Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 14

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

refresh

2005-08-14[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laércio Beckhauser[edit]

Delete this article is in Portuguese and I'm the first to admit that my Portuguese is rusty at best and wrong at worst. However, I'm completely sure that this article derives from a textbook entry of some variety and deals with the genealogy of Johan Karl Beckhäuser. At best it's not notable and at worst it's a copyvio. Soltak 00:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is in horrible, broken English (please note the translation request box now says, "if you ploughs the person who just added this template"... tee hee). Still not very clear, but clear enough that you can tell it's not at all encyclopedic. He gets 12,000 hits in non-English languages, so he might be important. I say, delete and let someone write something new if they feel inspired. JDoorjam 00:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete , as above. --Apyule 11:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with above. In addition: google produces only 21 "non-similar" hits on that name (all in Portuguese), and Amazon has noh its on the name. This seems to support the notion that whomever this name belongs to lacks notability.Tobycat (talk) 23:53, 14 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 concensus. I was responsible for handling that VFD back then, and considering the cirumstances I rather give the benefit of the doubt. If you wish to re-delete the article due to reasons other than undeletion/Karl-VFD reasons, please feel free to resumbit a new VFD. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neat tiling[edit]

This article was previously VfD'd.

  • The result of that VFD was delete all

So why does the article still exist?

  • It was undeleted

What were the arguments for its undeletion

So shouldn't it be speedy re-deleted?

  • Yes, but certain admins keep removing the tag

Why was it VFD'd in the first place?

  • Artificial original research classification (a "neologism")
  • The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation"
  • It was created by a user known as "Karl Scherer" who has several user accounts, and had been inserting his original research into Wikipedia, as well as about 60 spam pages advertising games he had created
  • Google search for the term returns only 118 results
  • Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" (to discount obvious mirrors) returns only 35 results
  • Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" and "scherer" (to

discount obvious mirrors and karl scherer's use of it) returns only 20 results

  • Of those 20 results, most use the term as in "that tiling is really neat", i.e. "impressive", and not in the way the article suggests at all
  • The one that doesn't is a spam-list of words deriving from wikipedia mirrors.
  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  1. Delete log entry: 21:35, July 3, 2005 Mailer diablo deleted "Neat tiling" (content was: '{{User:-Ril-/Karl-Scherer-Spam}} A neat tiling is a type of tiling. A tiling {T} of a shape S is called neat if * each tile T is a poly...')
  2. Delete log entry: 19:59, August 7, 2005 Curps restored "Neat tiling"
  3. You may want to refer to User_talk:Curps#Neat_tiling and User_talk:-Ril-#Lock_puzzle.2C_etc.
  4. It seems clear that there is some sort of user conflict going on here, so I'm holding my vote until things are sorted out. -- FP <talk><edits> 01:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
then pages of type 1 above are obvious VfDs, pages of type 3 are not (generic term), while pages of type 2 are debatable: is "unsolved mystery novel" a generic term and subcategory of "mystery novel", or is it a neologism coined by the user? The point is, that's precisely the sort of thing a VfD is supposed to sort out: people research it and Google it and present their conclusions in a VfD vote. The current article in question Neat tiling seems to be of type 2 above: is it a neologism invented by Karl Scherer, or is it a generic term in general use among the puzzle-solving community? Such a VfD debate can now take place at last, on this page.

However, you presented your original Vfd in a careless way, or perhaps even a deceptive way if you had done it deliberately: you listed only pages of type 1 above in the VfD itself and buried the pages of type 2 and type 3 within a very long listing (200 articles!) on a completely separate page (never mentioning them on the VfD page itself) that most voters probably never looked at. It was just flat out wrong to lump pages of entirely different categories into one humungous VfD whose presentation incorrectly implied that all the pages to be deleted were of type 1 above (obvious deletion candidates).

This was a procedural error in the original VfD —it is questionable whether a page was duly deleted if it was never even mentioned on any VfD page. -- Curps 02:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually, that WAS discussed at the VFD, thus the word "all" as opposed to "only the games". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You would have claimed a mandate to delete Burr puzzle too... you only failed to do so because you accidentally didn't notice it the first time around. The subsequent separate VfD for that page (a "keep") clearly indicated that you overreached your mandate. -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. When I click on your '"neat tiling" minus Wikipedia' link above, I get 61 results, not 35. Nevertheless, it is possible that you may have a point that this could be largely a neologism proposed by Karl Scherer. Perhaps other more neutral eyes could judge this. When I did a Google search I didn't do the "minus Wikipedia" refinement. I believe you are wrong in the other cases, however (the ones that are the subject of the other VfD). -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still get 35, I'm unsure why you would get 61 for clicking on the same link? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google Is Not Science (tm), nor should it be the centre of VfD. 35/61 - either way, less than 100 is 'not much internet presence'/'usually has different name'. This is a very minor factor as to whether an article is worth keeping, unless we're talking an entirely web based topic (a particular message board etc). --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that this is a valid mathematical concept, and I'm sure that this is not the true mathematical term for it. Merge/redir to tesselation. Radiant_>|< 08:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Why are we even discussing this? It was an article that went through VfD, and which was recreated without going through VfU. It should be speedied immediately. --Nandesuka 12:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were procedural flaws in the VfD: this article was never mentioned by name in the VfD, so it is questionable whether it was ever properly VfD'd. -- Curps 15:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curps, I read the VfD, and I think you're mistaken -- Neat tiling clearly appears on the list attached to the VfD, which was discussed at the time. Even if you are correct, though, the right thing to do would have been to list Neat Tiling on VfU and discuss the procedural flaws there. Instead, now we're caught in a twisty little maze of procedural violations, all different. Nandesuka 15:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, everyone was pointed to the category in the 3rd of the 3 opening paragraphs, the issue of whether all the items in the category counted as well as those in listed in the list that was "includes but isnt limited to" was discussed at length in the VFD itself, and the result was delete ALL. And it didn't go through WP:VFU so re-creating it is an abuse of process, and it should be speedy re-deleted. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nandesuka, appearing "on the list attached to the VfD" (actually, an entirely separate page) is not the same as actually appearing at the top of the VfD page itself. Many voters undoubtedly never even looked at that page, and took their cue from the writeup at the top of the VfD page itself, which, intentionally or not, only listed egregious spam pages and failed to explicitly mention pages like neat tiling or lock puzzle, etc. This was procedurally flawed: the process was biased in a way to delete pages that in many cases would have survived their own individual VfD (as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Burr puzzle and the ongoing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlocking puzzle show). So as I've said I don't believe the original VfD validly applied to this page. But fair enough, to avoid procedural snafus I'll use VfU for such cases in the future. -- Curps 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the nominator believes that The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation" then why the VfD - just move the page and change the nomenclature in the article. --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article contains totally original research - it is called "continuous tesselation" because it is "continuous" and a "tesselation", in the same way that a "red cow" is called that because it is "red" and a "cow", but that doesn't warrent the article [[red cow]] existing. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't assert something has been made up on the spot, and has a 'correct mathematical term', that's patent nonsense. To continue your daft analogy, if you were to see one of these and go round telling people the 'correct biological term' is red cow, they'd all think you'd been having too much 'energy' drink. There might be correct names for things that don't exist, but there certainly aren't correct names for things that haven't been thought of. But seeing as people have been tessellating for thousands of years, I doubt very much whether this definition was first used by a C20 puzzler. Ask for deletion on grounds of notability by all means, but strike 'original research' and your speculation over the naming because you're misrepresenting the case. --zippedmartin 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's the artificial classification that is made up. In the same way that classifying cows by colour was made up on the spot. Ununhexium is just latin for 116, it's not a name, its a placeholding definition, and the correct biological term for this is more likely to be bos rufus [although it isn't that either]. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then you agree that the sentence you meant to write at the top of the article was "Term is a neologism, the concept might be considered a form of continuous tesselation"? --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am disappointed that this article was restored without going through VfU. I would like to offer that it is essential at this juncture to seperate how one feels about the breaches in procedure from the merits of the article in question. I need to do some research before voting so for now I abstain. Tobycat (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:40
Would you supply your reasoning please. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've gone through most of the non-WP Google links in a bit of detail, and found no evidence that neat and nowhere-neat have been used in this sense by anyone but Mr Scherer. Hv 09:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But is it an invented term for an existing concept, is the question... --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is "Yes". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that this isn't original research, and want to change your delete vote to merge-with-tessilation or similar? --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, and imediately list on VfU, if needed to take care of whether or not it should have been deleted, at which point it could be brought here instantly as well. Failing that, Delete as a non-notable term for a phenomena. --Icelight 00:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am disturbed that non-mathematicians are styling themselves as capable judges of mathematical articles. I'd much prefer to see "the usual crowd" debating the article; I don't recognize any of the people above as having ever contributed to a math or physics article; as far as I know, none have any "bona fides". Please, if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, don't vote. And, by the way, using google for math research is a really really bad idea, since 99.999% of all math is not indexed in google. linas 23:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I am sufficiently familiar with mathematics to make a knowledgable judgement. I choose not to contribute to mathematics articles because I have no interest, not because I have no competance. I could, for example, demonstrate proficiency in Conformal mappings, holomorphisms, klien bottles, christoffel tensors, laplace transformations, bernoulli numbers, contour integration, riemann surface, etc. but I don't find it interesting, so I don't bother. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to edge-to-edge tiling or merge into tessellation. Grünbaum and Shephard, Tilings and Patterns, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1987, which I consider the most authorative references on the mathematical theory of tilings, defines edge-to-edge tilings on page 18. This addresses Ril's concern that neat tiling is a neologism. I don't care that much about the other concern, that it was undeleted improperly: our goal is to write an encyclopeadia. I could not find neat tiling nor continuous tessellation in either MathSciNet or the book, so I'm curious where Ril got this term from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sometimes different groups use different jargon for the same thing. What most of the world calls GMT or UTC, the US military calls "Zulu time". It's possible that puzzle hobbyists use a different term than mathematicians, which could be solved by using redirects. "Edge-to-edge tiling" gets about 60 Google hits (none with "Scherer" or "Wikipedia" in them. -- Curps 15:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- The concept may deserve insertion into tessellation, but I doubt very much that the name is used by anyone other than the original poster. (And I am a mathematician.) -- Arthur Rubin 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons. Firstly, it was deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD. I'm as unhappy about the mass listing on VfD as other people are, but since it's clear that there's no clear consensus, we should follow policy and take it to VfU first. (In fact, it would be nice if some admin (Curps?) could go through Ril's list from the mass deletion—I'd like to acknowledge -Ril- for making the list available, since it's been helpful in the ensuing discussion—and look for other articles which aren't the Zillions spam they were accused of being, to list on VfU.)
Secondly, the article is no more than a definition and consensus seems to be that the most standard terminology is not neat tilings but edge-to-edge tilings for which we have a standard reference (Grünbaum and Shephard). (By consensus I mean both Jitse Niesen, above, and Joseph Myers in Talk:Tiling#Terminology.) It doesn't seem that we'd lose a great deal by deleting the article. When we have an article on edge-to-edge tilings, then we can put in a redirect—because I'm sure I have seen the term neat tilings in a recreational mathematics book, and besides, redirects are cheap. —Blotwell 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rename/merge option, as per Jitse Niesen, and request that he includes his citation (with cleanup ideally! :) in the article in preparation for the event. --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Radiant, and discuss on Talk:Tesselation. This is a waste of VfD's time. Septentrionalis 20:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jitse. And while it doesn't have anything to do with my vote, the original "VfD" was clearly flawed. Paul August ☎ 02:13, August 19, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy, it had Already been deleted as non-notable biography: [1].

Pronsias Radcliffe[edit]


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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

On a Sensual Note[edit]

Delete: this is a band vanity page that doesn't approach any of the guidelines for notability. JDoorjam 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; no AMG entry, 374 google results, and their album is nowhere to be found on Amazon.com. Jaxl | talk 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its a neverending flow of nn band vanity. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 01:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No brainer. --ZappaZ 02:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is informative to those of us from AU. Sorry if you Wikipedia snobs think that it is unworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.171.221 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 August 2005
  • Merge into American University. Strictly speaking, this is not "band vanity" as the group is actually an AU student organization with revolving membership (i.e. new members are recruited to join as old ones graduate). However, this distinction aside, it is not independently notable enough to merit a separate article. -- BD2412 talk 03:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per BD2412. It seems the same as mentioning UCLA or any other school has a marching band. Hamster Sandwich 07:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per BD2412. To be consistent, all the groups in this list, Collegiate_a_cappella_ensembles, should be Vfd'ed as well.--SparqMan 04:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much more notable than the group I sang in. Isomorphic 06:05, 15 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. -- BD2412 talk 04:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Manlike Woman the Indian prophetess of the Upper Columbia River[edit]

Nominating for deletion because it's non-notable. While doing a Google litmus test, I actually happened upon the blog of the article's author, where she said she wrote the article in order to increase the notability of the Manlike Woman, who she says "barely qualifies as a footnote in history." -D. Wu 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Does this qualify as some form of vanity? Good work, Uppland. Now this is how to convince the community to keep seemingly pointless articles. A lesson to all you inclusionists. / Peter Isotalo 02:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -- BD2412 talk 03:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kaúxuma Núpika, the name mentioned in the author's blog, got 14 google hits, and the title a whopping 38. It is interesting though, the amount of info gathered on someone's whose only claim is being a transexual, and being mentioned by afew tribes people to be considered a prophetess. Maybe a sentence mentioned somewhere in a related topic about that time and area would be fitting. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Change vote to keep due to evidence of notability. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 20:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and interesting. Wikipedia is not paper. Pburka 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Its both of those things, but still not notable. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 05:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly, but move to Kaúxuma Núpika. Transexual Native American prophet(ess) influential in the native population of British Columbia in the early 19th century. How many of those do we have? Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion? Google hits are a help, not a definite measurement of significance, and it is expected that fewer written sources exist for native American topics. She is apparently mentioned in this book on Amazon, the Biographical Dictionary of American Indian History to 1900. A JSTOR search results in a couple of articles mentioning her, one of which, "'The Natives Were Strong to Live': Reinterpreting Early-Nineteenth-Century Prophetic Movements in the Columbia Plateau", by Elizabeth Vibert, in Ethnohistory 1995, does so quite extensively, citing the same sources our article here does. Uppland 05:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: It seems using Western terms such as transexual is less appropriate, as this was not an entirely unusual type of gender role in Native American cultures, and there is a Wikipedia article on the topic: Two-Spirit; it has been refered to as "berdache" by some academics, although that is apparently considered offensive. Two-Spirit lists among its references another journal paper, which turns out to be entirely devoted to this woman: Claude E. Schaeffer, "The Kutenai Female Berdache: Courier, Guide, Prophetess, and Warrior", in Ethnohistory 1965, pp 193-236. Schaeffer writes among other things that she is "mentioned in the writings of Gabriel Franchère, Alexander Ross, Washington Irving, David Thompson, John Work, Sir John Franklin, the explorer, and W. H. Gray, the missionary. All of these men, except Irving and Franklin, knew her personally. Several modern students of Northwest history, who noted references to the Kutenai berdache in the literary accounts, have assempled data on certain events of her unusual career." He goes on to cite a number of 20th century authors who have written about her. Uppland 07:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It would be important to identify just how Kutenai construct sexuality and what westerners would call transsexuality/transgenderism. Every Native group does so differently. "Berdache" (being a western term, anyway) and "two-spirit" (a term used by one particular group whose name escapes me and since generalized) probably don't cut it particularly well and the tribe's own designation would be preferable. - Montréalais 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I am not really familiar with the subject areas, neither with gender studies nor with Native American cultures; it would obviously be preferably if somebody who had at least half a clue would look at the articles I mentioned above (and possibly others I haven't found in my quick raid on JSTOR) and do something with this article. BTW, we have a three-and-a-half line article on Kootenai (tribe) and a two-line article on the Kootenai language - not exactly one of Wikipedia's stronger points... --Uppland 16:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and rename as per Uppland. Well done to him for his research. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and rename. A. J. Luxton 11:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Uppland. --Apyule 11:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per Uppland. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Uppland --Mysidia (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice research job. Needs major cleanup and a title move, but keep. Bearcat 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Being unusual is not the same as being notable. This is an obscure historical figure of no importance to history. I might even agree that she "deserves to be more than a footnote in history" but she's not, and an enclopedia is not the place to start changing that. "Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion?" Probably so, because only three of the men and women executed as witches in Massachusetts at the same time have their own articles, and everyone knows about them. Moreover, the whole point of the article is that she was not influential. She was disliked, mistrusted, sent packing, and not mourned when she died; if you want to right those wrongs, write a book. --Tysto 23:28, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
    • Screw it. keep her. I just looked at my list of Dumbest Articles on Wikipedia, and this doesn't even scratch the surface of those dozens of idiotic cartoon robot Gundam articles. --Tysto 23:39, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:41
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xarit[edit]

Non-english dicdef -- FP <talk><edits> 01:38, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Wiktionary Kappa 01:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there. -- FP <talk><edits> 02:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
LOL that was quick. Kappa 02:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
:) -- FP <talk><edits> 02:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wiktionary. - Sikon 05:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that it's there, redirects to wiktionary aren't usual. --Icelight 01:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe redirect to friend. - SimonP 01:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect to friend. Wgere would we stop - ami, freund, amigo .... ? --Cje 08:19, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Female and Male Assertiveness[edit]

  • Unencyclopedic essay. Slac speak up! 01:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any useful text to Woman and Men --ZappaZ 02:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. I will say keep if it is cleaned up and de-POV'd by the author, unless evidence of this being mentioned elsewhere is presented (in which cas delete), or somewhere feesible is founded to merge it (in which case merge). →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if it cannot be de-POV'd. It also smells very suspiciously like a quotation from another article or from a longer piece of the author's original research. JDoorjam 03:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic essay. --Apyule 11:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research in the guise of quoting supporting random other works to support the editorialists' point. Nandesuka 12:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR. -Splash 16:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just needs some cleanup. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:42
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. -- BD2412 talk 04:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ronald Edsforth[edit]

This was tagged by someone else for speedy deletion but saying that he is a Dartmouth professor could be taken as an assertion of importance of significance, so I'm listing it here instead. No vote. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. I'd ask the author but it's an anonymous IP with no other postings, so I doubt this one will get much counter-argument.... JDoorjam 03:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a bit of research and have added some more info. Pburka 03:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll say weak keep after rewrite; it looks much better now. Google hits were limited, though. Jaxl | talk 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four books under his belt make him more notable than the average professor. -- BD2412 talk 03:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, only four books for an academic who does any quantity of research is pretty average output. This alone shouldn't be judgement of notability, there will be thousands of similar. --zippedmartin 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More notable than the average professional baseball player, and professional baseball players are all kept, regardless of notability. Uppland 05:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes the "average professional baseball player" test. Kappa 08:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepseems to meet the criteria for notability. Hamster Sandwich 08:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Notable historian. Capitalistroadster 10:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable author. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 20:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless someone proves that people have actually read his books. --zippedmartin 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they are published there's a pretty large propability that people have read them. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 04:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
By no means. In fact, if the only sales are as a set text on a course he teaches at his uni, you can pretty much guarentee no one has gone cover to cover. Having said that, the amazon page for his most recent one is pretty flash, even if the sales rank is measly compared to fiction - dunno what a 'good seller' would be in the context of US academia. --zippedmartin 12:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In US academia, 5,000 books sold is considered a success. 20,000 sold is considered a blockbuster, according to my professors. That's for sociology, of course, things may be different for history or other fields. Hooper_X
Interesting. Now, if only there was somewhere with the numbers... --zippedmartin 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:43
  • Comment I refer voters here to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/A. F. Gotch, another academic who has published four books, the most recent of which has a near identical Amazon sales rank as Edsforth's most recent. --zippedmartin 13:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A high Amazon sales rank is important for the notability of a work aimed at popularity, but a low sales rank is completely irrelevant for the significance of academic publications. And as I pointed out in the other discussion, Gotch was clearly not an academic in the sense Edsforth is, and his books appear to have no scientific value; three of them, with almost identical titles, were popular books on the Latin names of animals, and one of these was deemed "virtually useless" by a reviewer in an academic journal. Uppland 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently no assertion of critical importance of Edsforth's work in his article, if there were I agree that sales would be far less relevant. I suggest that without some assesment of an academic's work, there's no reason they should be given an easier ride on the sales front than a writer of popular fiction - university press is only one step from vanity press. You did a good job on digging up a review of Gotch's book, presumably some journal somewhere that will say Class Conflict and Cultural Consensus: The Making of a Mass Consumer Society in Flint, Michigan is notable despite miserable sales compared to Roger & Me or other popularist work. --zippedmartin 18:25, 16 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. The votes are: 3 to keep, 3 to delete (including the nominator). -- BD2412 talk 04:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Guido (jazz band)[edit]

NN band vanity. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 01:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 03:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not vanity. Also see http://www.squaresound.com/reviews/trancedave/tobal1remixes.html. Kappa 08:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I really don't see any assertions of notability per WP:MUSIC. The closest they come is that they have three albums released by the (defunct) marketing arm of a (defunct) game developer. Ken talk|contribs 13:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page. Dottore So 15:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable in Japan where game sound tracks are more popular than in the west. btw. Square are not defunct, they merged with enix to form square enix! --TimPope 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:44
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle milk[edit]

Product promotion (aka spam) Denni☯ 02:55, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

