post-transfiguration votes are pretty clear. -Splash 19:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Campzone
[edit]

Non-english (Dutch?) advertisement for a huge LAN party, I think.

Delete. Ken 13:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep, as the article has moved in a very encyclopedic direction, now that it's been translated and significantly enhanced. Ken 22:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. --BradBeattie 15:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dutch advert -Soltak 16:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've translated it. The author claims it's the biggest outdoor LAN event in Europe. No idea if it's true or verifiable, but I'd Delete it as a substub unless someone expands to include its location, organizers, etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, it is the biggest outdoor LAN event in Europe. Give me a couple days to expand it; it has national media coverage and basically consists of hundreds of people with tents and computers, and storage capacity exceeding a petabyte. R adiant _>|< 13:49, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, the article was created by an enthousiastic visitor (I recognize his nickname) noticing the absence of a English article apparantly, but needs expanding. I believe CampZone is notable because it is an established unique large outdoor LAN party event. I haven't been able to disprove the claim that CampZone is indeed the largest outdoor LAN party at the moment yet. I'm going to expand the article as much as I can (I have been participating in the event for three years now). JeroenHoek 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I also am convinced that Campzone should be allowd to take it's place here. Although i also can niether prove/disprove the "biggest in Europe" claim, i DO know that it is big, and fast becoming a "Cult Event" in Europe and is worthy of a wider audiance, especially in an Online Encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I myself have just returned from my 3rd Campzone event and as always am looking forward to the next years Event. The addition of this entry will only help the growth of an already much publisized (in Holland) event in the gaming community. --Coyotekid57 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, CampZone is quite an unique event and it's worth a place in the Wikipedia so more people can take notice of the fact that an event like this exists. CampZone is also working on a more international character of the event, so a Wiki article can be usefull to reach some more people from abroad. At the moment people are seriously busy expanding the article. Please give them some time to write it. --Chell 22:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I am one of the organizers and would also like to request to keep this article. There is allready a forum thread active on discussing the entry and which information to provide. Speaking as organisation of Campzone I would also like to see a correct and informational article take form and be incorperated into the global knowledge that is wikipedia. Several plans are beying made to submit information in detail. This is not just meant as a big advertisement, we have enough of that. Campzone to our knowledge is a quite unique event, especially on our scale (1700+ people). Biggest outdoor lan in Europe is certainly true, actually, I know of no other in the whole world? --Quindor 23:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is now a good and valid article. Punkmorten 11:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. On one hand there is agreement that the article should not stay as it is. On the other hand there is no consensus to discard everything here. I will therefore in one sense "remove" the article by making it a redirect to school bus, while preserving the history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church bus and school bus safety
[edit]

The first half of the article is about the Bus accident at Carrollton, Kentucky in 1988 on which Wikipedia already has an article. The second half is a load of safety instructions, advice and suggestions about buses -- school and church buses to be precise. Consider this comment by the author of the article on its talk page "... I am writing this to everyone in memory of the victims of the school (church) bus tragedy which occurred at Carrollton, Kentucky on 14 May 1988." Dr Gangrene 19:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the article should be deleted, there may be some valuable content here that could be incorporated into other articles. Dr Gangrene 14:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a how-to. The first half is a duplicate of another article, so a delete is in order after any merges are done. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Your vote is ill-formed. Merging content requires that the original be kept. (perhaps we need a "tombstone" template for such articles). Gazpacho 17:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the safety instructions can be transwikified somewhere?- Mgm|^(talk) 23:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I think everything is already covered in Bus accident at Carrollton, Kentucky in 1988 and School bus. --Carnildo 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge and I will merge this with Object-oriented programming for now. This is a tough one, because there are six delete votes and three merge votes. Often (probably usually) I will call 6-3 a delete. However, the deciding factor is that many of the merge votes gave fairly well founded reasons for their votes, therefore I will use my discretion and let the comments decide this close debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Checking type instead of membership
[edit]

Silly mistake made by silly computer programmers. Not notable. r3m0t ^talk 15:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is not a pattern, it's just a programming mistake. Patterns have situations and forces and all that. Gazpacho 16:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, no article needed. -Sotak 16:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Do people actually do this? ;) To be fair, though, anti-patterns include a lot of silly programmer mistakes, such as busy spin and double-checked locking, that are based on misconceptions about how to write code in a modern OS or language. Perhaps there should be a section of common programming errors that this can go into? --FreelanceWizard 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What next, Extra semicolon after for(;;) statement? --Carnildo 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a topic for full article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Together with the rest of the anti-patterns, it makes for an interesting collection of programming mistakes, which I at least feel I get something out of looking through. Oh, and yes, people do actually do this: I have. BenBildstein 04:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree, a merge is a good idea. This is more common then one might think. In my experience people often search the API for a solution instead of the language reference, and thus end up with stuff like this. Bergsten 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, into what article would you suggest merging this into? --FreelanceWizard 11:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably into a new article, but merged with other articles that more or less only represents a programming mistake. Or does one already exist? Bergsten 11:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify myself. In many cases where I have seen this the programmer understood what the code did and used it accordingly. The program worked just fine, but the code did not take advantage of the OOP features available in the language. Bergsten 12:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, don't delete. Maybe into Object-oriented programming or maybe into a big article with some other anti-patterns not notable enough for their own articles (for example, Escalating commitment to a single, failing course of action). —Keenan Pepper 08:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Bommannan is a hindu god. Whoever is trying to delete will be punished severly.[reply]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Long
[edit]

Non-notable vanity. --BradBeattie 15:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 21,500 Google hits [12] suggest notability, but it won't harm it to be deleted an re-written from scratch if that is the case. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Has written two books, I think: [13], [14]. I can smell the germ of an article here. -Splash 19:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very notable author of a major literary genre. I've just re-written the article, and even got a Taiwan Education Ministry (Global Chinese Language and Culture Center) webpage as a reference. Verifiable and encyclopedic. The Literate Engineer 21:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and thank the editors who improved the article and helped to counter systemic bias. Kappa 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author. Well done Literate Engineer. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the state of the article at the moment, I switch my vote to keep. --BradBeattie 02:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable. Nandesuka 12:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is now good enough. Punkmorten 15:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chinese page linked, translation pending. We can stop the discussionm now. SYSS Mouse 22:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. One of the major wuxia novelists who is not merely notable but extremely influential in the Chinese-speaking world. 165.21.154.112 03:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gapers
[edit]

Article consisting of 1 line. Unencyclopedic topic. Dr Gangrene 15:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal attack on skiiers. Yeah. --Several Times 16:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also a dic-def. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, dicdef. Thue | talk 18:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the dicdef. Punkmorten 19:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unexpandable one-sentence-fragment dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Artist
[edit]

Also Maverick Artists and Jen Min.
Advertising spam. Nabla 15:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy.--Mitsukai 16:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly West
[edit]

Non-notable as far as I've been able to ascertain. No relevant Google hits. Tried for a speedy, but another user thought otherwise, so let's do this the formal way. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google returns quite a few hits so there should have been an article generated automatically by sadgits (it's in google so it's important script). 212.101.64.4 16:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote might be referring to the article in question directly above. It popped up here while I was formatting this entry. - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, possible vanity -Soltak 16:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. looks like vanity to me. -R. fiend 19:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn vanity, can't even find the mentioned book on amazon. --Etacar11 02:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Both the book title, and the book publisher are not found on google. The google hits on the name return many un-related people. Eclipsed 23:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was merge but there is no real agreement as to where to merge this. Therefore I will keep the article as it is and tag it as a merge-candidate. I was a bit at a loss as to how to count the votes here, but I cannot really see a consensus for an outright deletion. (4 delete, 2 merge, 1 move) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vorkosigan Saga Inconsistencies
[edit]