  • Delete. Certainly verifiable, but not encyclopedic, or NPOV. Pburka 03:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love that "Benefits of using muscle milk:" is followed by a conspicuous blank space. JDoorjam 03:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Jaxl | talk 03:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now that's one self-confident spammer, who leaves out the purchasing info. Gazpacho 04:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:30:57, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete although I probably just need more anabolic sleep time. Hamster Sandwich 07:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hamster, it's not the sleep time, it's the lack of acid-buffering agents. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --*drew 13:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Nelgallan 17:49, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Alldis[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy, but there is a clear claim of notability (one of the fastest race walkers in Australia) and it is easily verifiable ([2] for instance). No vote from me at this time. Pburka 02:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Really hasn't done enough yet to deserve a page. Harro5 03:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promising junior athlete but hasn't achieved enough to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 05:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needs to win a major event at the international level. I'd change my vote. Hamster Sandwich 07:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are a lot of wikipedia articles for sports competitors who have never won an international event --Scott Davis Talk 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable. -Splash 16:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:45
  • Delete, junior athlete.--nixie 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I've expanded the article a little using Google. Being an athletics fan would have helped. She seems marginally notable already, and likely to become more notable. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 16 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 Michigan State University. -Splash 06:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accafellas[edit]

Delete: {{NNBV}}. Music group that does not meet the requirements for notability. JDoorjam 03:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Michigan State University. Strictly speaking, this is not "band vanity" as the group is actually an MSU student organization with revolving membership (i.e. new members are recruited to join as old ones graduate). However, this distinction aside, it is not independently notable enough to merit a separate article. -- BD2412 talk 03:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge As above. While they may not be a "major" musical group, they are worth noting on the University's page. See Dartmouth_College#A_cappella_singing_groups. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 03:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above arguments. Hamster Sandwich 07:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poccia[edit]

Rather blatant hoax by two anons with similar IP addresses whose only other edits are racially offensive vandalism. Yelyos 03:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't log in yet, mostly due to the fact that I'm not obsessed with/center my life around Wikipedia. This is a very offensive word used at my university, and I want people to know it around the world. DrkLrdBill 03:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The word Poccia is a mid-western term that is used to describe a very lethargic individual. I am offended that Yelyos thinks it is a hoax. Reinman316 03:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

These are this user's first and second edits respectivly. See contributions. Sasquatch讲看 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poccia is a fairly common surname. I can't find any evidence that it's used as a slur. Pburka 03:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After a quick googling, nothing comes up, WP:V applies here. Sasquatch讲看 03:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. I don't know what idiot would talk about a Poccia on his website. There would be no reason that Poccia would be found on google. Also, do you live in the mid-west? are you a college student? How do you know that when I see someone not doing their work i DONT say, hey, quit being a Poccia and stop playing video games. Reinman316 03:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, you need to prove it somehow... again, see WP:V. As far as we can tell, its just a common name based on Google hits. And as it's not in any dictionary, we can't verify this information... Therein lies the problem with this article. Sasquatch讲看 03:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. These are his first two edits, because we realized how urgent the need was to spread the word of Poccia. How would you like it if your son was at a party and got called a Poccia and thought it was a compliment? THEN who would be the laughingstock? DrkLrdBill 03:42, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. DrkLrdBill's comment demonstrates that the term is not yet notable. Wikipedia is not the place to spread the word - we only cover the word once it's been spread. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 03:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there a full moon? Where is all this BJAODN coming from? JDoorjam 03:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless advocates can provide clear evidence that this word is used as describe. ManoaChild 05:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. silly. Hamster Sandwich 08:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. Sandstein 11:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --*drew 14:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 16:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps we need a VVVBJADN section? --fuddlemark 17:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoax. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism and an attack page. - Mike Rosoft 18:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied as an attack page. What a waste of keystrokes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 14 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:27, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Human rights abuses by Hong Kong police[edit]

'Delete Merge with Hong Kong Police after removing POV material':Is not NPOV-Simply a vendetta against the Hong Kong Police and a promotion of the user's Political agenda. --Gpyoung talk 03:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Delete: The information it contains is so well-documented, and many of the case had even gone through legal process. If you disagree with those external information source, and simply think these NGOs (or I) have a political agenda, show your evidence.--RageAgainstWhiteWash 03:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to say that there are two (or more) sides to this and every story, and this article only addresses one of them. Yes, I will agree that there is evidence of abuse by the HK police, but I am sure that it is contested. I dont think you will disagree that it is a blatantly one sided article which is clearly opposed to the HK police. If you have evidence concerning this topic, try and present it in a neutral fashion. I suggest that you create a section on the Hong Kong police article entitled "Alleged human rights abuses by the Hong Kong police" and quote Amnesty International and the other organizations that criticize the HK police there. Please see WP:NPOV for more information on writing in the neutral point of view.
Comment I tried to see this article, but RageAgainstWhiteWash, had vandalized the page. Do you guys think an Rfc is needed? Alot of work has gone into this, and it should be saved in a Merge into Hong Kong Police Force, but the POV is unacceptable, and I think Rage's behavior is as well. However, he's a newbie, so i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he eschews future confrontational behavior. Karmafist 15:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. I have tried to talk to this user about merging the article, but they do not seem to see how a POV artcle is unacceptable, I do think they even see this as POV (keeps saying sbuse is "well documented"). I think since the user put in so much work, we should try to add a section to Hong Kong Police entitled "Alleged Human Rights Abuses" with the content (re-written of course) from this article. I have changed my vote to merge. --Gpyoung talk 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Voters may or may not wish to know that the author of this article repeatedly removed such large sections from Hong Kong Police Force that the article had to be protected. This article is, effectively, a fork of that behaviour. -Splash 03:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is currently POV and has some spelling/grammar issues, but I think it would be worthwile to keep it if it can be NPOV'd and cleaned up. GregAsche 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with GregAsche, except I think that it should be merged into Hong Kong Police Force. ‡ Jarlaxle 03:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary POV fork of Hong Kong Police Force. -- BD2412 talk 03:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at Human rights in Hong Kong or whatever is the formal English name of the Hong Kong police. Gazpacho 04:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork, Wikipedia is not human rights watch.--nixie 04:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly POV. BTW, the abuses by HK police is no different from other police force. If anyone wants to write, write an article on the misuse of power by police forces. However, this may turn out to be an original paper. -wshun 05:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriate sections to Hong Kong Police Force as per ‡ Jarlaxle. Hamster Sandwich 08:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as per Jarlaxle. Sandstein 11:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Point of view fork. Editors who observe the neutrality policy shouldn't be asked to battle to correct this sort of thing. Osomec 11:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too large a subject to be merged with Hong kong police. Sarcelles 13:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does need some cleaning up and de-POVing, but besides that its a perfectly legit article as long as everything in their is true, and if there are things you have evidence of being false, delete them from the article, don't delete the whole article. If it is not large enough after being de-POV'd, then Merge, but right now it is too large to merge. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 21:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That it's true does not make it worthy for inclusion in wikipedia. By presenting only one side of the story as per commentors above, this article is definitely POV. (Even though the information may be truthful.) -Hmib 04:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So we must present the story of the officers involved in the violations; we have articles for human rights violations in Iraq, Sudan, Guinea, and a bunch of other places. This is on a much smaller scale, but that should just mean it is easier to present both sides. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 05:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, not even close to neutral POV. Cursive 23:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article itself is legitimate, and merging into other articles will make the resultant overlength. POV work can be done later on. Deryck C. 12:48, 20 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

doors (novel)[edit]

Not notable, I couldn't find a novel matching this description. Also, it reads more like a school essay than an encyclopedia entry. Graham 03:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 03:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. First-person non-NPOV book report. JDoorjam 03:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. Hamster Sandwich 08:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An update! Using what links here, I found the novel that this article is referring to is by Evan Hunter, writing as Ezra Hannon. The author is undeniably notable, but I don't think the book is. While I don't know how reliable the google test is in this case, a search for "dorrs+Ezra Hannon" only gets | 673 google hits, and I could not find much with that search that would assist me in expanding the article. However, I've removed a few of the pov statements, and added author information. The article looks much better now, but I still say delete as the book is not notable enough. Then again, I haven't read it. Graham 12:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Parker[edit]

Just another software developer/blogger. Name gets a lot of hits, but many are other people, including a Rutger Hauer film character. His blog site has an Alexa ranking of 3,738,292. I'd suggest userfying, but it was created by an anon. Possibly a speedy candidate for lack of assertion of notability. Niteowlneils 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that it's an orphan is a bad sign. Niteowlneils 03:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:39:46, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Yohannan[edit]

Vanity, non-notable. Rmhermen 04:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 05:43:11, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skunkabilly[edit]

I am a devoted fan of punk, ska, and rockabilly, and there are indeed many bands that mix these styles, but I have never heard any of them refer to themselves as "skunkabilly." The original page was clearly a joke, containing bizarre rules for how you can be included in this genre ("following Hammurabi's Code," for example), and I nominated it for speedy deletion. However, this suggestion was shot down based on the fact that the term has many Google hits. But googling for this shows no results for an actual genre of music - all the hits seem to be usernames on message boards. The closest I can find is a non-notable indie record label called "Skunkabilly Records," which signs ska, punk, and rockabilly bands, but never refers to the music as "skunkabilly." I removed the joke bits from the article, but that still doesn't make it an actual punk subgenre.

If webcest, a term people actually use, can be considered non-Wikipedia-worthy, I don't think a term *no one* uses should be allowed. Inanechild 19:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to link it to the deletion main page. Inanechild 04:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We seem to have another noelrock here. --Apyule 11:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Gets only 100ish useful Google hits and many of those are usernames and things. However, there is a company called Skunkabilly records, and I suspect this may be an ad for them. -Splash 16:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neo-genre-name silliness. -- BD2412 talk 16:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I too am a fan of ska, punk and the like and have never heard this term. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 03:53, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzforums[edit]

First-person account verging on advertising for non-notable forum with 51 unique Google hits and an alexa ranking of 366,932. Zoe 04:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Note It looks like it was just speedy deleted, which is odd, because the text of the article did not appear to be a speedy deletion candidate at all, although it clearly appeared to be advertising/self-promotion. --Mysidia (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. The orginal version had been speedied several times as unintelligible spam, but I've restored the article as it has been resubmitted in a slightly better form. I still think the VfD is a good idea, though. Delete as vanity spam. Fire Star 04:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I typed the article, feel free to change it if you like, I didn't mean for it to be an advertisement. 3: 25 14 August 2005 (UTC)--zhanster

  • Delete: When you can make a forum article not sound like advertising, tell me. I'd be pretty happy to create thousands of articles on forums that are of similar size. -x42bn6 10:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As vanity. --*drew 14:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have edited the article to remove promotional language. Voters may wish to examine an earlier version such as this one to decide whether I have removed anything that they would consider important. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, it's because the two forums in context are having a mini-war with each other. They've had that war for something like 3 years. Side A hates Side B and vice versa. -x42bn6 04:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons articulated by others. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it is spam. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even though I post and even am a moderator over there, BlizzForums just isn't notable enough to warrent its own article.--Kross 21:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fora-related deletion discussions. -- Visviva 07:32, 17 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 Midge Ure. Clearly not deleting, and clearly redirecting among the non-deleting votes. -Splash 06:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan Ure[edit]

Three Google hits, all of which are from Wikipedia content.

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate question: have you ever heard of this person or can you find anything about them in a citable reference that would make them notable? The burden of proof of notability is on the article. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard of this person. It is very difficult to "prove" notability. It's not as if there is a clear line for some things. --Apyule 02:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, it can be difficult to "prove" notability in a borderline case, but most people would be willing to agree that someone is notable if an article can cite references from trustworthy sources. "I've heard of her" doesn't jibe with WP:CITE and WP:V. Surely you can understand that one person saying "I've heard of her" doesn't make someone worthy of inclusion. I'm sure we've all heard of plenty of non-notable people. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion. I only said that I have heard of her in direct response to your question. It does not in itself make her important. --Apyule 09:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Hamster Sandwich. Midge Ure is notable, she is not. Nandesuka 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above --Lomedae 12:50, August 14, 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. Paul August ☎ 03:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Nitke[edit]

No-name photographer who filed a federal lawsuit and lost - big deal. Non-notable and a vanity page. --BrownHornet21 04:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems notable enough, doesn't read like vanity. --TheMidnighters 07:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. Sandstein 11:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being a published author implies notability. --DrTorstenHenning 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes below this line merged from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 12:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The entry is extensive and detailed, but still self-promotion of an utterly insignificant figure. Dottore So 16:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, really. Losing a court case doesn't increase one's notability. Hell, winning it rarely does either. -Splash 16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Perhaps in needs merging with something else. Hers was /is a significant case in an evolving area of law (at least in the US). -Zandr 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 8200 google hits, and 10 news.google hits indicate notability. Her notable lawsuit makes her notable.
  • RESPONSE. What's so notable about the suit? It's not the first lawsuit to challenge the CDA, not even among the first. The entry is merely an extensive vanity page. Google hits are irrelevant.--BrownHornet21 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The case received national press coverage. IMO, that estalishes notability. Pburka 20:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (crossed out after merge to avoid duplicate vote, original keep vote is above). Comment I'm not sure what happened with this listing but there seems to be two entries somehow, or something, you'll find other keep votes here:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barbara Nitke including my first. Wikipedia is not paper, and this photographer is much more notable than some other artists that are documented here (Michael Paul Oman-Reagan, Vincent Clervi and much much more). Being in such a particular field and having art exhibitions satisfies notability as an artist, regardless of the court case. --TheMidnighters 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the two listings is that this entry (listed on vfd) is misspelled as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Barabara Nitke, and the entry linked from the article is spelled correctly. --TheMidnighters 22:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged them. Could you please strike one or the other of your votes? Thanks. -Splash 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well-written article. The lawsuit raises important contemporary issues. I am inclined to vote keep, but will first try my informal test: I'm going to look her up in an online database, to which I have access courtesy of my local public library, that contains the full content of The New York Times. If she is mentioned, I will vote keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. New York Times, July 28, 2005, p. 3, "An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law." She has had pictures in shows that have gotten brief news-item notices in The New York Times: September 5, 2003 p. 30, ""BOYS OF SUMMER," ClampArt... Standing out among the crowd of pictures by more than two dozen photographers ... men in leather, by Barbara Nitke...".I don't know whether it's the same person or not, but there have also been pictures published in The New York Times that have been credited to someone named Barbara Nitke, e.g. "Photo: Moira, left, with her dogs, Roxy and Tooter, on the documentary series 'Showdog Moms & Dads.' (Photo by Barbara Nitke/Bravo)", March 30, 2005, p. 3. Finally, I don't accept the "professor test," but she is a professor, and being president of the Camera Club of New York together with the other things would seem to make her clearly more notable than the average professor. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Yes, that is the same Barbara Nitke. I believe she is the only pro photog using that name.--Outlander 21:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, two mentions in The Boston Globe. January 9, 2004, p. 3 is the Go! column which mentions "the Fetish Fair Fleamarket... starts tonight with a reading and slide show from author Barbara Nitke, who will be discussing and showing images from her book 'Kiss of Fire'" Another is a CD whose cover picture was "taken by the controversial Mapplethorpian S&M photographer Barbara Nitke." That seems to demonstrate some degree of notability. (Where is the Watch & Ward Society when you really need it?) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's well known in photography circles, and her loss in this lawsuit was big news in censorship circles because it was a severe undercut to Miller v. California 413 U.S. 12 (1973) and created a bizarre burden of proof standard for chilling speech. She is well-known in the SM and erotic photography circles. Jessamyn 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above posters. Hooper_X
  • Keep This photographer is well known and the lawsuit got a lot of press. 68.20.179.193
  • Keep Much work. Notable. --Vaergoth 08:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If only for the photography, which is well known and widely appreciated. The lawsuit is an interesting sidenote. --Outlander 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Not only highly notable both legally and artistically, but an extremely well written article IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:15, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

\x01a4[edit]

Looks like an esoteric C programming language reference to something in culture. I think it is too specialized and does not really merit an encyclopedia article, it's almost a bad joke... --Mysidia (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Same reasons as Mysidia. NickBush24 05:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Obscure joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, non-encyclopedic. - Sikon 05:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take a closer look at the criteria for speedy deletion. That I see, there is no specific criterion there that the article in question possibly meets. Being non-encyclopedic is not a speedy deletion criteria (and would be too vague a criterion to exist, since there is no unambiguous definition for encyclopedic). --Mysidia (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not related to the C programming language, but it is non-encyclopedic. Delete. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like whoever speedied the article forgot to close the VFD as well. - Sikon 15:24, 14 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 06:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons TV ads and identical List of The Simpsons television advertisements[edit]

Utter Springfieldcruft (and I say this as a huge Simpsons fan). tregoweth 05:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, why shouldn't users be able to look up what advertisements have used Simpsons characters? Kappa 08:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the hell would they be looking that up in a general-knowledge encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 14:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's the only one they have access to. Kappa 19:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then they must not have access to Wikipedia or Google. I didn't even bother checking Google since there's probably an obscene number of Simpsons sites there, and here in the main The Simpsons article, there's 43 external links, including a new wiki, which this article should be transwikied to. Karmafist 01:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why? Because this is an encyclopedia, not a Simpsons fan directory. / Peter Isotalo 10:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per tregoweth, with the same sentiments. Sandstein 11:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simpson-cruft. --Calton | Talk 14:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if we'd want to put everything in WP this is out. feydey 15:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly legitimate list. The user who made this list was originally making individual articles on each ad, so I prompted them to do a list instead, which I find informative. -- BD2412 talk 15:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we allow Harry Potter and Pokemon to clutter WP, we (sadly) will have to allow the Simpsons as well. --DrTorstenHenning 16:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't want to keep this, why are you voting for a keep? It's hardly logical to make the cruftiness of others persuade you to vote differently. The quite extreme inclusionist sentiment that seems to be prevelent at VfD is anything but official policy and shouldn't force everyone else to vote for things they don't actually want to keep. From my experience inclusionists here tend to either rules lawyer policy statements beyond recognition or ignore them altogether. The argumentation seems very flexible as long as the end result is a vote to keep. / Peter Isotalo 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We really should have much more in Category:Television commercials seeing what a major part of modern culture they are. - SimonP 16:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We already have this information in much greater detail at List of The Simpsons episodes#The spots. It doesn't really belong there, though. Flowerparty talk 17:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow - and that article is over 80K, as well - good reason to break out a section!!! -- BD2412 talk 17:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I moved that section over to this article and dropped a link to it on the episode list article. -- BD2412 talk 17:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • So as long as someone makes really big articles, it should be kept, no matter how useless or relativly obscure it can be? The Simpsons are very notable, but Simpsons TV ads are not. And I'm saying this as a quite devoted (though early season-orthodox) Simpson fan myself. / Peter Isotalo 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think anyone is saying that "as long as someone makes really big articles, it should be kept, no matter how useless or relativly obscure..." I could write quite a lengthy missive on the lint that collects between my toes when I wear argyle socks, and even put in tables and pictures and so forth - but my toe lint is not regularly broadcast on TV, nor is it familiar to millions of people. Some TV commercial campaigns are notable, and those featuring the cast of The Simpsons tend to fall into that category. -- BD2412 talk 15:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
            • I'll concede that they might be individually notable (a lot of things are notable), but they are not encyclopedic by any reasonable or useful definition of the term. It's still fancruft and the only ones that will come looking for it here are Simpsons-nuts; a very good reason to transwiki to a dedicated Simpsons-wiki. / Peter Isotalo 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I'm not a Simpsons nut, and I find it useful to have here. In any event, it is surely better to have this list than to have individual articles on each ad (which another editor had begun to do), and it takes no more of Wikipedia's space to have this article than to have the same information included in the already overly large list of episodes (where it was previously). As my father would say, it can't hurt and it might help. -- BD2412 talk 18:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, same reasoning as BD2412 --Presnell 19:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Keep Simpson television appearances are notable, we have articles for each episode, and this is better than articles for each ad. CanadianCaesar 20:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Mmmm TV adsGateman1997 22:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice work BDA! Hamster Sandwich 01:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep owing to the notability of The Simpsons and as a reasonable breakout topic. 23skidoo 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:47
  • Keep. Interesting trivia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Move to List of The Simpsons television advertisements, as per naming criteria. Proto t c 10:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move as per User:Proto. This is an appropriate breakout from the main article. —Theo (Talk) 12:57, 15 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). --Ryan Delaney talk 02:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter RPGs[edit]

  • Do we really need an article on every kind of message board role-playing game or collaborative fan fiction project? Not notable outside of their own communities. Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfic, collaborative or otherwise. Heh...I just nominated the same thing in my fandom for VFD just now, too. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, individual pieces of fanfic may not be notable, but whole genres of it are. Kappa 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. This genre of fanfic is described nicely in Message board role-playing game, an encyclopedic article (that could probably do with a little improvement, but I'm a perfectionist). The Harry Potter article adds nothing not already mentioned in that article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We most certainly do not need more Harry Potter articles. / Peter Isotalo 10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comparatively well written but very pointless, as noted.Sandstein 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Gtrmp. Nandesuka 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Whilst I personally don't see the point as per Peter, the best point is made by Kappa. --Lomedae 12:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 14:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per User:A Man In Black. --Calton | Talk 14:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyc. We've enough cruft here already to re-cruft a whole de-crufted thing. -Splash 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cruft cruft cruft cruft. Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! Cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft. Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Cruft cruft cruft cruft! - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no verifiability outside of the websites themselves. No impact on the world outside of their own communities. Friday (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V. Friday hits it spot on.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:00:45, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • weak keep Fanfiction is good but that is the only reason to keep it - Aeon 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per cruft vikings. Hamster Sandwich 01:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:48
  • Keep, per Kappa. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crappy, really useless fan trivia. Delete. Proto t c 10:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well...it does state the obvious at the moment, but the topic is notable. Sam Vimes 12:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Perhaps it needs to be part of a larger article on the cultural phenomenon of Harry Potter thus joining several of these types of pages together. --Gearspring 00:06, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poké Battles[edit]

Freeform RPG/fanfic cruft. This could easily be replaced with a redirect to message board role-playing game or fanfiction with no loss of useful information whatsoever. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nominator. / Peter Isotalo 10:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. --Lomedae 12:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --*drew 14:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this over a year ago, but I agree that it probably doesn't really deserve its own page. So, redirect and add a reference to it in Fanfiction#Types of Fanfiction, I guess. Andre (talk) 14:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • If a reference is going to be made at fanfiction, surely it should redirect there? Save the history and all that, else just delete. --Celestianpower hab 19:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Rillian 02:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Gateman1997 19:26, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JnanaBase[edit]

Article on an unremarkable website that does not meet the 500 user threshold. Article written by founder of website. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ad, nn. Only 88 unique Google results. --TheMidnighters 07:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Googling for "jnanabase" returns 6630 hits. The article is not written by the founder of the site, it was written by a Wikipedia user. I just updated the article. Also, UninvitedCompany is bullying me and I have requested Mediation about this issue. See User:Www.wikinerds.org/Bullying. Www.wikinerds.org 08:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps userfy as the author/founder is here. Uninvited Company is not bullying, he just, commendably, got to the spammer first. Dmcdevit·t 09:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam and not notable, and watch all articles and images Www.wikinerds.org is trying to have spam linked by misinterpreting the licensing standards. NoSeptember 12:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or userfy if the author wishes JnanaBase is was already mentioned on Alternative outlets as a site that welcomes material deleted from Wikipedia, and that is was apparently was considered more than sufficient recognition. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Withdrawing "userfy" suggestion per Michael Snow's observation--i.e. it's already userfied.[reply]
  • Delete. --*drew 14:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. So nn, that it has no Alexa traffic data at all. -Splash 16:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a web guide. Radiant_>|< 18:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nn, already listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Zoe 21:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:59:26, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard of it without ever seeing the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:50
  • Delete for reasons already stated. Moving to user namespace would be superfluous; all the essential information is already at Www.wikinerds.org's user page. --Michael Snow 15:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert by the website owner. User is spamming into many articles to advertise the website. - Tεxτurε 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert by the website owner. WAS 4.250 22:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam --Neigel von Teighen 23:00, 17 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. -- BD2412 talk 04:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Candee Jay[edit]

Non notable Werdna648

Keep Lots of Google hits. I see videos and ringtones. Artist with genuine recording deal. Notable enough for inclusion. --Lomedae 13:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. unenc, nn, vanity, WP is not a message board. --DrTorstenHenning 16:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs a serious, serious cleanup, but the artist is notable. She has an entry (albeit a rather skimpy one) at AMG. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the stub a good POV-ectomy and and should be agreeable to most now. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep in recognition of the work of Fernando Rizo. --DrTorstenHenning 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:51

Apparently a UK thing. Changing my vote to keep in light of the changes -- seemed like a vanity before. --Werdna648 07:45, 15 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. Redwolf24 04:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-administrator's noticeboard[edit]

Created and solely used by -Ril- (talk · contribs), this is a place where non-admins should be able to discuss issues with and inappropriate behavior from admins. As such it is entirely redundant with WP:AN, WP:RFC and the village pump, and we really don't need another page such as this. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Erwin Walsh
  • Delete - unilateral creation by -Ril-, totaly redundant (and I'm not an admin, so I've no axe to grind here) --Doc (?) 12:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An attempt to apply a thin veneer of respectability to Ril's complaints. --Calton | Talk 14:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the purpose of this page is purely destructive. Why would you make a page to discuss your problems with people and then ask them not to edit? Christopher Parham (talk) 15:19, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Delete, vindcitiveness is best kept in one place. -Splash 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the board isn't for my complaints. If you read it you will see that I haven't used it for that purpose once. I note that of the 4 editors voting delete above, 4 are people who have engaged with me before, particularly concerning the noteworthyness of individual Bible verses. It would be nice if people voting weren't those with an axe to grind against me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, -Ril- this is just getting plain silly - stop trying to pick fights - and don't come with the self-righteous paranoia. I, for one, have better things to do with my time that persecute you. But this is a community - and unilateral actions, crusades, and attempts at management will always be unwelcome. When the whole world seems to be against you, then perhaps it is time to take the hint and consider your own position. Enough, just stop it, please. --Doc (?) 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This really has nothing to do with "the whole world seems to be against [me]", I had been thinking about this for ages. Admittedly the timing wasn't so well planned, but sometimes ideas just bug you so much that you need to put them onto paper. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT paper! :) Splash 01:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you read that clause it specifically points out that by not being paper, there is no need to worry about how much space is occupied, or partial redundancy, etc, so that supports my argument, rather than yours. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And if you had read my comment in conjuction with yours, you'd have realised it was a joke. A joke. Not wikilawyering and ruleswhining, but a joke. Not a funny one, evidently. -Splash 16:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant as stated above Soltak 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase Erwin Walsh: why? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are already quite a few places to complain about bad admin conduct (as you yourself know, having exercised that ability many times). This merely promotes pointless sectarianism and gameplay instead of co-operation and conciliation. Slac speak up! 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous arguments. Hamster Sandwich 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although it looks like this will be another case of tyranny of the majority. Wouldn't it be nice if things were decided in Wikipedia through consensus decision-making, per Wikipedia policy, which would insure that "meeting everyone’s needs" is the rule, rather than tyranny of the majority, where the minority is told to go take a hike?--172.197.4.144 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought this was votes for deletion. Excuse me if I have misunderstood this concept. Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is one of the serious cultural problems with VfD. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am increasingly sick of these efforts to use the deletion process to shut down alternatives. I doubt if this page can go anywhere, but it should be given time to show its potential (or lack thereof). The page certainly is not interfering with other Wikipedia processes, redundant though it may be. -- Visviva 06:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By being redundant, it is interfering with existing process. If there are two redundant processes, then any interested party must watch both, and new users may end up confused, and people may end up not noticing an event because they were looking at the wrong page. This is a bad thing. Also you should take into account the WP:RFAr against -Ril- and the suggestion that creating this page may have been a simple way to make a WP:POINT. Look at the issue, not the principle. Radiant_>|< 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • What existing process exactly? Oh, and that WP:RfAr comment is a completely irrelevant personal attack argument. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was already pointed out - RFC and AN. Also, that there is presently a RFAr against you is verifiable truth, so it's not a personal attack. Radiant_>|< 08:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • It is a personal attack because it has no relevance to the discussion. See Ad hominem. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose is to "discuss administrators"?! This may have something to do with Ril's recent RFC against Uninvited Company and his ongoing arbitration case involving me and some other admins. This sounds like Witkacy's Black Book to me, and I don't like it one bit. The funny thing is that non-admins, indeed Ril himself, frequently comment on the Administrators' noticeboard. I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to vote here because of the arbcom case, but it is obvious to me that Ril's disruption is getting worse, not better. Dmcdevit·t 08:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
No, this has nothing to do with the RFC against UninvitedCompany or you, the timing is purely co-incidental. The page was planned for the last month. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... right... oops...? Dmcdevit·t 20:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't necessarily have a problem with a non-administrator's noticeboard, but I do have a problem with one that's sole purpose is to second guess administrators' actions. If you notice a trend of misuse of administrator privledges, then file an RfC. This page could easily become a soapbox for anyone who disagrees with any administrator action, as well as an unnecessary source of dispute. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also feel I should disclose that I am a party to the RfAr for -Ril-, the author of this article. However, this has no influence on my vote. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with WP:AN. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having yet another discussion venue serves no purpose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no purpose. Based on Ril's history, this is simple trolling. Carbonite | Talk 01:04, 23 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. Per my vote tally (laid out in detail on the talk page) post rewrite total (which I gave greater weight) = 93 keep, 21 delete; grand total = 103 keep, 53 delete. Either way, a fairly solid keep. -- BD2412 talk 06:19, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Kane[edit]

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

BBC official statement [3]: Jamie Kane Wikipedia Entries: To clarify the confusion about Jamie Kane biographical entries appearing on Wikipedia: The first posting was simply a case of a fan of the game getting into the spirit of alternative reality a little too much. The follow up posting was made by a fan of the game who happens to work in the BBC (where we've been beta-testing for the last month). This was unauthorized and made without the knowledge of anyone in the Jamie Kane Team or BBC Marketing. To confirm: the BBC would never use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. We hope you enjoy the game:-) Team Jamie

As a side issue: how on earth would "the BBC" (more exactly, "Team Jamie") know who made the initial entry? Have they provided a source for their reassurance upon this point? Most reputable news organizations are expected to verify facts with two independent sources. Are we expected to take them at their word simply because they are the BBC? Unless we've divulged our IP logs to them - which we certainly should not have done - they are in no position to state anything whatsoever about the identity of the person who created the first article - except perhaps that no one on "Team Jamie" admits to it. - Nunh-huh 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem like a pedant here, but MattC did not originally create this article, only the Boy*d Upp one. - Aya 42 T C 01:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The original creator of these pages was Jon Hawk, who still hasn't explained his purpose in adding fake material to Wikipedia. --William Pietri 04:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the first revision of the article (supposedly created by Jon_Hawk) did contain a weak note (bottom of the page) about this being a fictional page. While the original article was bad in most (or all) aspects, I do not believe it was done as part of an advertising campaign - more likely a person who is familiar with the game and conceived the fictional character as notable created the article in much the same spirit as most "StarTrek", "Doom" or "Halo" articles which treat the material as a matter of fact and only weakly note their fictional nature. 62.90.49.87 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What note are you talking about? As far as I can tell, Jon_Hawk's material was all fake presented as real. Somebody else added a note at the bottom, but not until it was tagged as disputed.--William Pietri 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign. --Barberio 08:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Boy*d Upp - Aya 42 T C 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retracting my original support of Deletion, and switching to Keep (of this article alone, not Boy*d Upp) since it now describes the game, not the character. And since this was not an attempt at advertising. --Barberio 12:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from registered users[edit]