Original Research BirgitteSB 15:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. At least it is not fancruft, but it should more properly belong to a Bujold fanalysis page. Eldereft 18:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this is accurate, or at least arguable. indeed I have made several of these points on rec.arts.sf.Written and on the "LordV" yahoo mailing list in the past. But unless sourced, this is or at least appears to be original research. Reluctant Delete unless source info for the opnons expressed is provided. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being a scientist I'm inclined to treat physics arguments as self-evident, and not requiring external justification. Social and political commentary is of course a different matter, as is speculation about alternative interpretations. I will take another look at the content, and at least remove the non-physics sections. Djdaedalus 20:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a question of whether they are "self-evident" or not, IMO. Original analysis, even flawlessly correct original analysis of works of art is not approprioate on wikipedia. If you can point to such analyes elsewhere you can properly summarize them here, because they we are reporting what others think. Please re-read WP:NOR. DES ^(talk) 22:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR is neither explicitly nor implicitly related to this. It covers the kinds of articles which might issue from, say, Archimedes Plutonium. If some kind of exegesis on a work of fiction is not to be allowed, there really is no room for most of the fiction-related content already present. Djdaedalus 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; this page simply is not original research. There is a huge body of such analysis out there, for just about any work of note in speculative fiction, and in particular for the Vorkosigan series. I don't disagree with the call to Merge into a more appropriate page, though. Georgewilliamherbert 02:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vorkruft. Wikipedia is not ImpSec. Delete. DS 22:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not Impsec, no. The Council of Counts, yes. Djdaedalus 00:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Miles Vorkosigan - Vorskysmith 09:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally part of Vorkosigan Saga but became too long. Djdaedalus 12:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Anything wrong with moving it to Vorkosigan Saga/Inconsistencies, then? DS 17:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me Djdaedalus 01:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read Wikipedia:Subpages first. Mind you, i think stuff about fictional univeses (when kept) ought to be an expection to this policy, but it hasn't been made one yet. See Wikipedia talk:Subpages#Fictional Universes where I have just suggested such a policy change. DES ^(talk) 15:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). This debate was a bit confusing however, my count leaves 5 votes on the merge/keep side and 6 on the delete side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter Boulevard
[edit]

A short stretch of road in Portland not deserving of its own article. Merge and Redirect to Portland, Maine. -Soltak 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Portland, Maine not Portland, Oregon why do you think it's Oregon? --Maoririder 16:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I saw Portland and added Oregon by mistake (I've since changed that.) In any event, it's still not independently notable. -Soltak 16:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's "a dirt path" according to the article. I disagree with the merge suggestion above, as there are probably other Baxter Boulevards elsewhere in the world, and besides it's in Maine anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete There are many dirt paths in the world. Why is this one noteworthy? ike9898 16:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete- no proof of notability. --Scimitar ^parley 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete, even after expansions. I know are notability bar is low, but this is still beneath it. --Scimitar ^parley 14:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete umm... this is an article about a STREET. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:13, August 3, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep Notability established by the "most dangerous roads guide" bit. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
A google search for "most dangerous roads guide" turned up nothing and Allstate's website doesn't mention anything about it. That bit is likely a complete fabrication. -Soltak 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the part about the "most dangerous roads" is confirmed prior to the closing of this VFD, I wish for my vote to be considered Weak keep. If it is not confirmed, I wish for it to be considered Strong delete. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:46, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
It was added by an anonymous user; I've left a note on their IP talk page requesting sources but don't really expect a reply. -Soltak 18:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing that leads to my front door is a dirt path, too. -Splash 19:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been expanded significantly since most of the preceding votes were cast. No vote myself at this time. DS1953 23:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The revisions to the article make it (somewhat) worthy of inclusion. Xaa 05:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Delete I can't believe I was fooled by that hoax. =( Xaa 22:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major roads. --SPUI (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Major road?! It's an "oval path" that's only "3 miles in circumference" hardly a major road! -Soltak 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of U.S. Highway 1. [15] --SPUI (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, revision seems to make it just worthy of an article.Gateman1997 15:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement I have removed all information regarding the "dangerous roads" bit and the part about the migrant workers; they were manufactured and cannot be verified. The individual who posted that information was anonymous but responded to on an IP talk page with "chill ouit, dude i made it up" and later "Okay. Sorry. I am done now." In light of that, I would request everyone voting to keep reevaluate your votes. -Soltak 16:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and thanks, Soltak, for checking up on this. JesseW 22:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just expanded it and confirmed everything that's now in the article. It's a part of what was once a major north-south route along the east coast, and runs along the shore of a body of water. It's definitely notable locally. --SPUI (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may wind up merged into Portland, Maine or even U.S. 1; but both of these are keeps. I wish voters would remember the simple rule: a vote to keep does not imply support of the present form of the article. Septentrionalis 20:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Game Editors
[edit]

Slightly misleading title... Wikipedia already has an article all about mods in computer games, at Mod (computer gaming) Dr Gangrene 16:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary. --Etacar11 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semac
[edit]

No Google hits [16], which is surprising for the worst person in history eclipsing the evil of Adolf Hitler and even Satan himself. Possible attack page. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:54, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy. humblefool ®^{Deletion Reform} 19:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Hawke
[edit]

Speedy delete, should be a User Page. RasputinAXP 17:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then add {{delete}} instead of {{vfd}}. The creator has now blanked it, so a speedy is fine. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete - no meaningfull content. Thue | talk 18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KXEB (AM)
[edit]

Blatant advertising. Dr Gangrene 17:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we've kept radio station articles in the past, but this could have been speedied--it supplies no meaningful context or information, but only urges the reader to "visit a fan page" and supplies an ext. link. Meelar (talk) 17:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree - done. Thue | talk 18:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as written although an encyclopedic article is possible. ESkog 17:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all three. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True World Simulator, WorldPower, and SuperPower Classic, all created by User:Itake
[edit]

stubby article on yet another worldsim, with one line of text and an external link to the homepage. "True World Simulator" returns 31 hits on Google. "WorldPower" + nationsim returns 0. "SuperPower Classic" on Google returns 2480 hits: 21 are displayed, and the other 12459 are deemed very similar to the 21 already displayed. I say Delete for True World Simulator and WorldPower, but am Neutral on SuperPower Classic. jglc | t | c 17:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Geo-Political web-based simulator, "50 members and daily activity" seem to be criteria for the success and notability of such a simulation. jglc | t | c 18:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats an example of how it might go with nationsims going active and popping up back active.Itake 19:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey whats that? This is a free dictionary, its supposed to contain INFORMATION. My articles are just that, information. I see no reason what so ever to delete these entries just because they don't return enough hits on google.
Also, search for WorldPower 3.0 and you will get a hit on the nationsim directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005]] ([[User talk:Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itake}17:52, 3 August 2005|contribs]])

First of all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is Wiktionary. Also, Wikipedia Is Not... an indiscriminate collection of information. That is to say, simply because something exists or is true does not grant it automatic inclusion in Wikipedia. Generally, for things such as websites or games, the object in question must be "notable" for its importance in a particular field or area of interest, or for its visibility in popular culture. jglc | t | c 17:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, encyclopedia. Whatever. They are all notable. If you did some time to read up on this subject you would see that there exists like 50 or so (and probably more thats just not listed) nationsims, but only TWS, WP, SPC and Qpawn are really big. Thats why only did pages for them. If I wanted to, I could have done it for every single nationsim but I didn't since there are many that have been inactive for years now. So they are significant in this context, they are significant in the world of nationsims. Itake

This is why I withheld judgment on Qpawn and SuperPower Classic. Also, a dictionary is very different, and serves a distinct purpose, from an encyclopedia. jglc | t | c 18:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a dictionary is and I know what an encyclopedia is. Thank for that brief but unecessary lesson.

Now, the WP and TWS entries are only one-liners because I don't have any more information on them. There is probably alot more information to fill in there. If you look at the wikipedia entry for goverment simulation you will see alot of info on TWS that I plan to put in there. As for WP, no I don't have anymore info. If you want to delete it, even though its notable, I demand a vote of some sort.Itake 18:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vote. Dr Gangrene 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you click to vote to keep all the entries? Itake 18:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right here, in the body of the discussion: You can choose to Delete, Keep, or declare yourself Neutral and only commenting. You can also state that you feel the articles should be merged with already-existing content, or transwiki'd to another Wikipedia-family wiki. jglc | t | c 18:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HA! I got info on WorldPower aswell! Eat that! Now leave me, and my contributions alone and go find something useful to do Itake 18:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Simply because there is information available on something does not automatically grant it notoriety or notability. jglc | t | c 18:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, as you obviously don't recall I already explained why they are notable. Did you even read the whole article? What matters now is that they are no longer one-liners.Itake 19:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes
[edit]

I vote to Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itake (talk • contribs) 19:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the longest discussion without a single vote on VfD that I have seen. That being said, I'm really not sure that the notability of these nationsims extends beyond the people that play them, and since there aren't too many that are active, I suggest we delete them all as the "biggest one" of these three has 68 listed registered users. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
There are thousands of players playing these games, and thats what I call notable. US gov sim for example, has about 500 members. The ASG has 500 members. WorldPower has 80 members. This is large, and saying that its not just because you never heard of it is sad. I hope people start harrasing the articles you do aswell. Itake 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not think of this as harrassment. We are simply trying to come to a consensus on what ought or ought not be considered encyclopaedic. jglc | t | c 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then whats the problem? They were all empty entries before I created them. I'm okay that someone removed my addition of SPC to the entry for superpower but none of the others are conflicting with more "important" entries so I see no reason not to leave them alone. Itake 19:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, every single time you edit a Wikipedia page, the bottom of the page displays a warning that If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. While it is definitely Wikipedia's policy to Be Bold, you must also recognise that Wikipedia is an open-edit community. jglc | t | c 19:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three as essentially non-notable forums outside of their own fanbase. The thousands of duplicate hits for "SuperPower Classic" are simply individual forum posts. TWS doesn't have an Alexa ranking, TP is on a forum hosting site, and SPC has a rank of ~200,000, and that's including a second forum/site on the same host. WP:NOT a web directory. --Icelight 20:52, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I vote to Keep. This is a notable genre in internet gaming. Is this not the debate? If so, then let my opinion be heard. This is a notable genre, though it may not have the number of users as EverQuest, or World of Warcraft, or even Master of Orion 2. Measuring the notability in numbers, though, is both very difficult, given the constant fluidity of geopolitical world simulator gamer population, and in many ways incompetent. The genre doesn't have great numbers for a few reasons, not one of which is not that the genre itself, more a subgenre of simulation, is unimportant. These games are long, many times tedious, and most people only want to play one of a very few nations, and when they do get it, they may leave. Also, think about it. When was the last time you saw an ad for any of these games? See, there is no member benchmark for notability, because that would be silly. It's the idea behind the game that we should be talking about. The idea to put players in the shoes of world leaders has been an idea in the backs' of many developers' minds, starting with Civilization, which could qualify as the first nationsim, and now we are just carrying that tradition on. Allowing players to have "power" over a nation/organization is an idea that, frankly, few have picked up on. Call me a partisan and ignore me, if you wish, but my points are still valid. This idea is notable and deserves to be heard, not ignored. This unsigned vote was by DJ_R. This was the user's first contribution to Wikipedia. Nandesuka 12:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note that I only VfD'd instances of nationsim games. The article Geo-Political web-based simulator, and redirects such as Nationsim, were not nominated, precisely for the reasons stated above by DJ_R. jglc | t | c 13:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Lord Bob 04:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Lord Bob. Nandesuka 12:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. R adiant _>|< 13:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Scimitar ^parley 18:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the current admin of WP and have updated the WP entry to include a more comprhensive history and I hope those who voted for deletion will recondier their votes, surley if superpower and others deserve a entry the largest and most active nationsim deserves one.

Strong Delete all --JPotter 02:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). THe vote is more or lest tied (17d, 17k on my count), at any rate no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Middle School now moved to King Middle School, Portland, Maine
[edit]

Delete. This article is about a non-notable school in Portland, Maine and provides little information. Unless notability is provided, this should be deleted. -Soltak 17:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly contentless. --Scimitar ^parley 17:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has more content. Has your opinion on it changed? Factitious 08:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep can be expaning. --Maoririder 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be? -Soltak 17:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is Wikipedia. Writing articles is what we are here to do. Why are you here? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, and IMO middle schools are inherently non-notable except in quite exceptional caases. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No content and non-notable. Delete. AlbertR 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the case that the article has no content. Factitious 08:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 18:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Wikipedia schools arguments. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC) Addition- In my opinion, the arguments to keep are far more convincing than the arguments to delete. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
May I also point out the alternative and change to a Strong Delete per Wikipedia schools arguments- (unsigned by Soltak)

Keep SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You guys read the article, right? If not, it says "It is located in Portland, Maine. Right across the street from Deering Oaks." and adds an external link. This isn't about pro-/anti- schoolism. It's about the fact that this article is worthless at this point in time.--Scimitar ^parley 19:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your comment, I've slightly changed my vote. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:03, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. --BradBeattie 19:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — normally I'd vote keep, but this is little more than an external link. — RJH 19:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be expanded. I encourage the creator to expand it, if for no other reason than that it may save it from deletion. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The creator, Maoririder refuses to expand these stubs, and he's making a ton of them. I don't see why others should have to run around and clean up after him.--Scimitar ^parley 19:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? We have hundreds of editors on Wikipedia, and you want to delete an article because *one particular guy* won't edit it? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wanted to delete the article because it lacked content. Additionally, if you check out his contributions, he's made a bunch of equally stunning single-sentence school stubs, and deleting one will encourage him to put effort into the other articles that he writes. My comment was intended to reply to Y0u's comment suggesting the original creator be encouraged to expand it. He's being encouraged. He isn't expanding. Furthermore, if you want to try and figure out why I want it deleted, you could read my post higher up, which gives my vote and my reason.--Scimitar ^parley 21:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that User:Maoririder is creating a lot of useless sub-stubs that I would see as CSD and is unable or unwilling to improve them. See User talk:Maoririder. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, I have to say some people do pretty good expansions :) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep this please it will be expanded and it is already a good stub Yuckfoo 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing of note about this place. -Splash 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Diversity might make the place significant, but not the school. Gazpacho 20:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but please add details if possible. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Classic school stub. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why delete articles on schools all the time? I read Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, and we might as well delete articles on small towns created by Rambot. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Why vote to keep crappy substubs all the times just because they happen to be about schools? Just keep a record of the fact the school needs to be included in a school project page and write something with actual content when the info is found. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's very rare for Wikipedia to delete a school article nowadays. In the three months May to July over 150 school articles were listed for deletion, but only was deleted during the entire period. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Scimitar mentioned previously, this really isn't a debate about including every school around. It's a debate about Maoririder wasting space with useless stubs and then expecting everyone else to stand in awe of him and expand them. -Soltak 21:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that he expects anything of the sort. While his stubs are minimalist, we're discussing *this* article, which is actually rather good. Let's not delete it just because the guy who wrote it wasn't interested in expanding it. This is a Wiki, which means that *anybody* can expand *any* article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it "rather good," but it is better than the original. The article originally nominated for deletion was this "King Middle School is located in Portland, Maine. It is across the street from Deering Oaks." How would you vote on that? -Soltak 22:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd have voted keep and expand, of course! VfD isn't, or shouldn't be, a beauty contest. Ugly ducklings grow into beautiful swans. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. This article has been improved slightly by several users to a reasonable stub. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Wikipedia schools arguments. -- Ianblair23 22:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 24 at 22:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