  • Delete It's a marketing ploy. Doesn't belong here. --Peripathetic
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [4] --Barberio 08:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - Barberio later changed his vote to keep, but didn't strike out this entry Bluap 10:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional character. Kappa 08:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional character, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any fictional character featured prominently in a major campaign by the BBC is notable. The article was created with the intent to promote something, but it has an "edit" button. Kappa 09:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Minus the advertising, the article is meaningless and does not provide any information of note. Since the article does not stand on its own, and is an attempt at advertising, it meets Deletion requirments. --Barberio 09:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as above. --Stereo 09:01:36, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • DELETE: Speedy deletion. If we let advertising campaigns poison Wikipedia, we might as well shut the place down. Krisjohn 09:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, emphasize it is advertising. Ad campaigns should be documented as such, especially if taking viral form, as an early disclosure to make misleading of the public with fictional "real" stuff a bit more difficult. --Shaddack 09:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. When suitably marked as "fictional : accuracy disputed", and re-written to explain the fictional use, this (a) shows how fast, intelligently and effectively Wikipedia can respond to such silly marketing tricks and remain on higher ground, by simply exposing the truth rather than getting caught up in silly games. Also, (b) it largely destroys (or at least, can be written to counter) the viral marketing goals, if that is indeed why it was created. In this sense, it can be used to explain to the exact demographic who are being taken in by the fictional game, why this conflicts with the goals of Wikipedia. Lastly (c), if other marketers see the above process, and realise playing tricks with wikipedia will run a high risk of damaging their brand, rather than creating a "cool, viral" edge, then they will be less likely to abuse it in the future. mintywalker 10:54, 14 August 2005 (BST)
    • I disagree. Keeping the article purely to point out that its fictional viral marketing and how evil it is would be a POV, and go against the principles of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge, not a source of comentary. The best thing is to simply remove viral marketing as it appears. It should be noted that keeping the marketing, but noting it as marketing, does not reduce the marketing impact. Infact, this whole debate simply gains more 'eyes' on the BBC which was the intent. So I feel it should be quickly directed to a deletion. --Barberio 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • a) seems weak to me. We'd have to explain that was the intention. Then it's an article about viral marketing, not this dork.
  • Delete. Keeping it is not a particularly intelligent response to a marketing ploy. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Is faintly notable, apparently, and NPOV-able. Sandstein 10:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Article has become notable, because its an atempt to use Wikipedia for viral marketing, but the contents are not notable information. The bar should be kept very high on what is notable for a fictional character to be recorded, Homer Simpson is a notable fictional character, Jamie Kane is not --Barberio 10:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the abstract, I concur with Barberio, although the bar need not be very high (Wikipedia is not paper). But maybe this page (or the associated "band" below) could serve as a declared example of viral marketing in Wikipedia itself. Also, if this gets actually popular in the real world, the page would have to be recreated. Sandstein 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any such information belongs in the viral marketing article, not in an article of its own. If in the future this character becomes so notable as that it should be created, then thats fine, however thats not the situation now. --Barberio 11:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Qwghlm 11:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a forum for viral marketing. GraemeL 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GraemeL hits it on the head.k Nandesuka 12:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Viral marketing. --Spliced 13:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Genuine good-faith fancraft has a place in Wikipedia because it does no harm if researched to encyclopedic standards. Tolerating the use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, even when the article contributor has no direct connection to the promoter, does real harm to Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Marketing has no place in wikipedia. Pahalial 13:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Boy*d Upp, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 14:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. -- WormRunner | Talk 15:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleete --Ben Houston 15:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a bald faced abuse of WIkipedia for advertising. Nothing about the article is notable except that it exists here, making the "keep" logic circular. Lastly, we invite more and more of this we we do not delete this. I'd hate to see Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia become Wikipedia: The Free Viral Marketing Test Site. Tobycat (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep given Uncle G's excellent rewrite. android79 12:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps it can be added back after the game is finished for historical reasons. (see end of page)70.49.185.60 16:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but the game may warrant a genuine article if it doesn't flop; it's an unusual thing for the BBC to have created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mholland (talk • contribs) 2005-08-14 16:18:14 UTC
  • Delete - If somebody were to turn this into a page about the game Jamie Kane rather than the fictional person Jamie Kane, I'd probably change my vote. Especially if the article explains that the BBC, as part of a marketing campaign, was involved in putting fradulent material in Wikipedia. --William Pietri 16:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ugh. fuzzie 16:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I like Barberio's suggestion. Malcolm Farmer 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Redirecting would not clarify anything for users. Someone who looks up Jamie Kane thinking he is a real person should find a straightforward explanation of his fictionality, not be required to infer from a mysterious redirect that maybe they've been duped.Craigbutz 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cleaned up the article to make it more clear that it's fictional for the interim, just to make things nice until it's fully zapped, but I agree that not to come down hard on this invites further abuse. In fact, I have no idea how to go about doing this, but I think we need to nominate advertising spam such as this to be a criteria for speedy deletion. — WCityMike (T | C) 17:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of Uncle G's fine edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely non-notable in and of itself. Ironically, the only arguable reason it may have become notable (in the last TWO DAYS OF ITS EXISTENCE) has been its linking with Wikipedia, riding on Wikipedia's coattails. Avoid self-reference. D. G. 17:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Possibly redirect to the article on the BBC's game that this character is from, if such an article exists... though my vindictive streak would love to get back at the Beeb by blackballing info on the game. Dayv 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If and when this actually becomes more notable than "The Famous Teddy Z", reconsider. Ordinarily I would lean the other way, following the principle that "even a notable hoax is notable," but in this case I think a message needs to be sent that Wikipedia is not to bee abused in this way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Corporations should be prohibitted from taking advtange of a publicly administered infospace. Adam Schwabe 18:58, August 14, 2005 (UTC) ;
  • Delete. Agree with comments just above: even if a hoax, it is surely becoming notable - however, a message does need to be sent, and if this article is resurrected in an honest manner, I don't think anyone will have a problem with it. As it stands, we can't allow Wiki to become a marketing tool. --Coolhappysteve
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; already mentioned in viral marketing; perhaps redirect to there. Would never, ever have heard of any of this if it weren't for the fuss over it being on Wikipedia. Agree with Curps and FOo. If BBC wants a Wiki on this figment so badly, they can make their own. Oboreruhito 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete --Alterego 21:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect the current article to Boy*d Upp. If the character becomes truly famous then he can have his own article, until then I see no need. Thryduulf 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Vote superceded - see new vote below re-write marker[reply]
    • Actually, that's the reverse of the way that I suggest handling this. The primary article shouldn't be the band. The band fails WP:MUSIC utterly. It is, after all, an entirely fictional band. The game is what is the real thing in the real world. And the game is called Jamie Kane. Boy*d Upp should, if anything, redirect here, as per WP:FICT. Uncle G 00:32:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Following the rewrite I agree and have changed my vote on both VfDs accordingly.
  • Keep and expand. Page has been linked to in outside sources; for many people, this page is their first glimpse of Wikipedia. And 'viral marketing'? Frankly, my Wiki, I don't give a damn. Almafeta 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Viral marketing is not acceptable use of Wikipedia. Buy your own site, like ILoveBees did.--SarekOfVulcan 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 21:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and advertising. - Motor (talk) 22:15:20, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a bare-faced abuse of Wikipedia which should not be tolerated. -- Arwel 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page probably reflected a clueless member (perhaps of the team that produced Jamie Kane) rather than an orchestrated attempt by the BBC to add false information to Wikipedia. A reason to keep: Potentially mutually beneficial to BBC and Wikipedia due to increased exposure AND having just signed up for an account (it does seem quite well done) - it is potentially a good article to talk about use (and misuse!) of new web technologies. A reason to delete: Not notable (outside of BBC/Wikipedia) yet: If/when 'he' becomes notable, someone (outside the BBC) will add the page back. --Mintchocicecream 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is an attribute created over time. This is clearly an attempt to create that notability by exploiting Wikipedia. Also, abuse of advertising policy. --johnd 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". This isn't even fancruft: there aren't any fans. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with strong prejudice. As per JohnD. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.--nixie 23:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've edited without mercy and done a complete rewrite from sources about the actual game, rather than about the eponymous character within the game, providing the "article on the BBC's game that this character is from" that Dayv (and Michael Snow, William Pietri, and Mholland) mentions above. The list of sources given in the references section indicates that this game has received some news media and other coverage over the past year. Whilst the original fake biography of a fictional character may qualify as viral marketing, the current straight summary of primary and secondary sources (some of them critical) dealing with a venture by the BBC into the world of interactive fiction does not. Furthermore, better this than a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game over the next few months repeatedly being deleted (which, based upon past experience, is what would likely happen if the article were deleted). Keep. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • Keep. Applause for Uncle G's rewrite mholland 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version. —Ashley Y 00:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-researched, balanced and impressive rewrite. --Mintchocicecream 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly weakly. This is currently nn as it has no fans and is a probably failing venture judging from the article. Although the BBC is a respectable organisation, pretty much any corporation could shuffle out a lowish quality VR game without it being notable. They might want it to "go viral" and might want it to get big, but so far it hasn't. -Splash 01:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that any company can create a game web site. However, the beauty of basing articles upon reliable third-party sources is that it does tend to filter out those games that don't get press coverage in national newspapers (where that coverage isn't a simple regurgitation of a press release) during their development and launch. Uncle G 03:02:22, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. the best way to deflate this attempt to promote a fictional character is to present the real facts, which Uncle G has done splendidly. i think this will be more effective at deterring similar stunts than deleting the article. Chieftramp 02:15 monday 15 vii (bst)
  • Delete: still not noteworthy, and we're still serving more as a means of advertising than as an encyclopedia. An ad campaign isn't in itself noteworthy. If the fact that the BBC—which ought to be concerned about its reputation for truthfulness, as a news organization—advertises by appearing to perpetrate a hoax might eventually become noteworthy, but not until and unless it bites them in the ass. - Nunh-huh 01:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jamie Kane is not an advertising campaign. It's an alternate reality game. And this article discusses the game's commissioning, creators, history of development, cost, writers, plot, and so forth. Please don't confuse other editors' comments in the preceding discussion with what is actually in the article and in the sources. Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Of course it's advertising. It's a way of getting people—primarily teenaged girls with disposable income, who are desirable to website and broadcast advertisers—to sign on to BBC-run bulletin boards (bbc.co.uk) etc. Your article even links to the page for people to sign up for the game and website! - Nunh-huh 02:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, under this kind of definition, many things could be considered advertising. I mean, one could potentially argue that the iPod page is as much of a promotion of the iPod. As Uncle G mentions, if the page is deleted, "a repeated succession of silly stubs about the fictional character written by players of the game" would occur. Surely, this article deserved to be kept. --Mintchocicecream 02:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our iPod article was not created from within Apple headquarters. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since the iPod article was created by a registered user, you have no way to make that determination, and if you care to check the page history for the article we're actually voting on, there is no way to know this one was created in BBC headquarters either. - Aya 42 T C 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • The same can't be said of the "Boy*d Upp" article, where this material originated, can it. Who knew the BBC had such rabid running dog defenders? This is a web-based game that is less than two weeks old, created to funnel web-traffic to the BBC web-site. It has no other significance. - Nunh-huh 04:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, there may be advertising effects by having this article, but so do many of the articles here. AFAIK Uncle G isn't from the BBC and even if so, the significant edits contributed by him and other users are balanced and suitable for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, apart from actually being in the UK, I have no affiliation with the BBC nor do many of the supporters on this page. Assuming you have read the discussion, it is clear this is a complete re-write and I can't see how this article originated from the Boy*d Upp article. Generally, the BBC has a massive amount of resources to wield at its disposal and would neither need to nor resort to relying on an open-content encyclopedia to funnel traffic to their website! In any case, Wikipedia is not a website frequented primarily by 14-18 year old girls and thus any advertising effects is minimal. --Mintchocicecream 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. It's a game, as I said. By your excessively broad definition of advertising, Wheel of Fortune is not a game but is instead a way of advertising and getting people to watch television channels. Uncle G 03:21:28, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • You thought maybe it was art? The BBC clearly felt that a game to entice young teenage girls to acquire a log-in to the BBC website was worth a good deal of money, as they paid for its development for exactly that purpose. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. It's a game, as I said. Twice. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
              • And saying it three times won't make it any less of an advertising device. - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This kind of Wikipedia abuse should not be tolerated by any means. --Andre (talk) 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • An article that straightforwardly summarizes 9 cited sources is "abuse"? Uncle G 02:12:52, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Keep - The original article was possibly bogus, but the new one helpfully written by Uncle G is well-sourced, and deserves to remain. - Aya 42 T C 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (weak) Keep- I've gotta say, the new edits have changed my votes. I am now under the impression that the original article was, at worst, a bad choice or presentation, rather than deliberate free advertising. I feel the article as it is now is both well written and possibly notable enough to keep. And I agree that not having the article may cause people to recreate it in the future. My only current concern is how new the game is. It may well be a big flop and gone in a few weeks. Mel "MelSkunk" Smith 02:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:53
  • Delete. Advertising nonsense. Andrew pmk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original was indeed advertising, but the rewritten article is a good one. I invite everyone who voted prior to seeing the new article to have a look at it now and consider if they want to change or keep their vote the way it is. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm changing my vote. The article is now about the game, and the game was notable enough to have been covered in the referenced Guardian article. Kudos to User:Uncle G for the rewrite. --William Pietri 04:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new article is notable, factual, and of encyclopedic note as to both the game and the issue of viral marketing. MCB 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although if having information on unreleased games is undesirable, perhaps rename it (Perhaps Prerelease:Jamie_Kane ?). I'm eagerly awaiting the game Oblivion, which isn't released yet, and was glad to find significant information about it here. Ron Johnson Ron Johnson
  • Keep, this shows the Wikipedia process at its finest. All hail UncleG!-- Visviva 06:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an important event in the development online interactive marketing. Several editors need to move beyond their petulant school yard hurt, and think in a more mature way. --ben dummett 06:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's the harm? --Rebroad 08:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. If it becomes significant at some point in the future WITHOUT basing that significance on exploitation of Wikipedia, then some article might be appropriate at THAT time. Shanen 09:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Things should get here after they are already known to people. this game thing is not even a trend at the moment, so this is pure advertisement (and even now that it gets deleted, the advertisement went thru, despite the fact the target are presumably teenager girls... how many among slashdot readers?) Jaromil
  • Keep. It's all good now. Meneth 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now. James F. (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the page has been edited to refer to the game rather than the characters therein, and since the issue has gained at least a moderate level of interest on the internet, I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping it. However, pages like the one for Boy*d Upp are still viral advertising completely without merit. Even with rewrites I don't see how that page could be made relevant, so I will be voting to delete it. --Parallel or Together? 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because of the sensationalist and unnecesary coverage on BoingBoing and SlashDupe, what could have been simply removed as vandalism has mutated into a story which is more about Wikipedia and the way it is used than anything else. I think it has to stay now. Reluctantly, keep. --Jolyonralph 10:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following excellent rewrite. Thryduulf
  • Keep, now after rewrite, it deserves it's own article. --Thv 10:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been edited and has substance now, why not let it live? --Wwwwolf 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rewrite is allowable. --Benna 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Current revision accurate. --P0ppe 10:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rewrite is good, and thanks to Uncle G for rewriting this and correcing Wikipedia quickly to remove advertising fake articles.--ShaunMacPherson 10:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Kizor 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is abuse -- Crucis 10:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a good and accurate article about a game promoted by a major broadcasting corporation. Www.wikinerds.org 10:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thanks to Uncle G's rewrite, the article is now informative in nature, rather advertising drivel --Hemsath 10:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. If this spoils anyone's enjoyment of the game, then good! It's a damn stupid idea for a game in the first place! David | Talk 10:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to excellent rewrite. Michael 10:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep new version for now, maybe re-visit this process if the BBC's ARG disappears without a trace. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewritten version. Nice work, Uncle G. --Jdcope 11:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article as now written appears to be accurate and is backed by links to non-BBC external media. It's even pretty NPOV. Thparkth 11:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest removing the external links so that this page is not part of the BBC's marketting effort. --Rcingham 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have things like Donald Love, afterall. -Lethe | Talk 11:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The articles surrounding this topic are good advertising for Wikipedia. It would be a shame if the people could not find out what this rumor was about. --Leopard 11:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What about entries for (esp. famous) fictional characters in books? or movies? I see this as no different. As rewritten by Uncle G, the article is very informative, and just the sort of thing I would hope to find on Wikipedia. It would be difficult to find all this information elsewhere. unsigned vote from 11:33, August 15, 2005 User:Richardbondi
  • Keep: looks good now. --WS 11:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reason to keep. Noted in Viral Marketing article... unsigned vote from 11:39, August 15, 2005 User:Parkylondon
  • Keep: thanks, Uncle G, for the excellent rewrite. FreplySpang (talk) 11:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy Delete. Marketting/Advertisement/Abuse. Completely undermines the credibility and purpose of Wikipedia. This game is barely a week old. At best, it is a news story, and belongs on a news site, not an encycolpedia. DeWayneLehman 11:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does replacing fictional rubbish with proper articles undermine the credibility of Wikipedia? Surely the opposite is the case? How does writing fully-referenced articles with cited sources undermine the purpose of Wikipedia? Is that not what we are supposed to be doing? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • The article does not belong here, regardless of how well you rewrite it. This topic's only impact outside of wikipedia is the press it has gotten for exploiting Wikipedia for Viral Marketting. Are you now going to edit articles for every game every created within days of its release? Is Wikipedia now a news magainze, or a game review site? You did a good job editting, but the topic does not belong here, no matter how well written. No amount of changes to the article will make the topic more relevant for Wikipedia. This belongs here no more than copying game reviews from CNN does. DeWayneLehman 14:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's been rewritten, why bother deleting it? --Jambalaya 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: but emphasize the vandalism and viral marketing attempt (in themselves as notable as the game) with links to each. If notable articles warranted deletion because they involved unethical behavior or people, we'd lose most historical articles. The entire point of having an electronic encyclopedia is null and void if it is artificially time-delayed. Unigolyn 12:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: don't need this on wikipedia. Elfguy 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is an example of how wiki allows us to rapidly change what was an attempt at free advertising to a factual article about the game. There is no need to dismiss this out of hand because of the original content of the article. --h3l1x 12:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten version. Looks good to me. --TexasDex 12:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: rewriting it for NPOV and spelling everything correctly doesn't change the fact that it isn't notable (yet) and shouldn't be here. Anyone who argues that it's notable because of this fuss has, to be brutally frank, completely lost it. - Motor (talk) 12:27:09, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    • You're missing the fact that it wasn't rewritten solely in order to render the neutral point of view and to correct spelling. It was rewritten using information from cited sources. Several of those sources are press coverage of the subject matter in national newspapers, which date from 2004, pre-dating "this fuss" by 9 months. Uncle G 15:51:53, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • From what I can tell, the References section is a collection of links to blogs and a couple of PR stories in the Guardian. Hardly notability... if the game takes off the article can be recreated. Until then, it should be binned. - Motor (talk) 17:08:19, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
        • If your argument is that the fact that newspapers cover something, and that people discuss it, does not indicate notability at all, then I disagree. If your argument is simply about what level of discussion is necessary, then I agree that this subject is at the low end of the spectrum. However, as I stated above, an additional factor to take into account is that were this article to be deleted, we'd quite probably (as has happened in other cases in the past) have a succession of silly "Jamie Kane is a pop star" articles continually re-created in its place by players of the game over the coming months. Better an encyclopaedia with a proper article about a subject at the low end of the notability spectrum than an encyclopaedia with a succession of silly articles. Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
          • I got a mention in two of my local newspapers last week. Wikipedia article here I come! If I trawl google I can find people have been discussing any old cruft and rubbish. The Guardian entries are PR stories... ten-a-penny. I simply don't understand your point about how there will be lots of "Jamie Kane" new pages -- you don't and can't know that. If that starts to happen then people are playing it and it's becoming more notable, in which case my position might change. Your speculation is hardly a good reason for keeping it... isn't Wikipedia supposed to catalogue notable things rather than predict them? - Motor (talk) 18:47:38, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete: If you allow this, then prepare for every company to spam their products on wikipedia. "Acme Widget 4.2-- this is a great product blah blah blah. You wouldn't find this in a normal encyclopedia. Perhaps after it was out for a while and became popular, but not as a PR gimmick. Scovetta 09:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's too long for such a non-notable program, but Wikipedia is not paper and can handle it. There is nothing wrong with factual articles about products per se. But it should be shortened, if possible. Paranoid 13:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Current edit perfectly acceptable. Chris 13:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (WP:NOT paper!) Thank you for rewriting. While it's quite annoying of someone to make hoax articles, especially for advertising, it's not really the spirit of Wikipedia to delete this revised article out of retaliation. I feel like a lot of the delete votes are designed for punishment. Brighterorange 13:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would have stayed marketing if no complaints, changed only under threat of deletion. Keep this, others will follow. Brewder
  • Keep. Current version is fine. ed g2s • talk 13:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: New version describes the game in a neutral fashion. Knobunc 13:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Yeah, it was a pile of crap earlier on, but it's certainly acceptable now. -- phrawzty 14:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no problem with articles about Star Trek and well known video game characters. If this game lasts for a long time, then maybe it will be worth an article. I would have no problem with an entry for this game within some larger article dealing with online video games, however if people think it is worth mentioning within Wikipedia. We should be working for quality of articles, not quantity, and creating a page for every thing people think up can get ridiculous. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Commercial advertising. rwilsonjr
  • Weak Delete: Spam, but others have edited the article to properly expose the scam. STrRedWolf 14:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the rewrite it's a decent factual article. Moreover, it now seems to be a *popular* article, so we might as well have some good text there! Mark Williamson 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whatever the aftermath, the intent was to promote a commercial product - a game. Wikipedia is not a marketing medium. Shoot 'em down! --getkashyap 14:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seem to be numerous delete votes whose only reasoning is that the article's original version may have been a marketing ploy. These people should note that the article has since been fixed, and this claim no longer holds any water. Just because you think this is somehow "bad for Wikipedia" doesn't mean you get to bypass Wikipedia policy and invoke nonsense deletion rationale. Of course, this comment will never stop the simple-minded contrarians out there, so feel free to vote delete by definition! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 14:59
  • Strong Keep gtiven outrageous accusations against the BBC, SqueakBox 15:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Current article is fine. --ElKevbo 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewrite is fine. Anomaly1 15:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well done to Uncle G on the rewrite. johnSLADE (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewrite is informative and not misleading. Lionheart 16:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the article stands right now, it's very clear that this is a fictional character. I see no problem with the article in its current state. --Doradus 15:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I note that people are still voting for deletion based on the notion that the BBC or its minions were behind this. Apparently that is not the case. Were this intentional, I'd be tempted to delete as a warning, but I don't see any reason to punish the BBC for something a couple of fans did. --William Pietri 15:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "pour décourager les autres". Otherwise we send the message "come put in all the fake entries you want and we'll polish them up for you." A lot of good work on the new version wasted, but it's gotta go.
    • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will mercilessly edit it, replacing it with a real encyclopaedia article." not a messsage that you want to send? Uncle G 18:23:57, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
      • Why is "If you put a fake entry in Wikipedia we will expand it, cross-link it, increase its Google-rank, and publicize your otherwise ephemeral unnoteworthy advertising device, hosting it and enshrining it for eternity" a message that you want to send? - Nunh-huh 22:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Rewritten version is appropriate, as it's about the game, not the "singer". It's now in the same spirit is the many other entries on fictional elements. We shouldn't degrade the quality of WP to "send a message". AnthonySorace 15:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia cannot abandon its responsibilities as an encyclopaedia even in order to punish those who act to harm it. — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: New article is good. DenisMoskowitz 15:57, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Keep: Looks like it's been fixed to me. -- Skyfaller 16:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep*; New version is very imformative
  • Keep Cleduc 16:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* -- Current version makes deletion needless, addresses issues behind original VfD. Also notable. -- Adrian 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, new revision practically is a new article. Turn the other cheek despite the intentions of the OP and the avoid self-ref rule. We fix misuse and move on. -Eisnel 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks fine now to me. Go Slashdot! Explodicle 16:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks great now! Nick Catalano (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Lucien 16:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Gamaliel 17:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there was never any reason to remove this, editing it slightly was enough. (This was never even viral marketing) --Sindri 17:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current page is NPOV and valuable --Lpm 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As currently written, it is a NPOV discussion of a notable internet issue --Hedgeman 17:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Original article was poorly written but not spam or an attempt at viral marketing. BBC gets no income from the game and current article is well-written and NPOV. RichW 18:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current version is good and the precedent that it sets is that bad articles will be corrected. -- billatq 1806, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of y'all are just mad because you got hoaxed. Hooper_X
  • Keep Article appears to be factual and corrent now. These sorts of things will happen, and they will get sorted out. mcdavis42 19:33 UTC 15-AUG-05
  • Keep. Kudos to Uncle_G for fixing the article up. I hadn't even realised that the game was eponymous to the character. Or is that the other way around? Whatever. Dayv 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm annoyed that someone originally added false information to Wikipedia, but I believe this is the best response...convert it to a well-sourced, factual, NPOV, encyclopedic article. Thanks, Uncle_G. -- MikeJ9919 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the original article was intended to deceive. It sounds to me more like it was a poorly written article that was taken in the wrong context. Never underestimate the likelyhood of human error :).RichW 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems to have been properly redone to fit the wiki standards. SF2K1 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like articles such as Haunted Apiary, ARG coverage is pretty important on Wikipedia. Jal.
  • Strong Keep. Now that the article has been restored to its proper state their is no reason for deletion. I often reffered to wikipidea for info during Haunted Apiary and OurColony Phoenix9
  • Delete. There's no need for Wikipedia to become someone's advertising recepticle. -- LGagnon 20:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has become something more then the original post/intention and is worth preserving (especially after this level of interest). --Nycmstar 20:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In its present form it is informative, and innocuous.--Shoka 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting the article now that it has been rewritten fairly would look like petty vindictiveness. Keeping it in its present form shows WPs strengths. It says to the would be abusers "Sure you can TRY to subvert our encyclopedia, but we won't let that happen. We will take your biased ad and turn it into a real article which may or may not help you out. Spam us at your own risk." Keeping this article isn't giving our stamp of approval to either the (supposed) viral marketing tactics or the game itself anymore than the afore mentioned Haunted Apiary article does. Brian Schlosser42 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current version is usefully informative. --Wanion 21:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maintaining my pre-rewrite vote. Even with the rewrite, this should be a Wikinews article, not a Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is the place for notable, successful, and completed ARGs; Wikinews is the place for current events. This writeup is good, just post it up when the game is over. As an aside, if I had been a Wikipedian in the age of ilovebees and ourcolony, I would have voted for deletion of them as well, for the same reasons. obo 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say this is a notable ARG - it is the first aimed at a 'normal' user (14-18yr old girls are outside of the typical market for such games), it is the first ARG done by an institution as well respected as the BBC and it is complete in that many people have played the game to completion. 84.9.20.203 22:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's an entry for Doctor_who another BBC character, why not Jamie Kane DougieLawson 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be because Doctor Who is an international sensation spanning something like 40 years. -Splash 22:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is now factual. Bryan 00:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I said in the main Talk page, what the BBC does is interesting - even their new work. The rewrite makes the article better, but I would have voted to keep it even in the old form. ---NathanO 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
  • Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
  • Keep - A Reality Computer game like this is quite interesting. Just reading about the AI interactions and the amount of work being put into this game by the BBC warrants an article I think. - Hahnchen 03:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
  • Weak Keep Nice rewrite. Given this has made news elsewhere and is no longer misleading worth keeping. Wikipedia really does answer any question, even ones I would never be interested in. Interesting that this controversy could be counted part of the viral marketing of the game itself. Augustz 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An abuse of wikipedia by a very minor game, which has little claim to be listed in even the most enclyclopedic encyclopedia. Moreover - although I believe the BBC that this was not done with their official approval - it was committed by people involved in this game for their own advantage. Winterstein 21:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is just false. The original author of the article has no connection to the BBC except that he probably pays for a TV license. 84.9.20.203 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
  • Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
  • Keep In it's current state I do not find anything to be wrong with the article. It is a legitimate entry about an actual game, it has both positive and negative information in the entry, making it seem much less like an advertising effort than a source of an answer for a legitimate question. tadpole256[[User talk:Tadpole256| *** ]
  • Keep Regardless of what the original article may have been, it's been rewritten now, and deleting it out of spite would reflect badly on wikipedia. It's no less notable than some of the other articles out there --Random|832 05:36, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Delete An mo 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The re-written version looks very encyclopedic. Whether or not the character is notable as fancruft for the computer game, it is notable for the advertising campaign, and the wikipedia controversy. In fact, it might be worth adding a section on the wikipedia history. (In a way, it's a pity that votes from before the re-write still count. And what happens if 1000 people think it should be kept, but 1001 people think it should be removed?) Bluap 09:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written article, no difference then an article other games or game characters. 84.153.25.225 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Current article is well-written, however it tends to play into the whole viral marketing theme. Would rather see it as a sub-entry on a viral-marketing page than an entire entry on its own. Kemkerj 16:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable subject - regardless of how the original article came into being. Secretlondon 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Here today, gone tomorrow premise, marketing does not belong in an encylopedia. Delete post-haste.

Unsigned votes, votes from unregistered or very new users[edit]

  • Keep The re-write is excellent. Just fact.
  • Speedy delete Blatant abuse of the anti-spam rules here, exists exclusively to promote a product and is no intrest to anyone
  • Speedy delete If I wanted to see a commercial I'd turn on the TV
  • Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Junk. Useless Advertising. damiandamiandamian
  • Delete It's marketing mbrewer
  • Delete Commercial Advertising rthorntn
  • Delete Commercial Advertising Qolume 09:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    You do know that the BBC is not a commercial organisation? ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising Baffledexpert 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Instead of deletion, wouldn't it be more valuable to make an article about the whole thing and redirect all related entries to this unique article ? The article could present the fake facts and a discussion on the use by the BBC of the Wikipedia as part of a viral marketing campaign. --81.245.143.84 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To do so would be to play into the hands of the vandals. Exactly what they're trying to do is to generate "buzz" -- to make something seem notable which was not notable before, and to abuse Wikipedia to do it. That's basically the definition of Wikispam. This isn't an interesting case of "viral marketing" -- it is simply the abuse of Wikipedia. It needs to be deleted, and the offenders made incapable of doing it again, by blocking and banning. --FOo 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "buzz" has been around for over a year. See the references in the rewritten article. Uncle G 00:15:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • keep Uncle G's rewrite is good. AdamJacobMuller T@lk Fri Aug 19 16:08:51 GMT 2005


  • Delete. Would set a precedent.
  • keep Rewrite, but keep. The person who created this maybe a marketing scum, but its fairly well written. It should be subjected to intense fack checking & rewrite, though. pamri 09:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. Good information for people who want to know who that Jamie Kane everybody talks about is.
  • Delete:marketing/abuse
  • Keep Current version is encyclopedic, talks about the show, not about the fictional character
  • N.BThe article could be seen as advertising BUT the BBC is not a commercial entity (for the time being at least). The BBC is not allowed to use commercial ads for revenue; if you look at the BBC site, you'll notice they only ever advertise their other free services, programmes, or radio. It can be argued that their TV service isn't free, but even that is changing (I'm not even gonna think about pointing to the relevant link! ^_^). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theharker (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 12:51:00 UTC
  • Keep: While the past versions were questionable, the current version seems perfectly acceptable.
  • Keep: But keep the current article, which is really about a fictional character.
  • Delete: Organizations that abuse Wikipedia in order to promote their own agenda need to be completely removed and blocked from the system. Merely editing the entry, even if it is a complete re-write, still continues to promote their original agenda, and does not hurt them in any way.
  • Keep: The article now acurately reflects the fictional nature. 131.81.200.154 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same reason as Mark Williamson 165.21.154.15 14:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Original references to Kane, which could be morphed into cyberterminology Kaning, or the abuse of metamedia for marketing purposes. Useful origin in the matter, especially in the advent of these tactics.
  • Strong Keep': would have been a strong delete, but with Uncle G's rewrite the article should now be kept.
  • Keep: Keep the current rewritten article, is it's informational and not advertising. Also see the I Love Bees entry for an accepted article on a similar topic.
  • Keep, as long as there is a page for Majestic, another ARG. An ARG released and promoted by the BBC seem infinitely more encyclopedia-worthy than an EA stillbirth. Whether or not the article was originally caused by vandalism is irrelevant to the importance of its current content. Lachek, 21:23 Aug 15th
  • Delete This kind of usage should be discouraged. Britannica wouldn't allow it. ;)
  • Delete
  • Merge with Gay Nigger Association of America into topic "Things that Wikipedians think are notable because they affected Wikipedia" --66.101.59.18 00:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It is not referencing a historical event nor a well established phenomenon. Citation in the Wikipedia pre-empts its importance as something worth knowing / being referenced; thus it remains advertising. 203.4.163.7
  • Keep interesting Pg133 20:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fascinating discussion and it would be a shame to loose it.
  • Keep As long as it is edited to contain factual information, then there is no reason to actually kill it, IMHO.
  • Keep, deletion proposal predates Uncle_G's edits. The article is about the game, hence properly titled. External links point to it. It is not vandalism. An article like this one -- factual, accurate, with references -- should not be deleted just because the original version was controversial. --EJHuff 04:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete marketing campaign plain and simple. And it's not because it is a controversy now that it deserves to live.
  • Delete Better Wikipedia leave commercial product information to other websites, than it become Wikispameteria. 70.19.59.94 05:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The apology is irrelevant, what is important is the intent, which was to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium. This is unacceptable however you look at it. StuartCarter 06:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually read the BBC statement or Jon and MattC's post? The BBC's wasn't an apology, it was a categorical denial and neither Jon or MattC indended it as advertising. 129.169.154.82 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current page is informational, and given that it has been mentioned on slashdot and boingboing it is now part of Wikipedia lore. Meta though it may be, the history of Wikipedia itself is worth considering. Right now it is clearly marked as fictional and NPOV, so I see no reason at all to delete it other than petty revenge. MasterDirk 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fine to me... Gowdy 06:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edit.
  • Keep It is not a marketing ploy it is just a reference to delete would be censorship - there is nothing that is not fact based in tha article now. -- grouchal
  • Keep It's the same idea as the James Bond article. 12.73.246.156 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current page is a notable online game and deserves to stay on wikipedia.
  • Keep edited version fine DerekLaw 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepthe edited version is just fine. I understand the concern for commercial products on Wiki, but Wiki is in fact not advertising Jamie Kane or the BBC. The article (the just-the-facts, ma'am article) is fine, and in the spirit of free info about everything, I think it should stay. -kelly
  • Keep It's a game just like any other and deserves a spot in wikipedia, you'd have to remove A.I web quest and many others too.
  • Keep Following the rewrite by Uncle G and the inclusion of a note about all the mess, this is now a real article about a game (like, say, the Doom3 article.) Boris SDC 13:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete" Typical BBC whitewash, why does Hutton spring to mind? Wiki was used for the wrong purpose 84.13.141.203 04:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rewritten article is fine 80.44.248.166 13:01, 19 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, then redirect to Jamie_Kane. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy*d Upp[edit]

Important Note MattC, the original creator of the articles, has apologised over them. They were not a part of any official BBC campaign, and simply a 'it seemed a good idea at the time' moment by an employee. Please don't write angry e-mails to the BBC over this. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign.--Barberio 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since sanity is evidently scarce here, I ought to point out that the BoingBoing article makes no accusations, and cites no concrete evidence that this is actually an "advertising campaign" at all. It is merely a suspicion, which is why the headline ends with a question mark. Did you not get taught at school the difference between a question and a statement? Consequently I don't understand how you've rationalized this sudden jump from BoingBoing's premise...
"This page might be an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign"
...to the logically distinct premise...
"This page is an abuse of Wikipedia to promote an advertising campaign".
I also suggest that any other sheepy votes based solely on Barberio's bogus reasoning, and shameless scaremongering, should be discounted.
You should also be aware that you are, in effect, creating a viral advertising campaign for the BoingBoing site amongst readers of this page. Perhaps we should confirm that Barberio isn't an employee of the BoingBoing site? :)
However, it is far more likely that the BoingBoing site launched a public attack on the BBC in the hopes of provoking the BBC into publicly striking back at them, with the hopes of exploiting the BBC's far wider audience as a means to gain more publicity for itself, thus increasing its potential advertising revenues.
Same applies to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jamie Kane - Aya 42 T C 20:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um... Well, not entirely sure why trying to make a personal attack against me is relevent here? Not entirely sure if you are supporting deletion or keeping either.
The original creator of these articles, a BBC employee, has said that he did not have official sanction on creating them, and has apologised for doing so. Can I suggest that instead of whipping up BoingBoing Vs BBC arguments, we just accept the apology, and quietly progress to the deletion of these articles. We don't want to make it hard on the guy for an honest mistake by turning it into a big argument. --Barberio 00:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. There was a smiley face after one of the paragraphs to indicate it was semi-humorous, but be careful when writing things like you did just there. People tend to believe you whether you're right or not. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:MattC only created the boy-band article. The original article was created by someone who is not necessarily affiliated with the BBC. RichW 18:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. The BBC and BoingBoing are both pretty well-known to much of the Wikipedia audience, and neither of them particularly needs this kind of stunt for publicity. Instead of responding to speculation with more irresponsible speculation, might I remind people that assuming good faith is a principle that can be applied to people outside Wikipedia as well. --Michael Snow 00:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I've never heard of BoingBoing before. - Aya 42 T C 01:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlike the now edited JK article this is really useless. Boris SDC 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, letting advertising onto wikipedia will destroy all that is good about wikipedia. Bigtoe 16:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Real or not, this is stupid. --Hoovernj 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Useless blatent advertising AviN456 14:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See the BoingBoing article on these entries. [5] --Barberio 08:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional band. Kappa 08:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, this is not a major or notable fictional band, and the articles intent is to promote a new work of fiction, not record an established one. --Barberio 08:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as Barberio above. --Stereo 09:02:29, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, document it is a game/ad, as an early warning for the other users. --Shaddack 09:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I echo Barberio also. Viral marketing on Wikipedia shouldn't be tolerated. --taliswolf 09:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It'll work so much better as a warning. / Peter Isotalo 10:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Like its fictional bandmember above, this "band" is apparently faintly notable. With an appropriate commentary (or tag?), this could provide material for marketing research.
  • Delete per Barberio. Nandesuka 12:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Delete Spliced 13:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --*drew 14:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable. If anyone wants to merge with Viral marketing that's okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ben Houston 15:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barberio above. Dottore So 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Misuse of Wikipedia. This is just spamvertising in a different form. android79 16:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Jamie Kane given Uncle G's excellent rewrite of that article. android79 12:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To appease the people who want to keep, can I suggest that we redirect this, and any other attempts at Viral Marketing to the Viral marketing article. Or a new meta article 'Abuses of Wikipedia for Viral Marketing'. --Barberio 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable are they not. And I specifically oppose the redirect suggestion. -Splash 16:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although Uncle G's work on the related article is admirable, my vote above stands since I'm not yet persuaded of the case for keeping the possible redirect target. -Splash 01:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the content is worth keeping, then it should be moved to a page about the game. But aside from abusing Wikipedia, I'm not sure the game is, as yet, notable. --William Pietri 16:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Viral marketing is not an acceptable use of wikipedia resources. --GraemeL 16:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and block the offender indefinitely, including the IP address space of the BBC, until a formal apology is made. This is nothing more or less than vandalism for profit. Wikipedia should come down hard on those responsible. --FOo 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IP address does indeed come from the BBC :[6]. I suppose this is just some summer student being clever or something? Surely the Beeb is tech-savvy enough to know that we can work out if they added the article! -Splash 17:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly why Wikipedia needs to make it absolutely clear that this behavior is not considered funny, positive, or even acceptable. It is spam and vandalism; it is against the rules; and it is a blocking offense. In this case, because it's being done for the benefit of a widely-known organization, it's also an excellent opportunity to make an example -- to show that Wikipedia will refuse to put up with for-profit abuse. --FOo 17:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, to WP:AN/I perhaps? I suspect, however, that a mere admin is unlikely to want to admonish the BBC; perhaps the Foundation should. -Splash 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • "admonish the BBC"?? Because somebody wrote three sentences on Wikipedia during his coffee break? Hello? It's not like this is a concerted attack on our foundation principles. It is even a great example of how such an approach backfires on Wikipedia, where people can now read that the band is fictional. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advertising. If and only if this viral marketing campaign becomes notable in and of itself (like, for example, I love bees or The Subservient Chicken) give it an article. As it stands now, it is a misuse of Wikipedia. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie Kane in light of Uncle G's edit. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WCityMike (T | C) 17:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So we're supposed to keep it as notable based upon the fact that someone trolled Wikipedia? How come we don't ever keep other trolled articles then? E.g, Mother Fucker was an attempt by an unknown Indonesian male to put spam on Wikipedia. It took place in July of 2002. The police have no further leads! External links: http://www.motherfuckerswikipedia.com/. Come on, this is just silly. D. G. 17:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to viral marketing. Should this turn out as something notable, revert to independent article. dab (ᛏ) 18:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a run-of-the-mill viral marketing incident, it did not achieve notability. Don't delete it to "send a message"; delete it because it's not noteworthy. -- Curps 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Noisy | Talk 19:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable.  Grue  19:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the guerrilla marketing aspects have been explained. Zoe 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)Since several users keep deleting the viral marketing aspects, this makes the article no longer notable. Delete. Zoe 23:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an example of viral marketing by the BBC, and merge the Jamie Kane stuff into this article. I've removed the self reference to make it suitable for our mirror sites. Thryduulf 21:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Jamie Kane. However, revert 'guerilla marketing' aspects as hopelessly POV. Almafeta 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the Boy*D_Upp page from inside the BBC network on Friday evening after stumbling across the Jamie Kane entry linked from the Pop Justice forums. My action was in no way part of an orchestrated marketing campaign on behalf of the Jamie Kane project team nor was it intended for my page to be attributed to the BBC, which has been implied. It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry. MattC 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable and advertising -- I'm sure they've already got their interest boost from this little fuss, though they might want to think over what damage has been done to their reputation. - Motor (talk) 23:16:53, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. -- The Anome 22:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Abuse of Wikipedia. -- Arwel 22:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If some actual article about the campaign/project/hoax emerges, redirecting there would also be an acceptable alternative. --Michael Snow 22:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This marker represents the point where Uncle G rewrote the associated Jamie Kane article

  • Delete. Wikipedia's response to being hijacked (by anyone) as part of "viral marketing" should be: "No thank you". - Nunh-huh 23:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, which appears to contain a better explanation of what's going on. --Alan Au 00:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is, if the Jamie Kane page survives its own VfD. Otherwise, delete. --Alan Au 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jamie Kane, this purported band is entirely fictional, and thus fails WP:MUSIC utterly. As per WP:FICT, this should be a redirect to Jamie Kane, which is now an article about the alternate reality game by the BBC by that name, which includes this finctional band name as part of its storyline. Uncle G 00:33:10, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Jamie Kane. --Andre (talk) 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete* People like this should be sterilized to avoid futher pollution of the gene pool.
  • Delete* Pointless advertising.
  • Delete or redirect to Jamie Kane. --Parallel or Together? 10:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jamie Kane. David | Talk 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, for the reasons stated above. --Jdcope 11:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane --WS 11:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Abusive marketing practice.
  • Merge and redirect with/to Jamie Kane. ed g2s • talk 13:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect I'm not sure the actual game deserves an entry, but certainly this shouldn't be one at this point. If the game catches on and becomes hugely popular, then fine, but at this early stage, it shouldn't be an article. (My vote on Jamie Kane was it could be included in a larger article about online games.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To the Jamie Kane article, which explains things fully. Mark Williamson 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. AnthonySorace 15:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising.
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane — ciphergoth 15:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane Daemon8666 15:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane --nwatson 15:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Redirect to Jamie Kane. Kaldari 16:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. WAS 4.250 16:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The whole matter sets a bad precedent, delete it. If necessary, create a new article for the game. -- 66.159.216.215 16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane -Eisnel 16:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Jamie Kane or whatever the original article was as long as the Jamie Kane article reflects the controversy and fictious origins of this - same for all similar pages. Move for admins to speedily convert this over to end controversy. - Master Of Ninja 16:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane, SqueakBox 16:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. bpt 17:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. RichW 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. —Wanion 21:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete I second Alan Au, redirect if Jamie Kane survived, delete if not. obo 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jamie Kane. feydey 00:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; unlikely to be searched for and not enough msterial outside of what is already covered in Jamie Kane. mholland 02:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and Redirect to Jamie Kane. (Merge [7] version) Tenbaset 08:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete then redirect to avoid keeping history but block future recreation Mozzerati 21:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "delete" Block BBC to use wiki, that way the BBC wont be able to acidently on purpose create advertising, then blame a sheepgoat when caught. 84.13.141.203 04:36, 19 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. Redwolf24 04:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Round-robin networks[edit]

I don't know much about the subject, but I've only found 11 Google hits. [8] So surely it can be merged somewhere?

lots of issues | leave me a message 09:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, I make it about 82,600 google hits. [9]. Kappa 10:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Local Area Network.--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 12:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Local Area Network - which, by the way, needs some expansion... if I have time I'll give it a try later. --Raistlin 13:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Original is correct. Only 11 exact google matches. Dottore So 16:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Token ring which is the proper name for this. -Splash 16:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, sort of anyway. Do networks ever operate in a strict round-robin sense? They all use one of the IEEE 802 standards and none of those is specifically a round-robin proposal, since you might have nothing to transmit and would just pass the opportunity onto the next station in the ring, so a token ring is closest by description. -Splash 16:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or redirect. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:55
  • Delete I believe this is about a mesh network which is the more appropiate name. If redirected, it should be to Wireless mesh network. As I recall, a Token Ring is a form of a star network, each point on the star is a ring, and not a true mesh. Vegaswikian 05:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and expand "Round-robin in networking" isn't limited to LANs (and no LAN topology is really round-robin so the current article isn't that hot) and this article should turn into a general purpose description. You can do round-robin at any level of the OSI model for load-balancing, clustering, whatever. SchmuckyTheCat 17:55, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Hearn[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 5 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tualha (Talk) 09:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sandstein 10:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Lambrect[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, delete. Nothing on Google. Tualha (Talk) 09:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sandstein 10:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Eddie spelled my name wrong. Nick Lambrecht 04:51, 15 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Asahi[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "The prophet Eddie"? (snort) Tualha (Talk) 09:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sandstein 10:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:32, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Asahi is not just beer though. --zippedmartin 23:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like a private joke. Nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia. Fg2 07:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Joke page. --Dysepsion 05:38, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great Schism of 2005[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tualha (Talk) 09:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sandstein 10:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be a private joke. Fg2 07:58, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Church of Kirin[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, along with the other new pages with which this one has circular references. They have all been created by the same anonymous IP. I cannot find supporting material outside these 4 pages. Note that "Kirin" and "Asahi" are brands of beer. Also, this IP vandalised another page earlier. Finbarr Saunders 09:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tualha (Talk) 09:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sandstein 10:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Delete. Clearly an elaborate beer-fueled hoax by bored expats in Japan. --Calton | Talk 14:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Though Kirin is also a mythical thingy, I remember from Talisman of Death, oh the education of youth. In wikip under Qilin. --zippedmartin 23:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently a private joke. In Japan, a kirin is a (real) giraffe or a mythological creature, depicted in a logo on the beer can of the same name. Fg2 08:00, August 15, 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. Redwolf24 04:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opa![edit]

  • Delete: We may as well have a page dedicated to 'Oh!' or something. In either case, useless. x42bn6 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wiktionary. bogdan | Talk 10:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more could be written about this expression, which is famous here. Since Eh has an article, Opa! should, too. The title must change, however, because we have two ways to use/pronounce it. "Opa" can also mean "hey you made a mistake" or "I am happy" depending on how you pronounce it and how long you pronounce the O sound. "opa-opa" is also related, and I think it's used in songs. If you delete it, could someone please contribute it to my wiki? Www.wikinerds.org 10:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. / Peter Isotalo 10:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, this article can become encyclopedic.
      • We're not voting the potential in here. Right now it's a dictionary definition and as such it does not belong here. bogdan | Talk 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Wikipedia is not dictionary, it shouldn't have Eh, either. What I see here is double standards: What pity is it that eh, which is about the English-speaking world, is kept, while Opa!, which is about Greeks, is deleted! Www.wikinerds.org 11:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... It's because of the international conspiracy against the Greeks. :-) bogdan | Talk 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I copied the article to my wiki under the GFDL. Www.wikinerds.org 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Piffle. I'm a native Swede and I certainly haven't voted to keep eh and neither would I if it were VfD:ed. I've also VfD:ed native Swedish slang like blatte and svenne. This talk of making it encyclopedic is a really irrelevant self-supporting argument. / Peter Isotalo 22:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has encyclopedic potential.Kappa 12:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki, per Peter, bogdan. I don't see encyclopedic potential at all. Dottore So 16:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an example of a non-English interjection that is characteristic of a particular ethnic group or nationality, like eh or oy. It has cultural implications beyond a dry dictionary definition. The article should be marked as requiring improvement, however. --agr 16:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oy vey! When exactly did we become a dictionary? All interjections, slang words and idioms have some sort of cultural implications. Some more significant than others, but they're still expanded, anecdotal dictionary definitions. This is hardly nigger or gringo. / Peter Isotalo 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a translating dictionary. Denni☯ 17:54, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Delete unless "encyclopedic potential" is actualized before VfD expires. --Alan Au
  • Delete. Foreign dicdef in its current state. Would consider changing vote if article was expanded. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dic-def. Hamster Sandwich 01:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should be marked as a stub not as a VfD. MATIA 15:29, 19 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Mark[edit]

Very likely an advertisement, no apparent notability. See also comments on talk page. Sandstein 10:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, if nothing else. --Apyule 12:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above --Lomedae 13:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete My comments on the talk page were: Is there any independent source for this? Most of the information seems to be lifted directly from the commercial web site. Doing a Google check shows various press releases from the company behind the Imperial Mark, but nothing AFAICS from anyone independent. A news item such as this: [1] originates from IC, the International Charter Organisation themselves. A search of Omega's own site reveals no mention of the Mark, there is likewise nothing on the Harrods site, nor as far as I can see on the Rolex site. DavidFarmbrough 09:00 (BST) 15 Aug 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 Merge. Redwolf24 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. See WP:NOT. If relevant to the topic, these links should be part of the external links section of Watchtower Society. -- Karada 10:35, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title 28[edit]

Title 28 is the portion of the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs the federal judicial system. It includes provisions about quite a few judiciary-related topics, and relevant sections are cited in the appropriate articles, such as in Diversity jurisdiction. Title 28 doesn't need a separate article. If it did, the article wouldn't be a POV diatribe against one extremely minor portion relating to bankruptcy law. (Title 28 isn't even the key title on bankruptcy, the substance of which is covered in Title 11.) Delete. JamesMLane 10:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sandstein 10:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 12:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JamesMLane's vfd was well taken, however Kappa's edits have taken the article on its way to becoming encyclopedic. Flawiki 12:28, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • This version is much less objectionable, but, despite my appreciation for Kappa's work, my "Delete" vote stands. Trying to organize our coverage of the U.S. Code according to its 50 or so Titles would be a waste of effort. Readers search for specific legal topics. Not many people would care about which specific subject areas happened to be covered in Title 28. Nothing links to the article except one offhand comment on Talk:Bankruptcy, which now turns out to be a typographical error. Our article on the United States Code lists all 50 or so titles and includes a link to the U.S. Code website of the U.S. Government, from which further hyperlinks gave the more detailed tables of contents, for anyone who wants to know what's in a particular title. JamesMLane 15:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Title 28, United States Code (keeping Title 28 as a redirect). As an attorney, I can definitely see how this would be useful. -- BD2412 talk 16:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless sub-stub. We're not a law directory. / Peter Isotalo 21:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's right! We're a Pokemon directory. Get this law cruft out. That's no vote, I'll leave exact arangement of US laws to US lawyers --zippedmartin 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States Code per JamesMLane (15:19, 14 August 2005). --Alan Au 23:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't favor a redirect because I don't think anyone would search for this article title. By contrast, some people have heard the phrase "title nine", so Title 9 is properly a redirect to Title IX (which isn't Title 9 of the U.S. Code). We also have an article on Chapter 11. Those cases, however, are exceptions, where an organizational number has become widely known. JamesMLane 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much better now than it was when originally vfd'd, though I'd support BD2412's renaming proposal. --Arcadian 00:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. If it can be built up to 2 or 3 paragraphs in a few days, I'll change my vote. I'll check later. Karmafist 01:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Weak Keep if there can be just a little more meat on this badboy. It needs to be cleaned up. Karmafist 22:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JamesMLane. The United States federal courts created under Title 28 are worthy of an article, but Title 28 itself is not. --Metropolitan90 06:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete unless it can be expanded. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep lots of issues | leave me a message 08:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but only as a redirect. As an American lawyer (and one who has contributed substantially to the United States Code article), I don't see any value in a separate article on Title 28 as such; it should be redirected to United States federal courts since that is its subject matter. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • United States federal courts explains nothing about Title 28. Kappa 14:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is a good argument for improvement of that article, not for maintaining a duplicative article. --Russ Blau (talk) 18:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • But what is the argument for creating a confusing redirect to it? Kappa 18:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it with other titles in the US penal code. Radiant_>|< 15:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a part of the penal code, but it should be merged with other relevant articles. Russ Blau (talk) 18:03, August 15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germany and weapons of mass destruction[edit]