M.C. Hammer keep. —RaD Man (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks fine now. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:59, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Keep, it can't be expanded if it isn't there anymore... and Wikipedia schools arguments.-Poli (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Delete as written it does nothing to show any notability and is clearly not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely non-notable. Nandesuka 12:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. R adiant _>|< 13:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Wikipedia schools arguments and the inherent notability of schools. Un focused 19:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We keep railway stations. We keep suburbs. We keep bridges. we keep highways. We keep schools.--Gene_poole 06:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Railway stations are notable due to the fact that those currently in existence provide mass transit services. Suburbs are notable in that they are geographical locations. In my experience, we don't always keep bridges, nor do I personally think we should. While education is inherently notable, the building where learning occurs is not. -Soltak 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Railway stations are notable due to the fact that those currently in existence provide mass transit services. Schools are notable due to the fact (among others) that those currently in existence provide education. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May provide some minimal education might be more accurate. I still don't understand how a weight loss school provides education in the traditional sense. Vegaswikian 08:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to read the King Middle School website again. It is not a weight-loss school. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being a non-notable school does not make something notable. Might I also point out how disturbing that "cabal" appears. Ganging up and voting "keep" solely on the basis of being a school defeats the purpose of Vfd.Gateman1997 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikishit. Grue 19:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Portland Public Schools --Tim Pope 17:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1 vote for merge is pointless so delete. --Tim Pope 06:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete schoolcruft. And schools get kept thanks to the Pro-School Freeping Cabal, not thanks to content, or consensus, or common sense, or even eventualism. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 10:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No notability and no content. Might I also point out how disturbing that "cabal" appears. Ganging up and voting "keep" solely on the basis of being a school defeats the purpose of Vfd.Gateman1997 16:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your duplicate vote has been stricken. Please only vote once. Furthermore, please try to remain civil and not make baseless personal attacks. —RaD Man (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I hadn't seen my earlier vote so I apologize for that. Secondly, that's not a personal attack, that's a fact. There is a group on here that works to keep all schools regardless of notablity. Gateman1997 00:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this "group" work? YOu are aware, I hope, that the idea that schools are subject to notability is a very, very contentious one? --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's contentious certainly, but that doesn't make him wrong for raising the point. In fact, it's the reason many people vote to delete school articles; it's also the reason the group he mentioned votes to keep them. -Soltak 01:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's that word again: "group". Another word I've seen is "cabal". All seem to be rationalisations of the fact that people who want to delete schools aren't able to do so. I think the hit rate is somewhere around 2%, quite extraordinary when you consider that VfDs in general have a very high chance of succeeding. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 02:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for proof of a "group" that makes it their mission to "save" school articles regardless if they are notable or not. [[17]]. There they are. Gateman1997 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your false assumption is quite insulting. If I vote to keep a school it is because I firmly believe it is notable. Schoolwatch and other similar programs have had nothing but a positive impact on the articles it lists, in my opinion. —RaD Man (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My analysis says otherwise. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis simply appears to examine voting patterns and assign membership of a putative group on that basis. But the only thing linking those whom you assign to a group is that, for their various reasons, they do not share with you the belief that notability criteria apply to schools and they vote consistently to reflect that lack of agreement with you. You cannot infer group membership from shared opinion. Indeed to make matters worse my opinion, to take an example, has changed a great deal over time. Go back to November/December and you'll find that I was of the opinion that listing schools in Wikipedia was wrong, and I even listed one or two for deletion myself. I changed my mind. That is permitted. I didn't apply for membership of any group, I just changed the way I vote. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd point out that this statement, "they do not share with you the belief that notability criteria apply to schools and they vote consistently to reflect that lack of agreement with you" proves exactly the point I made earlier. They don't analyze individual schools or articles on merit but rather the fact they are schools. By that logic all grocery stores, bars, and 7-Eleven locations should be kept as well. Being a school does not guarentee notablity.Gateman1997 21:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gene Poole. arj 22:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see User:ESkog/Schools for justification. ESkog 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going by that page, wouldn't it be reasonable to merge this into a single article collecting schools at the city or district level, as opposed to deleting it? Factitious 08:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Real place --malathion ^talk 22:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My local grocery store is a real place... does that make it notable enough for an entry?Gateman1997 23:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. Factitious 08:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda Crafts 2000 Limited
[edit]

Reads like an adverisment. AlbertR 18:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's because it is an advertisement! Only 3 Google hits [18], one of which is to List of Ugandan companies, where the only other blue link is for Barclays Bank. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tukey's Bridge
[edit]

Delete A non-notable bridge in Portland, Maine. -Soltak 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nontable bridge in Portland, Maine Drunk kids crashed their car on it. --Maoririder 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound callous, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that doesn't matter. -Soltak 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It may be notable, but this article is contentless, as are many of the stubs that Maoririder's been writing. Delete. --Scimitar ^parley 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of notability is provided, and significant content is added to the article. DES ^(talk) 19:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is almost content free. If there is enough information to warrant a mention in the Route 95 article, then it should be added to that, and this still deleted. -Splash 19:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "Route 95" article was one Maoririder started. In it, he was apparently trying to describe Interstate 95 as "a highway that runs from Maine to Florida." Since I've always heard the term "route" applied to US and state highways, I redirected it to the article on US 95, a completely different stretch of road not far from where I live in California. So, the link's even wrong...and I'd told him what I'd done regarding the redirect. Sigh yet again... - Lucky 6.9 20:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here's the prior content of "Route 95:" It is the main route from Maine all the way to Florida. It was followed by a homemade template which resolved to this route stub is about routes and you can help expand it! Why he didn't research this first is beyond me since every main interstate in the US has an article. - Lucky 6.9 20:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bridge. --Carnildo 23:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability asserted. --Etacar11 02:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not because of any notability, but because it's wrong. "Tukey's Bridge" seems to refer to two bridges, one on Interstate 295 and the other adjacent to it on the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad. --SPUI (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established. CanadianCaesar 07:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Unsigned vote by Arj (talk · contribs))

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Charlton
[edit]

Probably a hoax. Googling "James Charlton" "australian liberal party" returns only one (irrelevant) result, and the picture looks like a Photoshop job. Agentsoo 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax and lose the pictures as well. AlbertR 18:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax: the picture on the right is clearly fabricated. -Splash 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious hoax; maybe BJAODN-worthy. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. A Young Communist who achieved a high office in the Liberal Party of Australia would certainly be a turnup for the books. As a member of the Liberal Party, I've never heard of him and the "facts" cited in the article are obviously nonsense. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probable hoax/nonsense. "Kristanovichiá" certainly doesn't appear to exist. --Etacar11 02:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So much is wrong in this article, for instance "Freestyle Underwater Testicle-Grappling, a popular 10 a side game crossed between chess, rugby and medieval west african torture". Punkmorten 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep or merge. no consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneskin gargoyle cape
[edit]

Was marked as {{nonsense}}, but that isn't the case. However, it is still not notable enough for its own article. 93 Google hits. [19] Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

When I marked it as {{nonsense}}, there was no World of Warcraft context; therefore, I thought it was simply a vandalism or test edit. I understand, now, and also agree with you that it's nonnotable; delete. jglc | t | c 18:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It was a speedy candidate, as nonsense, the person who nominated it for Vfd almost fixed that. Now it's just a short article with no context, not quite a stub or short article. None of this changes the fact that the item is not notable. If we expected to see it in an encyclopedia, then perhaps there ought be articles for the Boomerang in Legend of Zelda, the magic mushroom in Super Mario, the Elixir potions in Final Fantasy/Chrono Trigger, (all of which would be more interesting than one ordinary item out of thousands in a MMORPG)... --Mysidia 23:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into World of Warcraft (or, if one exists, into an article devoted to items from this game) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Nintendo items. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (merge and redirect) as per Antaeus Feldspar. arj 22:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Panarese
[edit]

The entire article is the sentence "Tom Panarese is a high school teacher who wrote a novel called "Sayville." Googling for "Tom Panarese" + Sayville returns 25 hits. The novel is legitimate (sold on Amazon), but I call this one non-notable. Delete. jglc | t | c 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete nn author. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) Delete since book was published by vanity press. (Y0ur contributions) 18:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Amazon sales rank of ~800,000 convinced me of non-notability. My grandmother has a better ranking. ;) --Icelight 23:29, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn, his book is published by a vanity press. --Etacar11 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tpanarese (Tom Panarese himself, I assume) left the following message on my user talk page:

I found it funny that someone else set up a Wiki page about me. Yes, I did write a novel entitled Sayville, but to be honest, there's no need for a Wiki page. It was started by someone who has been more or less a troll on Wikipedia anyway. So, thanks for adding it to the delete pile and feel free to delete as you wish. Tpanarese 19:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

jglc | t | c 19:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice that he's not taking it personally. Good for him. :) --Etacar11 19:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff provine
[edit]

Given that he gets 110 google hits I doubt he is notable. The book is real, but doesn't seem to be very popular. Thue | talk 18:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Book ranks 1,023,000th on Amazon [20], and has received one review in 2 years. That one review is intriguing: it refers to a sequel already published, but Amazon lists only this title by this author. -Splash 19:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, another writer published by a vanity press [21]. --Etacar11 02:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThreadsPP
[edit]

Ad for a software library. Wikipedia is not freshmeat. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete an ad for a software library — it's only distributed by its (individual) author. -Splash 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Diamond
[edit]

~~Vanity page. Seems to be copied from his corporate bio. Chuck 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)~~ Ooops, looks like the entry didn't tell the whole story. He is no longer just CEO of a division, but is now President and member of the Board of Directors of the parent. Two different things IMHO. Keep[reply]

Keep The CEO of a major financial firm seems notable to me. This page needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but that is not aloen a reason to delete. I couldn't find any page this seemed to be taken from on a quick google search, if this is a simple cut&paste of an online corporate bio, it should be tagged with {{copyvio}} and dealt with accordingly. DES ^(talk) 19:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't think it was necessarily copyvio from online source, only that it was evidence of vanity page. Chuck 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think that being a CEO of Barclays Capital is good enough. I couldn't find a copyvio, either. -Splash 19:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to this [22], on May 27, 2005 he was promoted to President of Barclay's with an annual compensation of $28 million. DS1953 20:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable businessman. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The head of the largest investment management business in the world (according to our own Barclays Global Investors article, though I thought Fidelity was), and possibly the highest paid executive in the UK. 82.35.34.11 03:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. I don't think any votes need discounting. -Splash 19:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leviticus 18
[edit]

Initial explanation
[edit]

Pov fork of The Bible and homosexuality.

Tally (3/13)
[edit]

Admin section
[edit]

No explanation of what "Pov fork" means (presumably biased in some way).

A valid vfd must state what policy the article's existence violates

It would also help if there were a deadline for making the decision. Uncle Ed 17:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:POV fork for a presumable definition. Also, the deadline is five days from the nomination, which was August 3. And what is this "tally" business? NatusRoma 20:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this a vote? I was counting the delete and keep votes. Uncle Ed 23:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but what advantage is there to tallying? This is about consensus, not numbers. NatusRoma 04:40, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
[edit]

Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , de-POV, notable Bible chapter.--Scimitar ^parley 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article scarcely skims the surface of the full chapter - it's just a POV fork and if anyone wants to write about the chapter they are best to start from scratch. David | Talk 20:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it stands this is a POV fork and obsessed with one verse on homosexuality, but I've started a clean-up. --Doc (?) 21:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(NPOV OT/Hebrew Bible scholar urgently needed!) --Doc (?) 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty much impossible to NPOV any of Leviticus. I know, I tried it before. :p --Veratien 03:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a Wiki on the Bible that this and similar articles could be sent to? This article and articles like it seem very non-encyclopedic to me. Wiki is an encyclopedia - not a concordance or discussion group. (No vote; I haven't read the article). -WCFrancis 21:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you read the article - but we have had that debate and there is no consensus to do anything different --Doc (?) 21:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even from a secular perspective, no one can deny the tremendous historical influence of the Bible. IMO, every chapter and ~~every passage~~ many verses are entitled to an article. I salute Doc for the clean-up. CanadianCaesar 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. Kappa 23:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable section of the Bible with contemporary relevance. Well done Doc for the cleanup. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leviticus 18 Dodgers 0. FunkyChicken! 03:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Quite notable. NatusRoma 06:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, notable Bible chapter. Uppland 07:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been discussed before. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important chapter with, as said, contemporary relevance. Punkmorten 16:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:02, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

Delete. If every verse of the Bible is entitled to a page, then every phrase of the Zohar, Qu'ran, Torah, etc, is also entitled to a page. To grant one special dispensation purely because it's the religious text of choice in the country of origin is prejudiced at best. 'Sides, there are millions of verses in the Bible, most of which are related to others, which would mean millions of redundant pages. --Veratien 03:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a passage we're discussing, it's a chapter. Notice there's only one number in the title. If it were a passage, it would have a title like Matthew 3:16. The mention of passages in this debate are merely obiter dicta. CanadianCaesar 05:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Matthew 3:16 would be a verse. ;) A passage would be more like Matthew 11:1-4 or else the name commonly associated with a story. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I'm not a Christian, so thanks for clearing that up. But I think what I meant to say is clear. And yes, maybe not every verse deserves an article, but lots do. CanadianCaesar 22:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant book, not chapter. But either way, there's still thousands of chapters in the complete and unabridged Bible. If you create pages for each one, then it jsut gets rediculous. Anyway, this article is major POV, and has almost nothing to do with the majority of Lev 18, and focuses on specific verses. --Veratien 18:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, as far as I know, has suggested granting "special dispensation" to the Bible; that is a slanderous strawman argument attributing religious motivations to people who have voted in a way opposed to your view. And BTW, Leviticus is part of the Torah. Uppland 06:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Am I just missing the VFD's for comparable articles discussing the other books? Or did they occur before my time? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:12, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Keep. It's an important chapter. (Actually, I'm not sure that it's really all that important of a chapter, but it's important to current discussion.) May need POV work, but that means cleanup, not deletion. -Aranel ("Sarah") 13:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep David Sneek 08:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Veratien. JamesBurns 05:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, within Christian theology and other scholarly sources I am sure there has been important studies of this chapter. This reminds me of the K5 article on Wikipedia's "anti-elitism" I mention that because I can't find the wiki-policy about it. We shouldn't dumb articles down or make them over-general. There should be respect for expertise, even if it wouldn't make a paper encyclopedia. If we can make proper articles about every Bible chapter then why not? gren グレン 10:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments by Veratien. Eclipsed 13:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gufler
[edit]

I did a quick google search, and this seems to be a disambiguation page between 3 non-notable persons? Thue | talk 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anton Gufler was a German settler in Kansas in 1857, according to Eudora,_Kansas#History. Nn even at that time. Punkmorten 19:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three redlinks about non-notables. They individually get
Anton Gufler: 17 Googles.