Looks like anti-German propaganda to me, nothing here is really educational. 80.131.68.126 10:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If people who start an article can't be bothered to observe the neutrality policy their work should be deleted to demonstrate strong disapproval of their approach. It shouldn't be left for others to battle to correct it - or worse, left as it is. New articles are only legitimate if they are neutral. Better to wait for someone to start this again. Osomec 11:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV crud. Unlikely to ever get better. --Apyule 11:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Keep after very good edits by Christopher Parham. --Apyule 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my vote. BorgQueen 12:59, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid and interesting topic, although it probably needs to be stubbified down to the lead only. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:24, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Changed my vote; Parham's argument is persuasive. Dottore So 16:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article about WMD in a country that....has no WMD? -Splash 16:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you'd care to nominate Brazil and weapons of mass destruction, Canada and weapons of mass destruction, Poland and weapons of mass destruction, Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Iran and weapons of mass destruction? Why does the existence of this article depend on Germany having weapons of mass destruction? The article certainly makes no claim that it does. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:58, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
      • First, saying in VfD that "we should keep X because you didn't nominate Y" is rarely a meaningful argument. Second, I'm not going to deal with the last two examples you cite, for reasons which I imagine are obvious. As to the first three, the Brazil article says, amongst other things, "...a covert nuclear weapons program was pursued by Brazil under a military government in the 1980s.", the Canada article says plenty about why the issue is important there: it evidently decided an election and they were partners in the Manhattan Project, the Poland article says "...during communist times had active programs in the development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons". The Taiwan article is more difficult, and could perhaps be discussed, but, the statement from Beijing that the obtainment of nuclear capability would lead to "immediate attack" with all the geopolitical implications of that is fairly important. The Germany article, on the other hand, offers no significance to the issue of WMD in Germany at present or in the past (apart from component manufacture which most industrialized nations do too).-Splash 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Looks sufficiently NPOV to me; that is an editing issue, the article is good enough and about an important subject. --Mysidia (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting subject, and stating that Germany has no WMD is clearly an oversimplification. Moreover, Germany at least had WMD in the past. Keep. --DrTorstenHenning 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did they? When? If they did, it should be added to the article and it would then probably by keepable. The WW2 V-rockets don't count. They were just missiles. -Splash 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
        • Mmmmmmmm. I suspected this was what was in mind. In which case, the article ought to be reduced down to that stub; at that point I would vote to delete such a small stub since it is covered far better in the articles you mention in that sentence. -Splash 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And at least during the 1980s, AFAIK nuclear WMD were stored in Germany, and the German Army (Bundeswehr) maintained Artillery Special Platoons (Artillerie-Spezialzüge) that were equipped and trained to handle nuclear ammo. --DrTorstenHenning 17:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Forms part of a corpus of analysis broken down by country, even if inadequately for the moment. Dottore So 19:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been improved significantly, due to such impressive work done by Parham. BorgQueen 20:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inclusive of state of non-mass-destructiveness. Absence of something does not mean an article saying it is absent is nesesarily irrelevant. --zippedmartin 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid topic. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:57
  • Keep. Good rewrite. -Hmib 04:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a better name and merge 24.1.97.187 05:24, 15 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 votes are actually numerically almost equal, which would be a no-consensus keep. But most of the deletes were cast before the initial stub which is now in place was written and are clearly rejecting the adevertising content that was present at the time. All but one vote after the stub would keep — and one of the deleters allows for a "major rewrite" too. Further, the article has been further expanded since even most of the keep votes. -Splash 07:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gites in France[edit]

Entire article was written as excuse for external link to tourist web site. --rob 11:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete These articles should not even exist on wikipedia.--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 12:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. --*drew 14:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a major rewrite - there is certainly room for a good article on the topic. Dlyons493 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Nelgallan 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on a minute folks!!!. the subject is encyclopedic, (though oddly Gite seems to be about an Indian game, and w:fr:gîte does not exist, (the correct spelling btw is gîte with the accent)). This is a major part of the culture of France, being rented accomodation, run by the company Gites de France [10]. Now granted, this article is pretty terrible, but I'll replace it with a deent stub, so super strong keep Dunc|☺ 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree with you (including the rename), *if* gîte is not a brand, but a common/generic word used in France. I'm a little confused, though, since the web site suggests of starting in 1951 with something "new" and non-traditional. But, surely there were summer homes before than; what were they called? Are all rented summer homes in France "Gites" (as answer.com implies), or is this just a brand? Is this the same as a Dacha? If it's a uniquely French version of Dacha than an article is easily (or as easily) justified. I just want to be sure we're not promoting somebody's brand, I admit ignorance about France on this. --rob 21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a generic name. I think Gites de France act act as an agent for individual property owners. They are of course different culturally from Dachas, but it's the same idea. Dunc|☺ 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By an amazing coincidence, gîte has now appeared at French Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell it's no more informative than my French-Swedish dictionary definition. If someone can confirm that this term is commonly used in English, I will change my vote, but not if it's exclusively French. / Peter Isotalo 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote it. French vfd is at w:fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer - I can list it for you if you like. And yes, they have enough cultural history, importance and the size to be encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 22:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not about to get involved in the internal matters of a wikipedia in a language I don't really speak. That it only appeared as an article now is not exactly speaking in favor of its notability, so please try to convince me with more than just assuring me it's encyclopedic. Is it used in English or not? Please show some examples. / Peter Isotalo 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • 415,000 Google hits restricted to English, though that in itself is not particularly strong. To reiterate then, the word gîte is used specifically for holiday cottages in France, a subject which has a history and cultural impact that is notable, hence encyclopedic. Dunc|☺ 22:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See "gîte" on Wiktionary ;) Korg 00:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the "historic and cultural impact" expanded. Otherwise, possible redirect/merge to Cottage or Dacha. If unable to expand, transwiki to French Wiktionary. --Alan Au 23:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cottage can be tranlated in French by "villa" or in some case by "résidence secondaire". In both case they are not vacation accomodation. A gîte is a type of vacation accomodation usually (but not always) for familly. Also, a datcha is also "datcha" in French, no relation with a "gîte". Romary 09:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I don't think I've ever stayed in one (tents are cheaper), they've certainly been advertised as such to british tourists for many years. Not sure I've got any holiday pamphlets from the 80s around to scan though, and that's the kinda thing that has 0 web presence. Not as common a term as 'villa' maybe, but certainly common. --zippedmartin 23:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like Dunc, please consider that gîte (and "Gîtes de France", a famous vacation accommodations chain) is a major part of the culture of France. Korg 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (See "gîte" on Wiktionary).[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
  • Delete as dicdef once the spam is removed. Vegaswikian 05:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is really a subject. The link to "gîte de France" can be removed. The subject can be developed by adding information on "Gîte d'étape" for the hikers and "gîte rural" for vacation accomodation. Romary 09:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh my god, I must be having a bad day! Anyway, I can honestly say that Gite (hat over the i) is a word in day to day use here in France and does, indeed, refer to a nationwide letting of cottage-type places. The article is a bit naff though and could do with a less spammy re-write. --Marcus22 15:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From time to time, over the years, I have actually wondered just what a gîte is. I know it's some sort of holiday let thing, but how does it work? Are they owned by companies, or by individuals who stay there themselves? I have this notion that they are rural things, usually converted farmhouses - but is that true? Can there be gîtes in towns? And why are they called "gîtes" - a marketing thing? Is there a distinction between gîtes and other holiday homes? When did this gîte thing come about? I hope the article can be expanded so that I can get some answers.--Finbarr Saunders 22:25, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymonite[edit]

This looks like a joke or hoax to me. I checked with Google to be sure: no hits for "The Book of Laws Inherent to Eternal Substance" and the only relevant hit for Raymonite is this. Sietse 12:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a religion that a bunch of college students have created and use as a story that they continually expand upon. They are even writing a book about it. The text referenced - laws inherent to eternal substance (L.I.E.S.) is a few pages scribbled on lined paper. This article should not be deleted, it should be updated to accurately represent what Raymonites are. But - it is true that while the religion is not real, a Raymonite (someone who believes the religion) would be exactly what the post says. It's just that there are no real Raymonites yet.

As for the fortunecity homepage, I have never heard of it even though I am one of the creators. I know all 30-ish people involved, and I don't think the page is one of their's either.

  • Delete. What religion is this?--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 12:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a vanity page. The fortunecity homepage ends with "Email: E-mail me, I'm god". Right. --Lomedae 13:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. --*drew 14:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Factual though relatively unknown. --I'm not a user.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit High School, Portland[edit]

Nothing noteworthy about this particular school IMHO, the initial entry isn't even barely a stub. Lomedae 12:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the article has been edited. Still, for the life of me I can't see why people don't just create a Wiki-Schools project, instead of incorporating a directory of all schools great or small into the main Wikipedia. Most schools are only notable to their region and (former) students. I strongly disagree with the statement that "all established schools are noteworthy". Just my 2 cents. --Lomedae 14:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • You obviously have the right to your own opinion. Kappa's opinion is not official policy either. Delete as NN. Radiant_>|< 14:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets notability requirements. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:02, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Keep - Schools are intrinsically noteworthy. --Celestianpower hab 17:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not established. Denni☯
  • delete and concentrate on an article about Jesuit schools in general which might have the potential to be interesting and useful. --TimPope 19:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools, especially high schools. Pburka 20:10, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as always. — RJH 20:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. See Wikipedia:Schools for background on the "schools" debate. --Alan Au 22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Highschools are notable. However I would question all Middle Schools and lower that don't establish some level of notability beyond "existing". See User:Gateman1997/Schools_for_Deletion for my stance on schools.Gateman1997 22:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What on earth is the point of chopping Wikipedia into little pieces? There should be one guide to everything, because then people don't have to know where to look. Rather than creating new offshoots, all the existing offshoots should be folded back into Wikipedia. 82.35.34.11 22:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
  • Keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would like to see an article on Jesuit High Schools. If I knew anything about them, I would start it. But I don't. Which is why I would like to see an article on them. We're going round in circles. Oh yeah, delete as individual schools are not encyclopaedic, WP:NOT a web directory. Proto t c 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well established notability. No one's stopping anyone from starting a separate article on Jesuit schools in general, too. Lack of a more general article is not a good reason to delete the more specific case articles. Unfocused 21:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too please the article is informative and helps wikipedia towards being the sum of all human knowledge Yuckfoo 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is currently the most selective high school in Oregon and people apply to go there like a college. Needs to be expanded, not deleted. Guerberj 23:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. It clearly says in the title that it's a high school. —RaD Man (talk) 03:44, 18 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 07:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rosen[edit]

Appears to be non-notable vanity. One newspaper article doesn't make the subject notable IMO. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

keep try to google better, there's quite a lot of info on this case it seems --Raistlin 12:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has decent media coverage. --Lomedae 13:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:58
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Leong[edit]

Probably a defamation attempt. No google hits for this name in the context referred to by the article; at any rate, not notable. Sandstein 12:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or even speedy, idem, not notable --Raistlin 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --*drew 14:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:22:52, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gmail Help Center[edit]

A request for a modification to the Gmail service. This should be adressed directly to Google, not written up here. Delete as non-encyclopedic. Sandstein 12:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete imho. --Raistlin 13:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. Appears to be an attempt to communicate with the subject named in the title, so it can be speedied. I've marked it as such. android79 15:43, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Excellent call by android79.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:19:56, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Speedied as contact attempt. Entire content was "Albanian language in Gmail should be active too.... I dont understand why it not tranlated yet..." Niteowlneils 18:16, 14 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrient premix[edit]

  • You've got to be kidding me... Actually the way it is right now is fine. I can live without the link. Nutrient premixes are a billion dollar industry world-wide.

This was posted by User:Markfanion, who has created a row of articles which look like ads for the company Fortitech. In the case of this article the link to fortitech has already been removed, but I still think the rest of the article sound like an ad, saying how difficult premixes are to make. Thue | talk 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this because, apart from the nominator, all those who voted are relatively new accounts. Another five days discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the link in an attempt to un-commercialize it, but the overall content is still lacking. I'll go with the Delete. --Several Times 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep. I would prefer a revise-and-expand since there is a flourishing industry of premade crud. Not my area of expertise, though. Eldereft 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Informational tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompanyProfiler2002 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 August 2005
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:59
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Redwolf24 04:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Naysmyth[edit]

The person and his band do appear to exist, but - judging from Google results - no notability is established. The band does not appear to be the Manic Street Preachers that have an article of their own. Sandstein 13:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is the live keyboard player for the Manic Street Preachers, and has additionally been on television with them, in documentaries. He is also listed in the credits of three of their albums.

He has a cult status with fans of the band.

His name is sometimes spelt Nick Naysmith, but it is believed that it is Naysmyth.

Hence, my vote is to keep the page - Michael Anazapela

  • Michael, if this is so and Naysmyth has little notability on his own, consider merging the info into the main Manic Street Preachers article or enhancing the Naysmyth article (cf. the tag I've added). To make what you say verifiable, consider linking to the relevant sources in the Naysmyth article. Best regards, Sandstein 14:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Links for album credits? C'mon... He's certainly in the band. Don't have much to say on the notability front, though I found this (not-profesional) review amusing: "The problem with the latter-day Manics is the addition of keyboardist Nick Naysmyth. Words cannot describe how utterly crap he is. He uses all of one finger in the aforementioned song." --zippedmartin 00:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no notability can be established before the vfd ends. --Raistlin 13:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's basically a session musician that plays live keyboards for Manics live sets. And it's spelt Naysmith. If there isn't a line about him in the MSP article, put one in, but delete this as nn. Proto t c 10:32, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon gall[edit]

Seems just a shameless plug in the form of a CV... not encyclopedic Raistlin 13:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Indeed, what a bunch of (self?-)advertising. --IByte 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --*drew 14:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gah. Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gall. Delete, WP:N, WP:V—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:17:53, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete sickly. -Splash 16:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ack! --GraemeL 19:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vile self promotion. Secretlondon 05:28, 18 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 07:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4[edit]

While I agree that it is likely that this game will come out someday, absolutely nothing is actually known about it. Every single item in the article is utter speculation. Details about the game are expected to be announced next month at a trade show, so I'd say delete this and recreate it after it's actually announced. (Am I being too type-A here? I'm seriously interested in knowing the consensus). Nandesuka 13:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seeing as it will be announced next month, and it has allready been "announced" in Shonen Jump. I don't see why it should be deleted only to be created again in a month. Havok (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although WP:NOT a crystal ball, the precedent for articles about games that are in production is there. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed keep. It was announced in the last Shonen Jump in Japan. --Zeno McDohl 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I believe it was also in Famitsu. --Zeno McDohl 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:59
  • will be announced next month? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- delete. --Calton | Talk 15:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
What? It was already announced. --Zeno McDohl 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's been in Jump, it's announced. Shingen 19:23, August 15, 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. JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar ibn Yasir's contribution to the battle of Badr[edit]

Non-notable topic. Dr Gangrene 14:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Battle of Badr is non notable? Take a look and you will see that all participants in the battle have a similar page. The page need to be expanded, not deleted. -striver
  • I never said the Battle of Badir is non notable. I said that this particular topic, i.e. this man's contribution to the battle, is not notable on its own. If anywhere, it belongs on Ammar ibn Yasir. As to the pages similar to this one, I have already noticed them and I am nominating them for deletion as well. Dr Gangrene 14:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Battle of Badr (see below). -- BD2412 talk 18:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — If we had this level of tactical detail about every significant battle in history we'd need a building full of hard drives. It's covered sufficiently by Battle of Badr. — RJH 20:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:00
  • Merge or move. Content is notable, but not enough to have its own separate page. Merge to Battle of Badr or move/merge to Ammar ibn Yasir. — Nowhither 22:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 18:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Basic topics and subpages[edit]

I'm not sure what to make of this... this page links to several dozen subpages, e.g. Wikipedia:Biology basic topics and Economics basic topics (which isn't even in Wikispace, and is already converted to a redir). Those subpages list basic terms in that particular field. The whole idea is that this allows us to list basic terms that require articles. The point is, however, that those terms (being basic) already have articles. So the entire system is bascially a list of articles that we want and we already have. The result, among others, is to make Category:Wikipedia missing topics filled with things that aren't missing. So do we have any reason to keep these content-less and sort-of misleading lists? Abstain. Radiant_>|< 14:38, August 14, 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 wasdelete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody But Microsoft[edit]

Pseudolinguistics of no notability. Only used on ZDNet. Delete. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, borders on nonsense. Martg76 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Nandesuka 16:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NNNL (non-notable neologism) --IByte 15:39, 15 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. Redwolf24 04:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf's contribution to the battle of Badr[edit]

Topic is not notable on its own. Almost all of the article copied word-for-word from ... somewhere. Dr Gangrene 14:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got it. Copyvio. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bukhari is not copyvio. Its standard Muslim tradition to included the over 1000 years old collection in historical articles. --Striver 17:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, who's the ignorant one now, then? Oh right, me. Fernando Rizo T/C 08:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Probably not copyvio but that may also depend on the copyright status of the translation used, so if a source was cited it would be helpful.Palmiro 14:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Battle of Badr (see below). -- BD2412 talk 18:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Individual tactical detail about somebody in a battle. Doesn't appear notable. — RJH 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:00
  • interwiki to wikisource or delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for the work of historians. If there is relevant information that can be merged concisely to Battle of Badr or an article on Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf then merge. Palmiro 16:14, 16 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Website of Calicut Medical College[edit]

Recently created, incomplete, not notable web page feydey 14:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Change to a page for the college. This is probably a newbie who didn't know the form. The college appears to exist. The web site is not notable but the college is.

Opps, agree delete, had looked for Callicut Medical College. --Gorgonzilla 21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The web-page is not notable. Dr Gangrene 15:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, already has a link on Calicut Medical College. Flowerparty talk 16:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nearly all articles about websites where the organisation it represents is notable by itself and the site doesn't have standalone notability.-Splash 16:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 17:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 18:25, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr[edit]

Article topic not notable on its own. Large part of the text seems to be copied from somewhere. Dr Gangrene 15:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Battle of Badr (see below). -- BD2412 talk 18:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Two novices lop off the head of an opponent during battle. Not notable. — RJH 20:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:00
  • interwiki to wikisource or merge to Battle of Badr. Palmiro 16:15, 16 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. Redwolf24 04:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 6th Assassin-Titan[edit]

Non-notable Anime character (three Google hits for "Assassin-Titan") -- Sandstein 15:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strike WP:V, just 'cos somethings fictional doesn't mean you can't verify it exists. Whether you'd want to is another issue. --zippedmartin 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Encephalon. Nandesuka 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the least merge to some character page, or the yuugiou fans will just recreate it one day. --zippedmartin 00:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex thompson[edit]

Apparent vanity page. Private, I'm sure you can create interesting military-related articles about something other than yourself. Sandstein 15:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Dr Gangrene 15:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7. Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 16:13:05, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion under new deletion criteria. - Mike Rosoft 16:45, 14 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jasonifikacija[edit]

A joke in Croatian.

  • Comments copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
    • It looks like Croatian to me and xrce. It seems to be a joke or personal attack, judging from the part that I understand. Sietse 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Croatian, it mentions Zagreb. Userfy? It was posted by User:Voorhees. Physchim62 21:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A joke. About a condition - "deformation" called Jasonification - first noticed in around 2000 that looks like that picture. Simply a joke. Solver 23:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Croatian. Joke page. Delete -- Curps 16:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an obvious joke, or just regular old delete. -- Visviva 14:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but put this up on BJAODN with English commentary, it's the funniest thing I've seen all day. A. J. Luxton 10:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kinda funny but Delete because kinda funny doesn't quite cut it. Paul 00:08, 18 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. Redwolf24 04:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True Life[edit]

Probably a vanity page. It is about an unpublished series of books by a non-notable author. Sandstein 15:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Amazon's not heard of him or his books. -Splash 16:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unpublished? Come back when it is. In the meantime delete. David | Talk 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, absolutely certain to be a vanity page. See also the anon user's edit history, which consists of vanity in every case except one (it seems Mr Schneider is a Godzilla fan). Newbie question: Does James A. Emanuel require nomination, or can it be deleted as part of a general cleanup after this fellow?
    • Seperate nomination is probably more straightforward. VfDs can be combined, but that often leads to confusion. -Splash 18:00, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ellectrika[edit]

NN, vanity posted by third party. Note that while the subject does not want this posted, this vfd is not a response to legal threat. I'm almost hoping for a keep vote just to piss her off. Delete Usrnme h8er 16:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Irrespective of the apparent conflicts between the parties involved, this seems non-notable. Sandstein 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like she doesn't pass WP:Music. Martg76 19:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a mess Dsc 19:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ignore the intervention by (apparently) the subject of the article. Not germaine to discussion. The page should be deleted because subject is not notable, important or significant enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia WP:MUSIC.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:49:49, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utterly bizarre. With that said, and in all seriousness, do we have a policy if, say, Brad Pitt decides to start a campaign to blank out his wiki page? What does wiki do if a notable person doesn't wish to be noticed? JDoorjam 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - I couldn't care less what anyone thinks, I want this page removed. I may be releasing music and pursing a music career but the people that created this page aren't using it for that purpose, they are simply trying to create a bit of a stir and I don't want a page about me or what others think of me on here because it's disturbing and retarded!! If any of you KNEW the background as to what these people do and what has happened then you'd understand why this is annoying me. REMOVE, DELETE!!!!!!!!! If I see anything else that I consider a defamation of my character or slanderous comments I WILL be taking further action. Now, get a life and go do something constructive with your time other than trying to constantly pull others down!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellectricka (talk • contribs) , made in series of 4 edits beginning 2005-08-15 21:47:17
Comment you may be missing the point of the phrase 'non-notable' here, Ellectrika. In the context of this discussion it is not intended as a slur, either personal or professional. It is merely an attempt to keep some measure of control over what articles do and do not persist on Wikipedia. For example Martg mentions WP:MUSIC above. Visit the link and you'll see that this is a set of guidelines (admittedly rough guidelines) as to what counts as "notable" in that context. Please note these are not subjective guidelines, they are merely criteria of how "big" – or "notable – a band or artiste is. No-one in this discussion is "pulling you down" (though there's a good measure of perplexity at what seems to be over-reaction; we don't know, and I at least don't particularly want to know, the background).
The people voting in this are in fact the last people you should be telling to 'go do something constructive with their time'. The "something constructive" that's being done is trying to get your problem solved – simply screaming 'remove, delete' won't do that as there's not a lot to stop it being reinstated, perhaps in another form. You might also take the time to read Wikipedia:No legal threats to see why legal threats are probably not the best way to start to argue your case. Tonywalton 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How strange. Delete for non-notability (and no other reason) Tonywalton 21:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever!! Just Delete it!! Ellectrika 14:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think Ellectrika was referring to the original article and not the vfd thread. The original article by User:Starboi was just a POV attack. - Hahnchen 14:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it was a blatant attack and I know some of the people responsible so I know their motives and they aren't nice!! Just delete the bloody page!! I don't want a page about me and I have every right to request it's removal so just bloody delete it, for Christs sake!! Ellectrika 14:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there User:Ellectrika. You may be wondering why the page Ellectrika hasn't yet been deleted. When a page in the encyclopedia is listed for deletion, a vote page is listed (for Ellectrika, it's the page you are looking at now), and comments are gathered for a period before voting is closed. That period for general articles in the encyclopedia is 5 days. At the end of 5 days, a sysop closes the vote page, considers the comments, and arrives at a decision as to whether to keep or delete. Since all comments here have been to delete, that will likely be the outcome (unless other editors object, for some reason, in the remaining time — this is unlikely). A small number of articles go through a much faster process of deletion, called speedy deletion. This is reserved for "articles" that are clearly inappropriate, for example, gibberish ("dsbkjdbgkjdngjkdngkdhmnkuijh" and such). Where regular pages are concerned, the 5 day period is intended to provide time for editors to consider the merits of the subject, how well (if at all) the article is written, and whether the article is somehow in contravention of Wikipedia policies. That's what's been happening here. If it will do anything to assuage your anxiety about the page, may I point out that it is, as you know, currently virtually blanked out, and in any case these new, unremarkable pages get an exceptionally low amount of traffic — it is likely that few people have seen it other than the creator, yourself, and the editors on this page. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  15:23:20, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. As JDoorjam asked above, does she (or anyone else) have that 'right' (or a 'right' for the request to be automatically granted, at any rate)? 192.18.1.9
Not regarding information that is in the pd, but as soon as information is considered "private" this becomes a sticky issue. Certainly not to be discussed on a vfd page however. Usrnme h8er 15:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was: speedily redirected by Mike Rosoft 23:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolomaic[edit]

No encyclopedic content. Ptolemy's geography is already mentioned in the Ptolemy article, but this entry only remotely mentions that. Instead, it mainly deals with trivial relationships between various ancient units of measurement. (And I kind of doubt that the lengths it mentions exactly correspond to each other.) No contents seem to be worth merging - delete and redirect to Ptolemaic dynasty (Ptolemaic already links there). - Mike Rosoft 16:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • By all means, redirect this yourself, Mike. We can't delete it and redirect it at the same time, so no need to list it as a VfD. / Peter Isotalo 21:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom --Alan Au 22:11, 14 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. Redwolf24 04:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Day After Tomorrow in International Languages[edit]

If this belonged anywhere, it should go into the Day After Tomorrow page, as a section. However, it is likely that if it was added to that page it would be edited out: this is simply not a level of trivial detail that most of our movie pages go into, or any other pages for that matter. The transliterated actors' names are not interesting: English Wikipedia routinely provides the native name (in a non-Latin-alphabet writing system) for foreign personal and place names; however, we don't provide transliterations into every conceivable non-Latin-alphabet writing system of English personal and place names. The movie title in foreign languages may be somewhat more interesting, since this is usually not a transliteration and often not even a translation, but often a newly chosen title. However, we would usually not routinely provide these unless they were of particular interest. See http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/ for some non-English titles of this movie. -- Curps 16:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whatever, delete. Sandstein 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this belonged anywhere, it should go into the in other languages link box on the Day After Tomorrow page, and the names of the characters are unenc in the English language WP. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly like DrTorstenHenning, Merge titles to Day After Tomorrow (IMDb lists alternate titles, why shouldn't we?), delete translated character names. --IByte 21:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge anything useful into the movie article. There's no need to have an international titles article for every movie, and this film wasn't particularly successful anyway. 23skidoo 02:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge - A satire on Japanese Engrish ?--Jondel 02:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing to merge as all Japanese names are incorrect. In this case, the Japanes movie title is just transliteration ('the' is ommited though) so there are no need to mention it in Day After Tomorrow page. --Kusunose 10:46, 15 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ckl[edit]

Obscure leetspeek definition, probably vanity. Sandstein 16:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity, IRC-cruft. Nandesuka 16:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- obscure indeed --Mysidia (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Mairi 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • dlt! LOL! Sdedeo 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sdedeo: Please clarify, is dlt short for a delete vote?
      • Yes. I am working on a wikipedia article documenting my new coinage. (No, I'm not, don't worry.) Sdedeo 15:08, 18 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 07:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the_eXile[edit]

Hate Speech: "..the eXile salutes Women's Day" w/ picture of a woman holding "Will Rim for Food" sign - nice (accurately representing the publication's fascist misogeny); Libel (unsupported and gratuitous charge of sexual harassment against editor of competitor paper); Forbidden vanity page; Advertising; Pornography (description of paper's scheme for ranking Internet prostitution services); Fascism (representative quote: "the eXile's Nazi commemoration issue!"); Overall inappropriate subject for Wikipedia

  • Keep - article appears encyclopedic to me. It does not contain pornography and seems factual enough to pass the VfD test. Rob Church Talk | Desk 16:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that some of the eXile's content would be libellous if it wasn't parody, but that in itself isn't grounds for deleting the article. And the image (which may be copyvio) isn't actually needed, and (if it's really that offensive) can be removed. The rest of the article seems reasonably keepworthy to me. DS 17:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dislike of content is not grounds for deletion. Dottore So 19:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per DS. --GraemeL 22:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DS. DES (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC) (Is this a VfD for people whose initals are DS only? :) I count three to date) DES (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, spurious nomination. --MarkSweep 00:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone thinks the eXile is hate speech, fascist, or genuinely anti-women, libelous, let them prove it with solid sources and add that to the article. Real hate speech should be documented in an encyclopedic way and is not an "inappropriate subject for Wikipedia" Dsol 12:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep abakharev 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there some way to punish people who nominate for such silly reasons?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was de;ete. - Mailer Diablo

Sad rea;;y[edit]

Non-notable typocruft from one single webforum. De;ete. DS 17:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Web-cruft not notable outside of its own forum. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • De;ete. Non-notab;e neo;ogism. -- BD2412 ta;k 17:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- for the reasons already presented --Mysidia (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Soltak 20:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del;;ete — Whoops, typo. RJH 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ban creator for time wasting. Erwin Walsh
    We don't do that, but I think forumcruft is on its way to becoming the next speedy criterion. Gazpacho
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:40:18, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • De;ete. Non-notab;e. --GraemeL 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Votes were altered by 24.158.168.207 (talk · contribs) on 22:58, 14 August 2005. User has been warned on talk page. --Alan Au 23:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bobo[edit]

Jest havin' a little fun. Denni☯ 17:02, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

  • Please don't make bad faith VfD nominations. Having said that, the article was previously listed as a speedy candidate. You have in fact extended the process unnecessarily. Rob Church Talk | Desk 17:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we just re-speedy the delete of this patent nonsense? --DrTorstenHenning 17:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 18:22, August 14, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muawwaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Muaaz ibn Amr contribution to the battle of Badr, Umayah ibn Khalaf's contribution to the battle of Badr, Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr, Obaidah ibn al-Harith's contribution to the battle of Badr, Ali ibn Abu Talib's contribution to the battle of Badr, Bilal ibn Ribah's contribution to the battle of Badr[edit]

Article topic is not notable on its own. Dr Gangrene 17:15, 14 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. Redwolf24 04:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of XM Satellite Radio Channels[edit]

This page is not suitable for Wikipedia as it essential is a directory for XM Satellite radio, duplicating the information available off Wiki at [11]. It also is only linked to one single page XM Satellite Radio and unlikely to be linked to elsewhere. It would be better if this were simply an external link on that page. Caerwine 17:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable
  • Delete. I'm inclined to think that individual XM channels are not notable in and of themselves, unless someone wants to convince me otherwise. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:02
  • Delete. Why have a page which is basically a copy of the XM page? A link in the main article to the external page would be of more value since it would always be correct. Vegaswikian 05:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A list is notable? --Calton | Talk 16:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • (Comment) The subject is notable enough. Instead of relying on XM's list, I think it is not a bad idea to have an independent list that, as time goes by, will reflect changes, provide space for comments, and will never require some strange browser plug-ins. The XM Satellite Radio article is already quite long, so separating the list seems the right thing to do. --DrTorstenHenning 06:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The various generic genre channels of either this or its competetor Sirius Satellite Radio will never be notable enough to warrant forming an article around them. A common list of the syndicated radio channels available might be worth including as a separate article, with it indicating which sat radio providers carry them while the few unique and exclusive signature channels with original content created by XM or Sirius should simply be linked to from within each article with no need for a list. Caerwine 15:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Comment). Radio channels that thousands of people listen to while driving millions of miles should be no more non-notable than Harry Potter paraphernalia or Pokemon characters that have watered down the standard of notability in Wikipedia. Once they are gone (which sadly will not happen), I would be the first to agree that a list of radio channels might disappear as well. And I think that the articles on the operators themselves are already long enough to warrant the separation of their signature channels into a separate list, which then is the natural place for the list of the syndicated channels as well. --DrTorstenHenning 06:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Vegaswikian. --Calton | Talk 16:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep along with a list of all channels that have been removed.Thanos6 05:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I listen to XM. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable Chuck428 19 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 MERGE to Autozone. The content appears to already be there, so I will just redirect. -Splash 07:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duralast[edit]

private label of one car repair supply company Nelgallan 17:39, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Eagle[edit]

Neologism/dicdef, your choice. Seems to have been created solely to slur certain people. User:Outlanderssc has done a good job to clean that stuff up, but I don't think the article is encyclopaedic even after the edits. "Paper Eagle" scout gets hardly any hits on Google, while "Paper Eagle" on its own is mostly unrelated. fuddlemark 18:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Sandstein 19:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Dottore So 19:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V. Watch that page. The anon reverted the personal attack.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:33:02, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.14.130 (talk • contribs) at 2005-08-15 02:17:01
  • Delete as per nominator - Agreed, the author seems to have a private agenda. --Outlander 21:43, 15 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. Redwolf24 04:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Snape[edit]

person, which didnt/does not exist

  • Keep, Tarzan didn't and does not exist either. Kappa 18:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: long precedence of articles on fictional characters in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 18:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Since when was just being about a fictional character a good criterion for deletion? --Mysidia (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not only is it an invalid reason, but the nomination is unsigned. CanadianCaesar 20:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, invalid reason from an unsigned, anonymous, first time edit. --Presnell 20:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with Mysidia. Have I missed something? --Celestianpower hab 20:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If you deleted this you would have to delted ALL of the fictional characters...which would be insane--Aeon 21:22 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable fictional character. I ask again - why are anonymous users allowed to nominate people for vfd when their votes aren't eligible to be counted. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - yes they are. An account is not necessary to participate in wikipedia. Anonymous votes and nominations should only be discounted if bad faith can be proven. Proto t c 10:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable fictional character: the only information in the article -- the only possible information in the article -- is that he is the father of Severus Snape and married a muggle. Not encyclopedic until, at the very least, the next book in the series. --Calton | Talk 00:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in 50 years time when everyone has forgotten about the Harry Potter thing. Or maybe not, depending on how computer storage, processing, and communications have developed. Omit from print edition of wikipedia, and shoot Rowling for using such a crass device for exploring racism issues. --zippedmartin 00:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not because of any issues with Harry Potter (I quite like it) or because it's a fictional character, but because it is a useless article containing no information that cannot also be found by reading the article on Severus Snape. If someone wants to bang together a list of minor characters in Harry Potter, perhaps a merge might be useful, but this article is absolutely worthless.
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:03
  • Redirect and Merge anything useful into the article on Severus Snape. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harry Potter characters. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pottercruft. Character doesn't even appear in the book, is just discussed - briefly - in around 4 sentences or so. Is there a List of minor characters in Harry Potter or something similar that this sort of thing can go in? Proto t c 10:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge Preferably as per Proto, otherwise as per Grutness. Caerwine 02:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill Dumbledore --SPUI (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He's a really minor character in the books and didn't even have any dialogue so far. Merge info either with the Severus Snape or the minor characters page. unsigned by 80.131.252.203 (talk · contribs)
  • Speedy Merge and Redirect to whoever the guy is the son of, and I assume most of the deleters above also mean merge and redirect, right? Func( t, c, @, ) 14:56, 20 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/Keep. Redwolf24 04:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Emanuel[edit]

Non-notable (as I understand it; 800-1000 hits on Google, depending on search term} poet, page created by Dan Schnieder (user 69.9.96.108) as part of his vanity assaults (see also: WikiPedia:Votes for deletion/True Life). fuddlemark 18:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Sandstein 19:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schneider may be guilty of vanity in promoting his article, but this poet clearly exists and as such is worthy of an entry - I was easily able to find some of his work online. Should be considered a stub. Dottore So 20:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 900 google hits for a poet is rather high. Pburka 20:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is a stub but is about an important poet. The Google hit count should also take into count that this poet was mainly published before the internet age, so those 900 hits should count for more than a current poet with 900 hits. --Alabamaboy 20:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rewritten the entry and eliminated the gratuitous vanity reference in the text.Dottore So 21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad news people: This article already exists. See James Emanuel. I propose a redirect to this older article. I now will cut and paste the relevant, non-duplicating info to that article.--Alabamaboy 22:23, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have now transfered the nonduplicate information. If a consensus arrives to turn this page into a redirect to James Emanuel, then let's do it.--Alabamaboy 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doh! I should have checked first. However, at least it spurred a content update, so in that regard the VfD was useful.Dottore So 22:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice catch, Alabamaboy. I'd like to change my vote (if'n I had one in the first place) to redirect.--fuddlemark 22:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:03
  • Merge or redirect for obvious reasons. Martg76 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems to be to redirect the page. I have now done this. --Alabamaboy 01:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Duffy[edit]

Vanity, non notable. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete. Vanity. Not notable. --GraemeL 19:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. Sandstein 19:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under new deletion criteria. PatGallacher 19:24, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
Link? Erwin Walsh
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beardy[edit]

Definition of a warhammer gaming term. No thanks. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete, non-notable. Sandstein 19:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Delete. Shimgray 20:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Warhammer? Else Delete. --Celestianpower hab 21:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm kinda tempted to keep this in some form, I've heard it used outside games workshop circles. 's a bit dicdef though. --zippedmartin 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neologism. Martg76 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism and dictdef. Part of me is tempted to write a blatantly POV screed about the essentially insane tournament culture in WHFB and WH40K, where sportsmanship boils down to "win by as little as possible, and do everything you can to make it look like it was a matter of luck," because Games Workshop can't be bothered to prevent power creep or even bother to rigorous outside playte-...uh, right. Neologism and dictdef. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Branson or Noel Edmunds Delete. David | Talk 11:19, 16 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. Redwolf24 04:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Ant[edit]

Non notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete as per above; also, the article creator, William Juntunen, removed the VfD tag in breach of VfD rules. Newbie question: is this grounds for sanctions? Sandstein 19:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the statements below, I'm changing my vote to keep, on the assumption that notability will be more clearly established. The VfD submision may have been premature. Sandstein 20:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highly notable. Planet Ant is a valuable example of an artist incubator where young actors, directors, sound designers, stage managers practice their craft as they prepare more prestigious jobs. In the area of Detroit culture, at least five to ten actors in major roles can trace their beginning to Planet Ant. Planet Ant also hosts one of two vital film festivals in the Michigan. The concern has operated for at least 8 years, has won funding from Federal and State level agencies. Wmjuntunen 19:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for the VFD mark, it is the first time I've experience this mark.

  • Weak keep I see a lot of weblinks to this. Still, the article itself is very weak, in his defence above Wmjuntunen's written a better entry then the article itself. If it really plays this big a role in Detroit culture I guess it should stay.
  • Thank you. I usually begin an article with a stub that gives basics: location, place in time, and a general overview. I employ Wikipedia to do at least ten to fifteen drafts before leaving it alone, and then I communicate with subject-matter experts for a verification read. I understand this part of the Wikipedia process better now, and I am now collaborating with Michigan cultural writers to make certain content about our cultural life passes the ratification process. Wmjuntunen 20:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think Wmjuntunen's personal process of first adding basic information, then refining it over several days while collaborating with others is a perfectly reasonable approach given that we are all volunteers here who contribute when we can find the time. With that said, this article has good encyclopedic potential and I'd like for the author to have time to flesh it out (as it was nominated for VfD on its creation date.) --Presnell 20:46, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starquake_(star)[edit]

This page is wrong; glitches are not thought to be starquakes 63.13.130.200 19:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. If the info is wrong, fix it. Fascinating phenomenon; page needs to be expanded. ArcTheLad 20:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. Tag with {{{attention}}}. Expand if you have knowledge in this field.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:19:48, 2005-08-14 (UTC) NB. Please strongly consider removing this from VfD, 63.13.130.200. This is not a candidate for the VfD page. See WP:DEL for VFD criteria. We can't remove the tag of a VfD we didn't initiate, but I believe as initiator you can. The reason I'm asking is that with ~100 pages on VfD/day, the VfD system is already way overloaded. Regards,—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:25:57, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep no reason to delete this. --Etacar11 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as far as I know, astronomers still believe oscillations in emissions from a neutron star are due to starquakes: [12]
  • The nominator is correct, pulsar timing glitches are not starquakes, but something more complicated. Starquakes do happen, though, it's a separate phenom. But the nominator went about this the wrong way; she should have simply updated the information with greater clarity. Speedy keep. Sdedeo 13:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep.--Kross 09:08, August 18, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Reddy Andem[edit]

This seems to be about a graduate student, notability is unclear. Listing it here, because I'm not sure if it can be speedily deleted. Note that there are two virtually identical pages here, Vikram Reddy Andem and Vikram Reddy. --MarkSweep 19:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Insufficient notability, and the article itself is almost unreadable. Pburka 20:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. CSD A7. Tagged. Apart from the CSD violation, is barely readable. Essentially list of links in shape of CV. I doubt this person even intended an article written about the subject.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:12:01, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 02:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elf Sternberg[edit]