Albert H. Gufler: 4 Googles.

Bernard Gufler: 18 Googles.-Splash 20:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Reinyday

Speedy delete seems to be an experiment that will not go anywhere --Mddake 02:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP. But move to Million Dollar Bridge (Maine). -Splash 19:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Bridge (Portland,Maine-South Portland, Maine)
[edit]

No indiaction of notability. sub-stub about a no-longer-existing bridge. Given creator's recent history, no reason to expect expansion. Delete DES ^(talk) 19:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Punkmorten 19:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and mention in Casco Bay (Maine). Gazpacho 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DES. Just another in a long list of Maoririder's useless stubs. -Soltak 21:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (and move to a better title). I have slightly expanded it after a quick google search. --SPUI (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article, while expanded, is still completely without notability. It's a bridge in Maine. Yea! -Soltak 21:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I view almost any point on a local map as notable enough for inclusion. We discard these articles yet maintain an affinity for web waste such as online published comics, medium sized websites, etc. keep lots of issues | leave me a message 23:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to ~~Million Dollar Bridge~~ Million Dollar Bridge (Maine). Verifiable bridge, should be kept. Source for existence --Baron Larf 00:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep (and move to Million Dollar Bridge). This is a useful article. I can think of plenty of articles on Wikipedia far lower than this on the "usefulness" scale. Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 00:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Million Dollar Bridge already exists (in Alaska); how about Million Dollar Bridge (Maine)? --SPUI (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That works. --K1vsr (talk) 15:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and move to Million Dollar Bridge (Maine). —Cleared as filed. 00:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. See above. Redwolf24 02:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. arj 22:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dsmdgold 14:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IntWay World Corporation
[edit]

Advertisement for a MLM scheme taken right from their website (http://www.mlmbusiness.intway.com/products.aspx) Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Messy, useless spam. --Several Times 19:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not that it matters but I didn't see the multilevel marketing part. Still ugly spam. (Cyrillic characters in page names appear in my browser tabs). It also states "official opening end of summer 2005". Brand new = NN. -WCFrancis 21:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Cuenca
[edit]

Delete . Icelight 19:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn resumecruft. --Etacar11 02:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Il Brud
[edit]

This article is fancruft. Because of this I nominate and support this article for deletion. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(vfd procedure completed Thue | talk 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, too trivial, no google hits. Thue | talk 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at a deliberate pace--fancruft is not a speedy criterion. Meelar (talk) 19:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Only Google hit is this page. :p — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax; this is a "dialect" of a language which is basically a substitution cypher. 70.249.219.99 22:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gantel
[edit]

This very badly written article does not explain anything about its subject. I think it is about a Russian pornography producer. Both the links are to a Russian porn site (which requires registration). There are 746 hits on Google for 'Gantel' but it's impossible to tell which refers to the subject here. David | Talk 20:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe even speedily. No context. Pburka 03:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, incoherent. tregoweth 19:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Of Maple
[edit]

A web forum that supports a roleplaying site, I think. While the main site, mapleglobal may have some impact, this one doesn't seem to have enough impact to support a separate article. Joyous (talk) 20:14, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment and anon IP changed Joy's vote, which I reverted. --Icelight 16:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Guildcruft. The game, Maple Story was fun, but this is just one random guild, with no extra-game notability. --Icelight 23:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Mmm, We are the biggest guild of Maplestory, and we have been recognzied by the GM's. Omgwtfhax. ~Trunks.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep the expanded rewrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deering Oaks
[edit]

A sub-stub about a park. ~~No indication of notability. No reson to think this will get expanded to a decent article, particualrly given the creator's history. Delete.~~ DES ^(talk)

Delete in accordance with WP:NOT Sec. 1.7.3, No Travel Guides. The Literate Engineer 20:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic --malathion ^talk 20:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to set it apart from thousands of US parks. Gazpacho 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and probably put mention in Portland, Maine article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable -Soltak 21:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If it was expanded or had something notable, maybe weak keep. But as it stands purge it. Megapixie 04:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Site of French & Indian War battle; verifiable and notable. Has been expanded--Baron Larf 01:07, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Changed my vote following changes by Baron. Now it's notable. Megapixie 02:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain This is still a bit marginal, IMO, but I would never have placed it on VfD in the rewritten form. VfD strikes again as {{Quick-expand}} :) This still might be better if merged into the Portland, Maine article.DES ^(talk) 15:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep 24 at 15:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep borderline notability. Grue 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Vote changed following additions; being a battle site does confer enhanced notability. (Soltak; originally unsigned)

Keep Notable enough if not merge into Portland, Maine. --Maoririder 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC) (message left on talk page[23] --Baron Larf 21:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note that the battle was part of King William's War, not the French and Indian War. Dsmdgold 14:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biff hooper
[edit]

Delete--Unencyclopedic and childish, also uncapitalized.--Zxcvbnm 20:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hardy Boys. NatusRoma 05:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn cruft. JamesBurns 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ilfirin
[edit]

Hoax? Move to wikitionary? -- BMIComp (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restarting this vote from today, August 3, because the template wasn't linked in correctly, preventing many people from voting. Checking those who have voted, most of them seem to be relatively new to Wikipedia and I think we need more votes especially from more experienced editors. No vote from me. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikitionary. Grpunkim 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that it carries any meaning outside of Tolkien's works. All non-Tolkien usages are related to fantasy-gaming or fanfic. Perhaps add it to Wiktionary as a protologism, but I'm not even inclined to do that. I find no precedence for including the words of a fictional constructed language (as opposed to an auxiliary language) in the Wiktionary--Bayyoc 20:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link from the Vfd page to this page appears to be bad. Dcarrano 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Tolkien minutiae is non-notable, "rare form of homo sapien" [sic] is hoax or unverifiable. Dcarrano 18:56, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a fairly through reader of Tolkien, I do not recall this term, and don't think it was used in his works, pending a citation. Even if it was, it was certainly not a promenient term in his mythology, and does not have the notability of, for example "Valar". The other meaning looks like a hoax, or at best some sort of neologism. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lambgoat
[edit]

Seems like a small site, insignificant outside it's small group of users. But feel free to correct me. 57.66.51.165 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This site is actually very important and should be left alone. (Unsigned comment by 216.197.136.14 (talk · contribs))

Delete. Vanity page. What's more interesting is this thread on that website's forums. They banded together to disrupt Wikipedia by vandalizing pages several times, especially the Atreyu article, as you can see from its edit history. And they're still at it. Nufy8 23:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay. It relates to internet pop culture. Five million page views per month can't be an accident. (Unsigned comment by 12.208.76.100 (talk · contribs))

Delete nn website/forumcruft. --Etacar11 02:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article should most definitly stay. As someone alreagy mentioned lambgoat is an important site and highly relates to internet pop culture. Many people have heard of lambgoat yet have no clue what its all about and this article helps with that. It should stay just to inform the public what lambgoat in all its absurdity, is really about. ~A dude (Unsigned comment by 12.207.37.67 (talk · contribs))

Delete Forumcruft. KevinGovaerts 14:12:20, 2005-08-05 (UTC)

TLNR

Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Botsie 08:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn, WP is Not, and possibly protect deleted as it is likely to be recreated by anonymous fans. Usrnme h8er 11:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABC D✉ 02:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inkoddi
[edit]

Non-notable web animator. DS 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAYAKA
[edit]

Promotional article, apparently about a would-be singer. The albums and singles referenced are unavailable from English-language sources and appear to be vanity published. There were also two articles for each individual single (why not have a seperate article for the "special edition" version?) that I have redirected here; these should be deleted as well. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kappa 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn promo. JamesBurns 04:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. R adiant _>|< 13:51, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless notability is established. Punkmorten 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ever since, garden (single), Mizu Iro, Jougen no Tsuki, Doll (album) and Dolls (DVD) should also be deleted. Punkmorten 16:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why is notability not established? Kappa 16:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you why.

Sayaka has no AllMusic entry.

The sources are too difficult to access. For instance, a google search is virtually impossible due to the large number of irrelevant results.

On a related note, White Parasol (one of the external links in the article) is not a website. In addition, the article refers to an alledged "J-pop star" who is a redlink. Doesn't make the article look serious. Punkmorten 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #454,736 in Music. That means there's 454,735 artists more deservant of an article. Compare with number of Wikipedia articles (about 600000)

OK? Punkmorten 21:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am very troubled by this response. Are you saying that Japanese pop stars should be judged by their sales and coverage in the USA? Kappa 21:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Punkmorten's point is that there is little evidence to suggest that Sayaka is a "star" of Japanese pop. Since there are no English-langauge sources that we can check, the article is not verifiable. Also, she does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence on hand is that she's the daughter of Seiko Matsuda, she has various internationally-available record releases, and her first single was composed by a member of a notable band. This single apparently reached the top 100 (#5) and satisfies WP:MUSIC. Kappa 22:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being a daughter of a notable musician is not in itself notable. Having your single composed by a notable musician is not in itself notable. As for the single's chart position, it's unverifiable. Verify it, and then we can talk about established notability. Punkmorten 11:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was with Sony Entertainment. Fg2 11:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The J-pop star is Matsuda Seiko, who is extremely well known in Japan, especially among the over-thirty crowd. Perhaps the single best known individual singer of a certain generation.Fg2 12:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone please create an article about her? Punkmorten 14:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please see Matsuda Seiko. Fg2 08:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, unless someone who can read Japanese comes along and says she is not notable. The bits and pieces I can understand suggest very strongly that she is a notable singer. Perhaps someone should leave a note on the JA talk page? -- Visviva 09:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable in Japan. --Tim Pope 17:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by BrokenSegue. Closing. Essjay · Talk 10:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Burning Inside
[edit]

empty or vanity page Snurks 21:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as a speedy delete. No content, just the word "yo" CanadianCaesar 21:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Note that there are actually only two votes here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er Rauko Esse Locke
[edit]

Non-notable webcomic, 8 matches on Google.

Delete per above - Chairboy 21:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -Soltak 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 10:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dress for less
[edit]

This is just another online retailer, if we list this one we might as well change the name from "Wikipedia" to Wiki-shopping. I have searched Google and Yahoo for traces of noteworthyness, and asked the author for sources, no luck either way" Outlander 22:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, reads like an advertising ("top brands at discount prices"). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep this article, merge inheritance (object-oriented programming) into it. I will add the merge tags, and let somebody else finish the job. I'm cleaning out debates right now, and don't have the time or will to do the merge myself. Sorry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance (computer science)
[edit]

I've put this on VfD, because this article doesn't really add anything on top of inheritance (object-oriented programming), inheritance (genetic algorithm) and inheritance (disambiguation). --R.Koot 22:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --R.Koot 22:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move inheritance (object-oriented programming) into this article. --R.Koot 08:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge inheritance (object-oriented programming) into this article changing the disambiguation page accordingly. Article is linked to an awful lot from other articles and (computer science) is a logical disamb tag in comparison to (object-oriented programming) which even a experienced wikipedian is bound to misspell sometimes. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:04, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I found this page (It was the only entry there) through Google using "define: is-a". If I was to do a Google search for "is-a Java" (45,600,000 results and none on the first page were relevant) I would have never found out what this term meant (I needed to find out for my Java Programming class).
(Unsigned voted by User:202.14.216.129, his/her 7th contribution.) This would be be solved Mgm's solution, a redirect to the current [[Inheritance (object-oriented programming). --R.Koot 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 August 2005 : I found this page when searching for "is a" which is a very important term in object-oriented programming and actually means "inheritance"
(Unsigned voted by User:132.199.171.145, his/her first contribution.) This would be be solved Mgm's solution, a redirect to the current [[Inheritance (object-oriented programming). --R.Koot 08:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usefull. Delete or move After carefully read the article for the second time I agreee with the R.Koot. Existing article is poor and should be deleted or reditect to the [Inheritance (object-oriented programming) --Oldadamml 13:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Noting interesting added, redirect to inheritance (object-oriented programming). Bergsten 19:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it contains information on several somewhat unrelated topics. Maybe move the existing inheritance (object-oriented programming), here, as (computer science) seems a lot more common than (object-oriented programming). (Note I am a new Wikipedian) --mkehrt 19:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was MERGE to HVAC -Splash 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Air handler
[edit]

dicdef. DS 22:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic topic, likely link/search term. Kappa 23:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ventilation or HVAC, possibly merging in this definition somewhere. --FreelanceWizard 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge into HVAC since that is more focused on the area this covers. Vegaswikian 06:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frontpage turd
[edit]

Non-notable: Google returns zero hits for this phrase. Loganberry (Talk) 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, this is a commonly used term in fora; if you can think of a better name for the article, please feel free to rename it, but I object to a perfectly legitimate article being deleted because it doesn't return on google define. Neither, you may note, does Tomie, and that article hasn't been requested for deletion. Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative encyclopedia of everything, and even if Google hasn't heard of a frontpage turd, that doesn't mean actual people haven't.
Goodgerster 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that's a Keep vote, or at least not a Delete? It'd be useful if you provided some evidence that it was "a commonly used term in fora", though, since I didn't only use Google Define, either: there are no hits returned either on the main Google search [24] or (relevant to your argument) on Google Groups [25]. Putting a space in it (ie "Front page turd") produces precisely one hit. [26] I can't see how it's anything but non-notable. Loganberry (Talk) 22:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a Keep vote. I haven't time nor patience to trawl through dozens of forums and development websites looking for this phrase.. It should be enough proof of the concept's existence that I can define 'frontpage turd' in this much detail. Google is not the whole Internet. Goodgerster 22:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some evidence for the common existence of a phrase which is almost completely unknown to Google, seeing as no sources are cited in the article itself. You're quite right to say that Google is not the whole Internet, but as a very important search engine neither is its silence irrelevant, and Google hits are often used here as a rule of thumb for notablity or otherwise. If the consensus here is Keep then the article will stay and of course I'll accept that entirely. The fact I've nominated the article certainly doesn't mean I think you're making the whole thing up, since I don't: simply that I'm unconvinced it's notable enough for Wikipedia. (That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.) Anyway, if you wish the last word you can have it: I'm going to shut up now and let others decide. Loganberry (Talk) 23:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodgerster an authoritative and plausible writing style is no substitute for verifiability. If we can't verify it and you do not have "time nor patience" to help us, you should not be surprised if we delete the article. I do have the time and patience to do some quick due-diligence reality checking. You ought to have the time and patience to cite sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. No evidence provided of significant real use. It is the responsibility of the contributor to provide this evidence if it isn't patently obvious. One other data point: a Google search for "frontpage" limited to webpagesthatsuck, Vince Flander's excellent website on the topic, produces only two hits on frontpage. Flanders is hardly sympathetic to FrontPage, calls it "AffrontPage," and says "Microsoft doesn't use FrontPage to create pages on Microsoft.com -- even the pages discussing FrontPage. If Microsoft doesn't use it, why should you?" The title of his website shows that he is not averse to using coarse language. But there is no reference to such a thing as a "Frontpage turd." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never heard it used, no evidence that anyone uses it. seglea 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to lack a documented history. Andre (talk) 23:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a neologism and POV rant. --Icelight 23:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 00:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unstable neologism. - Thatdog 05:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If someone can provide a reference - i.e. a print article or notable blog reference, then that could switch to a weak keep.

Keep If this term is not notable, it should be! although I've never heard the term, it describes a genunine phenomenon and is precisely explained. In other words, web sites built with FrontPage tend to share the undesirable characterists the author describes. From a web design perspective, it's a useful point of reference, a kind of class of bad web sites. Ankles 09:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting new phrases, neologisms, or concepts, no matter how worthy they may be. That's the meaning of the prohibition of original research. We should not have an article on Vince Flanders' phrase "AfFront Page," either. We have articles on things that are already established concepts, not things that ought to be established concepts. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sterotypical neologism. I use Frontpage, and I don't think you'll find any spelling or grammatical mistakes here.--MilesProwler 01:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 21:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Neusner bibliography
[edit]

This page survived VFD in April (see this) but I fail to see what is encyclopedic about all the publications (including journal articles) of one academic expert in Judaism. No other person, not even Albert Einstein, has received this treatment on Wikipedia, and I really suggest the whole 135 KB monstrosity is deleted, or maximally transwikified somewhere. (The page had a new VFD notice put on it on 9 July by Klonimus; this formalises the re-listing.) JFW | T@lk 22:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable scholar and much too much information to merge. CanadianCaesar 23:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - O come on, there is more info here than his own faculty website [27] bothers to reproduce. Neusner is a very notable Jewish scholar, but a list of every article in every minor journal? Not encyclopedic! Abridge into a 'notable works include' in his article. (Even if this artice survives it needs abridged) --Doc (?) 23:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)--[reply]
Comment I think it can be turned encyclopedic. Yes, you could condense it, and then you can add short descriptions next to each work, or some of the works, an alternative to having articles for each and every book. CanadianCaesar 23:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to the main article. A brief scan of articles on some major academics shows that the tendecy is very strongly to collect the most influential works, and list them as a section on the main page, with perhaps a breif description. I looked at Freud, Boas, Maxwell and Feynman. Even Feynman, with close to three dozen items (and that may be too many) looks just fine, especially as they are well organized. I see no reason why the same couldn't be done here. (Unless, of course, no one can be found who knows which works are major, and which aren't. But that shouldn't be too much of a problem, and ignorance is no excuse for clutter.) After all, if the purpose of an encylcopaedia is to provide information, it does no good to have a giant list of all of someone's publications if the reader can't tell which ones are really that important, and if they're desperate to find some minor work, WP:NOT either a collection of links (or titles) nor an indescriminate collection of information. Whew. --Icelight 00:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Is that merge everything or merge just influential works? JFW | T@lk 21:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Influential works only. I thought I made that clear, but this is just to make sure there aren't any doubts. --Icelight 00:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep unless someone can point me to the wikipedia policy that says this is a bad thing. Obviously it's ridiculous to have complete bibliographies for prolific authors (in any field) in their main article, but I don't see how having a link at the top of a 'select' bibliography on the author page to a complete list is a bad thing. Sure, the wiki software isn't very suited to this task, and it might be dupe of information on their own site etc, but I don't see how such pages can do anything other than improve the content of the encyclopedia, even if on their own they are obviously not articles you'd find in britannica. --zippedmartin 17:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you can distinguish which Neusner papers have rocked the Judaic studies world, kindly merge them into his own article and delete this. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see 'complete bibliographies' listed under WP:NOT#INDESC, personally I've seen lots of worthwhile 'non encyclopedic' pages as side shoots to a main article. And hey, check Wikipedia:List_of_lists for indescriminate collections of information. If it weren't for the hatred of subpages, I'd say the obvious thing would just to stick this under Jacob Neusner/bibliography so people couldn't accuse it of failing to be an encyclopedia article in its own right. --zippedmartin 23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bibliography is not an encyclopedia article - of course a page about his works and their significance could be, if someone wants to write it --Doc (?) 23:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, a List of Pokémon by name is not an encyclopedia article, nor is Cowboy Bebop media information nor are most of the articles on albums, small villages in the US, or half the other things wikip has. As I see it this page is in the article namespace because there isn't a better place to put it, but it's wrong to try and delete it by article criteria. Anyway, what I was looking for, Isaac Asimov complete bibliography. The guy was far too prolific to list even a reasonable subsection of his work in the main article, rather than just trimming, there's a 'complete bibliography' page to give the whole history. It's not a very good page at the moment, but means you can keep the main article down to a reasonable size without just ommitting things. If someone makes a policy on bibliographies of authors (like, I dunno, transwiki to wikisource or something), that'd be the right action to take, but as stands it's better to keep the information for reference, even if Neusner is just some random academic. --zippedmartin 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the most important works back to the main article, as per User:Icelight. JamesBurns 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More encyclopedic than 99% of all the pokemoncruft tolerated around here. Uppland 05:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very good idea for all major scholars. Philip Arthur 05:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABC D✉ 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hunt
[edit]

Vanity page, and not a very good one at that.

unsigned by 69.244.208.106 (talk · contribs) – ABC D✉ 23:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Paper Publishing
[edit]

Vanity article about a vanity press. It's a publishing company, founded in 2005, that has only ever published works by the two founders. --Carnildo 23:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, it should have gone to speedy deletion. Just get rid of it. -- Ritchy 3 August 2005

Delete vanity press, nn. Don't forget the vfd for Goodloe Byron (novelist). --Etacar11 02:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malice Mort
[edit]

Entirely non-notable. This "thing" is the extent of what I can find on this topic. Otherwise, I can't find any evidence of a manga called "Ninja vs. Samurai" on Google, though I do find a lot of forum posts about it. It's possible I've just never heard of it, but my fiancee, an avid manga reader, hasn't heard of it either... so here it is, nominated for deletion. I thank the Wikify project for pointing me in the direction of this page.

Unsigned nomination by User:FreelanceWizard CanadianCaesar 23:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~non notable~~ CanadianCaesar 23:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... on second thought I don't want to rely so much on Google. I'll just say, notability not established. CanadianCaesar 00:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur. --Howcheng 19:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - DavidWBrooks 14:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whoever created it should have created (and sourced) a article on the manga first. JesseW 03:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this isn't an encyclopedia entry by any stretch of the imagination. Onesong 20:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by Karada. Closing. Essjay · Talk 11:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

spank bank
[edit]

no content - dicdef at best and probably just a joke seglea 23:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary, and merge/redirect with masturbation. Kappa 23:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable dicdef. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I see it's been speedy deleted as "nonsense", which is a shame because it was the correct definition of a real concept which belongs in wiktionary at the least. Kappa 01:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sarantis
[edit]

Delete The link here would seem to indicate that he was a master's student, and is "currently pursuing a law degree at the University of Toronto." The work cited on the page appears to be his master's thesis. Perhaps once he has made more of a name for himself, he can come back. Icelight 23:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. If I don't deserve an article (which I don't), neither does this fellow. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 02:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 09:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Terry Berry Cherry Bomb
[edit]

non-notable seglea 23:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 00:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -Soltak 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. —Tokek 01:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable drink. Punkmorten 16:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Li windy
[edit]

Vanity page with no useful information. 64.236.243.16 23:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable whatsoever. Punkmorten 11:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 3

See also

True World Simulator, WorldPower, and SuperPower Classic, all created by User:Itake

Votes

King Middle School now moved to King Middle School, Portland, Maine

Initial explanation

Tally (3/13)

Admin section

Comments

Joshua Hunt