Non prolific. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents#Literature. Author appears to meet none of the criteria, such as having at least one published work. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Expand Elf Sternberg was one of Usenets most motable people back in the 1990s, probably one of the 20 or so most famous people on the net. He posted extensively to alt-sex. These indiscriminate bulk VfD from Walsh are getting very tiresome.--Gorgonzilla 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist from wiki-stalking me, Gorgonzilla. You should also remeber to sign all edits; you have been warned repeatedly. Erwin Walsh
You have demonstrated incompetence in this area, your VfD nominations are about 70% accurate which is not much better than one would expect from random chance and the title of the article.--Gorgonzilla 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have no interest in the merits of the article, only in making attacks against credibility or my intetions in improving the encylopedia. Besides, if the author has only ever posted on Usenet he/she will not be well know amongst non-members. Erwin Walsh
What do you mean by non-members? Usenet is not a club. The current host of the FAQ describes it as "the most-often-accessed sex-education document on the net", and I guess she has the statistics to prove it. --Palnatoke 20:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that Usenet is an insular community. People who do not post/read it will have no concept of what it is. Unless this person has had publicity outside of Usenet, in the form of press, book/magazine publishings, etc then there is no justification for inclusion. Erwin Walsh
Walsh, do not make silly accusations. You were probably not around when Usenet was the online community. It has not had that position since Canter and Segal destroyed it. Elf is a very significant online pioneer. He was one of the first people to post a regular FAQ to any of the usenet groups. His was certainly the most significant, it transformed the newsgroup. Your criteria for notability are somewhat strange, Paris Hilton is better known than Tim Berners-Lee, which one of the two do you think would be considered more notable by the editors of Britannica? I doubt you have heard of Butler Lampson or Tony Hoare but they are both very significant Turing Award winners. Perhaps if you bothered to explain your VfD nominations on talk pages, took a few seconds to Google the item and stopped deleting criticism of your sloppy actions from your user page you might be more credible.--Gorgonzilla 23:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand - I have now changed the emphasis of the stub from his fiction to his Usenet and sexuality activities. He may not be notable as a writer (although he is good), but he is absolutely notable as a Usenet person, especially in the vicinity of alt.sex. --Palnatoke 20:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is more clearly established. Being "an usenet personality" or writing many usenet sex stories doesn't qualify, IMHO. Sandstein 20:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd vote to Expand it. While fanfic is not normally notable, his best known piece of writing may be an exception. The erotic short short story "The Only Fair Game" is the leading candidate for the single most infamous piece of fanfic in existance. Its speculation about homosexual practices amoung Larry Niven's Kzinti got Elf Sternberg a cease-and-desist letter from Niven's lawyers in an incident that to date remains notorious within the SF fandom community; there's mention of what happened on the fan fiction wikipedia entry, as well as by Niven himself in the introduction to Man-Kzin Wars IV (ISBN 0671720791). Furthermore, Elf was a relatively well known personality on Usenet prior to development of the WWW and the September that never ended, a prominent poster in the alt.sex.* heirarchy and rec.arts.sf.written — some of the most widely read newsgroups of the time. His editorship for a time of the alt.sex FAQ reflected this. At that time, probably only Kibo and Brad Templeton were more well known on Usenet. He's not widely famous, but the controversy of the Kzinti piece alone probably makes him worth a brief article — although one that will probably never grow much beyond the current stub. Abb3w 20:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have included the story in the article; still a stub, though. --Palnatoke 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hmm. We already have a reasonable precedent for notability of articles on Usenet folks, some of whom are notable otherwise (Gene Spafford, Henry Spencer, Brad Templeton) and some of whom are only notable in the context of Usenet (Robert McElwaine, Kibo, even B1FF). I'd guess worth keeping even in the absence of notability for the writing. This is something slightly more notable than "X is a frequent poster to the forums at Y and is really cool", which we see a lot... Shimgray 21:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Sandstein, and I say that as a former "usenet personality." And no, I ain't saying who. Nandesuka 21:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usenet nostalgia. / Peter Isotalo 21:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I resent the use of Wikipedia VfD for Cleanup. --Celestianpower hab 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC) OMG!!! Am I really that tired? --Celestianpower hab 21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable on several grounds. Niven has commented on the kizinti parody in print (in N-Space IIRC). A regular figure on rec.arts.sf.written, as well as in alt.sex DES (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable as an author and talking about sex on usenet doesn't meet the biography criteria.--nixie 00:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everybody who has been around the block once or twice knows Elf. His guide to choosing a good vibrator was a must-read in the DIY net sex culture of the 1990s. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is well know on Usenet. He gets 6,280 hits on Google and 15,000 on google groups. Vegaswikian 05:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he is noted in a sub-culture of the size of usenet, he is notable enough. pamri 06:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. There are 6,830 Google hits but examination of these makes it appear that this is a by-product of his productivity, not his notoriety. As to the goups, there do not appear to be any dedicated to him, his activity levels seem to be inflating the numbers. There are 0 results on Google News, and a single major media appearance does not pass the bar for me. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable Usenet person. Vashti 12:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen his fiction mentioned in various non-Usenet places. Keep. DS 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Posting on usenet does not imply notability. Martg76 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should be clear he didn't just post on Usenet. --Prosfilaes 03:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Voyager640 03:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Rich Farmbrough 14:52, 17 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. mikka (t) 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kempler video[edit]

Non-notable conspiracy theory being promoted by userid created to promote this and other conspiracy theories by Barry Chamish. Very few Google hits, and those are mostly from Wikipedia pages or mirrors. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Jay et al: Why is it any different from the Zapruder film that has its own Wikipedia article? IZAK 10:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we allow conspiracy theories to roam here, the quality of WP as a seious encyclopedia will deteriorate. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Why would this particular conspiracy theory be non-notable? I do guess it's only really relevant to Israeli. So perhaps this vfd discussion would benefit from an Israeli's POV?--Lomedae 21:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unadulterated rubbish. We already have Barry Chamish and Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories for the nutcases to play with. By the way, I got this video off the internet soon after it first appeared on Israeli TV and I still have it. The claim that it was somehow suppressed until the intrepid Chamish uncovered it is pure BS. --Zero 10:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because it is the only film of Rabin's assasination, --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to Merge into Yitzhak Rabin and Yitzhak Rabin assassination conspiracy theories. Because although important, it doesn't need its own page. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is it harmful to anyone? if the conspiracy theory is not the true - it`s just another conspiracy theory.

BUT if it`s true - it`s a revolution that might begin from WIKI.

  • Keep. Because it is the only film of Rabin's assasination, small group works hard to keep video off wiki --Kempler Video plus it took me 6 hours to write the article, and I looked at the video maybe 50 times
  • Delete. Non-notable personal conspiracy theory, inherently POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Deletion would be censorship. --Rebroad 20:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The video itself isn't inherently POV, and it's the basis for a number of popular conspiracy theories (which, IMO, makes it notable). I think this could be fixed with {{NPOV}} and {{cleanup}} tags. Those tags would hopefully provide motivation to cite sources and present the article neutrally. HKT talk 23:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is there an attempt to censor this? The video exists, doesn't it? Has been shown on TV. Made some waves, even if rather small. Why should we suppress mention of it? Grace Note 06:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe a NPOV version of this article is possible. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak Conditional Keep - The article must cite more sources and take care to be NPOV. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • People, stop this nonsense about censorship. This is a well-known video seen countless times and it is linked to Yitzhak Rabin. What we don't want is this conspiracy theory rubbish about it. In any case it is quite obviously original research and thus against the rules. --Zero 13:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a well-known film, then surely there should be a page about it? Am I missing something? We're perfectly capable of editing the article to remove "conspiracy theory rubbish" (although I don't know of any policy here that doesn't permit conspiracy theories to be aired, and we have a large number of pages that do that. So long as they are from sources outside Wikipedia, there is no "original research" involved -- although, of course, those who want this particular conspiracy theory suppressed will argue that the sources for it are not "reputable"... ho hum). Grace Note 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clearly not "original research" and whether or not it is a conspiracy theory has nothing to do with whether or not it should be deleted. Should references to the Zapruder Film be deleted? Of course not. --208.181.101.125 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this not original research? It doesn't cite a single source. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • It shouldn't be hard to find sources that this is the basis of a prevalent conspiracy theory. Just because the sources aren't yet cited, doesn't make it intrinsically original research. Revamp the article and cite sources. HKT talk 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the article is about a historically significant real thing. Must be be cleaned up, though. mikka (t) 18:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.I saw the video 9 times, it is scary, the descriprion is accurte. I called a friend in Israel and he confirmed that they never show the video on TV which is scary. Wiki may be headed for world news when this thing gets going. Stevie Good user talk:Stevie Good) 18:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Zapruder film is famous to this day, got sold for millions and does not show half as much as this the Kempler film shows. Zapruder was not a well knows name till years after the JFK assasination. I have a strange feeling that Kempler will be a famous name worldwide and would not be surprised that there are people working to supress this film --Brooklyn Guy 4:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The film is an objective piece of evidence in a murder case with many unsolved questions. Letting the public analyze this piece of evidence can contribute to understanding what really happened. I can see no harm in keeping this. Yoav Cohen 23:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely! This is already an important part of modern Jewish history, like it or not. Why are people afraid to face the prospect that Rabin's demise was far more complicated than meets the naked eye? IZAK 10:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assaination videos should be covered, I think. The Zapruder flim is a infamous film, and the Kempler video could be the next one. We shouldn't just becasue of a small section of conspiracy theory crap. It's a flim god damn it. Should we delete Star Wars Kid next? How about Numa Numa? Why don't we delete Zapruder flim also, it could be biased because it mentions consipiracy theories. We just need to improve, not delete! --Saint-Paddy 18:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Sadly to say that Kempler video is the seven and a half video minute of the Rabin murder and my explanation of the historical importance of the video is accurate. Once you see the video and read the explanation you will see that we are talking about something very important historically. Leave the thing up because it is historically very important. For the Rabin murder it is more important to figure out what really happened than the JFK murder film was what happened to JFK. Imagine taking down the JFK murder film with similar arguments. The difference is that most Israelis only remember the film from 9 years ago and the video has not been seen since. Really wierd. Results 1 - 10 of about 7,960 for kempler video is the google hits, which is alot for a video that has not bad been seen in over nine years. But of course, we are cutting to the chase of the Rabin murder and there are people who cannot let this happen. (unsigned by User:Kempler Video).

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Drew[edit]

He is "arguably one of the best young players in the country" in rugby, but he isn't a professional player. He's only 14, and playing in school. Joyous (talk) 21:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete/speedy. Unimpressive claim to notability. Flowerparty talk 21:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/speedy. "Arguably"? Oh, I'll argue it's a load of teen vanity. --IByte 22:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Borderline speedy as nn-bio, but I can see why Joy pulled the punch as he may be notable in rugby circles. No references cited, however. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. If he was one of the best young players in the country, he would have been selected for a junior English side. No claim of this is made in the article, he is a junior rugby player like thousands of others around the world. Capitalistroadster 23:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Secretlondon 05:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:35, 18 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. Redwolf24 04:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rab - Ryukyu Islands[edit]

Looks like a wikified infodump from some (stamp?) catalogue; no clear indication what the article is supposed to be about. Delete unless context and sense are established. Sandstein 21:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, sorry, judging from the category it's part of "micro entries about all known postage stamp issuers in terms of the issues they have implemented". Still, is this ultra-list-of-everything encyclopedic? I honestly don't know. Sandstein 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

through to

  • Perhaps someone should have a word with him. --Calton | Talk 00:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The info belongs on some Wikimedia project. Maybe Wikipedia. (WP has huge numbers of list of stuff that lots of people consider non-encyclopedic but are useful to someone.) Can someone suggest which one? Also, of course the names should be changed to something like "List of stamps: Rab - Ryuku Islands." Fg2 08:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it's not even clear what this list is about. Moreover, a lot of it duplicates information already present elsewhere in WP. --IByte 15:32, 15 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.


As Calton said, "perhaps someone should have a word with him (i.e., me)". But, no, go ahead and delete it it. We don't understand it and we are too lazy to ask the author so lets just get rid of it! What sort of irresponsible attitude is this to a large project that is currently being worked on? If one of you had taken a look at my user page and my talk page you would have seen that progress is being made on a daily basis. I am currently pipelinking the articles into a new category. As for the individual who whinged about "redlink stuff", why not wait a day or two to see if it turns blue like everything else in the list? I wonder I bother? --Jack 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Villains on Buffy the Vampire Slayer[edit]

Unencyclopedic, Buffy-cruft. It's dedicating a whole article on the "villain" aspect of a TV show. It's redundant because it just reiterates information found in a table in the main BtVS slayer and information from the individual villain articles. In addition, there is a bunch of fandom information posing as facts with no references (i.e. "Some fans", "little bad", etc.) Conter 21:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As so eloquently stated above. --Lomedae 21:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because (1) The nominator didn't even add a tag to the article (I added it for him)- drawing the nomination into question, and (2) As one user remarked on the talk page, while it's redundant at the moment, "That's not to say there's no place for this article, just that it needs expansion to be pertintent. Perhaps more description--the villains objectives, etc.--should be given of the major villains. It might be good to include more of the minor, one episode villains as well." CanadianCaesar 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also interesting to note that this nomination represents the user's only edits. [13] CanadianCaesar 22:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's NOT interesting is this article. Duplicative fancruft, delete. --Calton | Talk 00:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You people are dumb. This is good stuff. Only fascists would decide to delete. (vote & comments by user User:172.158.10.66 [14])
  • Keep. Fight the fascist regime. User:Freedom from Fascists
  • Keep. Destroy the cabal's evil deletion plan. User:Cabal Fighter
  • Keep. Deleting this article grants the cabal the ability to Lorena Bobbit any article. User:Keeper of good things
  • Keep. Look at the fascists. One of them even commented with Heil VfD. Fight the fascists now before they delete the whole wikipedia. User:King Pat
  • Keep. Don't let the punk bitches delete this article. Buffy A 05:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into main article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:04
  • Keep. This is the ULTIMATE Buffy article on Wikipedia. All you delete people are anti-Buffy. Buffy is the BEST show on television and the show deserves dozens of articles about it. You people need to get off your high horse and CHANGE YOUR DELETE VOTES TO KEEP. Otherwise, I will expose all the members of this anti-Buffy cabal to the entire community. IF YOU DELETE THIS ARTICLE, YOU ONLY DEMONSTRATE THAT WIKIPEDIA IS RUN BY A BUNCH OF FASCISTS. Ivers2 03:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan-cruft and repetitive to boot. I disagree with the fascist name-calling since the information is already in the stubby villain articles at Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Also, in Buffy The Vampire Slayer the villains are already listed there with links to each villain character article. Sixpence 03:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not because it's fancruft (I gave up on killing fancruft when I read Jimbo Wales agree on m:Wiki is not paper that Wikipedia might as well document every Simpsons episode and character); it should be deleted because it is original research. --Tysto 04:01, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crufty, original research. Heil VfD! Proto t c 10:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a huge Buffy fan. I mean, huge. Like, super-duper, know-the-name-if-every-episode, trekkie fan of it. However I am also a wikipedian and we don't do original research. So, and I say this tearing my human soul into piecies, delete gkhan 10:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Ohh, and by the way, the big bad for season 2 was not drusilla, it was angelus!!! Stupid, stupid rat creatures gkhan 10:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The core of the article is essentially a summary of one aspect of the show, which could be kept, because many articles about fiction include a summary. However, beyond this core, is much that is interpretation, and the author's claims about what most fans feel. If all of the questionable material is removed, there isn't a lot that can't be found elsewhere. Regardless, I agree with gkhan: There is no way that Dru is the big bad of season 2; it's clearly Angelus. ManoaChild 12:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, now I've got fancruft all over me. Nandesuka 13:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve or merge The concept of the article isn't bad, but its current execution is extremely poor. Caerwine 18:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect one direction or the other is fine by me. Kim Bruning 01:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unneeded cruft, bad article, etc., etc., etc. ral315 01:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I worked on this article recently, but I realize that the encyclopedic potential for this to equal a featured article is very little. Also, I couldn't find any authoritative sources for some of the article's claims, therefore the "original research" argument is valid. For example, no authoritative source states The First's morphing in "Lessons" were suppose to be big bads or just villains from past seasons. In addition, it looks like this focus on the Buffy villain is spawning more duplicates such as big bad. At best a merge into the main Buffy article, but it's already there under the "Characters" section so I vote delete. ! ! ! 01:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoublePlusStrong Keep - Even if the content is poor, poor content is not a valid reason for deleting an article. We should be working to improve it, rather than simply removing something we don't want to take the time to work on. All these votes for the deletion of a page whose namespace at least has some potential to it, almost make me ashamed to call myself a Wikipedian. This is inexcusible. --Corvun 14:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we all know this. We don't want it deleted because the content is bad, we want it deleted because it is original research, and it if you removed the original research what would be left is, well, basically a list of the villains. That article would be quite useless, as it would be a complete duplicate of Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer#Characters and the villain pages. Please read WP:NOR gkhan 08:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicative fancruft filled with original research. Shard 04:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Combine and Redirect. The "original research" notion seems pretty weak. Anybody who has watched this show and thought about it should see that it acurately tells what happens with villains on buffy the vampire slayer. Here's the primary source for the claims made in the article: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Seasons One through Seven. If that's not source enough, I cite TV guide. If that's not enough, I'll go find one of the dozen books on on Buffy and cite that. They all agree that what this article says is acurate. Anyone who has thought about the show can verify that most of the claims in this article are acurate, and can correct them where they are astray. No wild or controversial interpretations are offered in this article. And note this from the OR page: "[R]esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." This article is not creating a primary source, it is reporting the content of a primary source. A friend of mine has a slogan: "If you want to know about an obscure Roman emperor, go to encyclopedia britanica for all I care. If you want to know about a Sith Lord, go to Wikipedia." Wikipedia is reliably a very good source of information about our evolving popular culture, probably the best on the net, probably the best in there is. Wikipedia should be proud of this rather than trying to evolve into a stuffy attempt to be Encyclopedia Britanica. Course, I'm the one who wrote most of this article... User:Philosofool 13:55 PDT 21 August 2005
  • Delete. I agree with most of the above reasons - fancruft, duplicitive, original research, etc... Pusher 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems milder than the Ashlee Simpson fancruft, but it is still fancruft nonetheless. The characters section in the main Buffy article and all the individual villain articles in the Buffy category is already enough. Quop 06:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Buffy A has blanked this page and submitted it for speedy deletion, twice. Please monitor this page for vandalism. ManoaChild 07:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. While crufty, also of interest. Merging with the main article would suffice. gerryk 13:43, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

§yndicate Gaming[edit]

Non-notable group of online gamers. --MarkSweep 21:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable indeed. Nufy8 21:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTERMINATE! --Cool Cat My Talk 21:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kick Delete Not a clan who seem to have done anything in particular. --Sum0 21:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I praise them for their use of unusual characters in an attempt to look 1337. ral315 21:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The clan is in fact a major player in certain games. Deleting this just because it seems 'non-notable' to yourself, is a disregard to others interests. 23:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
We have a few pages on gaming clans (Category:Computer and video game clans), but only the most prominent ones. How prominent are §yndicate Gaming? Some sources would be useful. --Sum0 00:14, 15 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple sentences in lugisu (lumasaaba)[edit]

The material in the article used to be here as well as in Masaba (then Lugisu language) along with license information (now removed). Just a collection of random phrases phrases in Masaba (the most common name for the language) without any encyclopedic value. "Examples" is no longer considered a relevant section in language articles by Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages and there's no info here worth saving. Delete. Peter Isotalo 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Certainly a well-meaning editor, but WP:NOT a phrasebook. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a phrasebook. Nice, but not encyclopedic. Could be placed on talk maybe. — mark ✎ 16:56, 23 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ORMEs[edit]

Original research and/or vanity and/or unverifiable. Sandstein 21:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worse than that, from the Library of Halexandria [sic]: The ORME -- related to Star Fire, and also known as The Philosopher’s Stone, the Elixir of Life, the White Powder of Gold, Ma-na or Manna... Pseudo-science bull. --Lomedae 21:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity about original pseudoscience. Andrew pmk 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, etc. ral315 21:59, August 14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BigClique.com[edit]

Article is nothing but an advert for a search engine. --GraemeL 21:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the above. Sandstein 21:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Lomedae 21:44, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Traffic Rank for bigclique.com: 37,677 from alexa. -Hmib 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete It is precise and informative. There is nothing negative about the written text I can see. 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The above unsigned comment was by User:Bigclique. -Hmib 23:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being precise, informative and non-negative has nothing to do with the VfD. Please see the proposed guidelines - Wikipedia:Websites. --GraemeL 00:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I don't believe it's helpful to have articles on websites that are not large enough to be recognisable outside of the internet. Erwin Walsh
  • Comment: An alexa ranking of 37000~ is pretty good for a website, though definitely not for a search engine. Still no vote. -Hmib 01:24, 15 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. Redwolf24 04:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Baltro and Steng[edit]

Why have an article on a subject so obscure it has only 3 results on google, two of which reference back to wikipedia? Far too specialist. Erwin Walsh

  • Keep -- Zatch Bell is clearly not obscure. What google provides is apparently little indication on this subject.. did you have a search done for references to the subject that would be in Japanese? --Mysidia (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, then, the article belongs in the Japanese wikipedia? Erwin Walsh
No, because the article is written in English, it clearly the one that belongs on the English Wikipedia. I can't read Japanese, so this is pretty speculative, but if a subject is notable enough that it should be in the Japanese Wikipedia, then it should most definitely have an article written in English on the English Wikipedia also. --Mysidia (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that Mysidia's arguments as to retaining within the English Wikipedia and of overall non-obscurity is sound. However, I disagree with the conclusion this justifies a stand alone article.
Should this not then be Expanded or Merged (with a possible redirect) with the main Zatch Bell article's reference to the Baltro and Steng characters? Alternatively, should all of the Zatch Bell characters have expanded entries develop? Looking at what seems to be the Japanese wikipedia Zatch Bell entry, it would appear (from my feeble attempt to use Google's translator) that the Japanese entry has the individual characters only described within the Zatch Bell page, not on individual pages. This would imply a Merge back into the main article, with a Redirect added at Baltro and Steng to the main Zatch Bell article, as the best course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abb3w (talk • contribs) on 21:59, 14 August 2005
  • Merge/Redirect to Zatch Bell! --Alan Au 22:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still can't believe they renamed it Zatch Bell... --zippedmartin 00:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Gash Bell is somehow better? --Calton | Talk 00:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
It's a closer transcription of ガッシュ at any rate. Though I guess you don't care much about that if you're a US dub watcher. Anyway, delete, if someone wants to merge the content into either the anime article or a <anime> characters article, that's fair enough. Kenshin might just about warrent his own article, Saitō Hajime does not. Well.. he does but... er.. you get the idea. --zippedmartin 01:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Tokyo and don't care what they call it in the US or why an exact romaji rendering of the original matters to anyone. I assume they renamed it for the same reason that Calpis drinks and Canon's BJ printers aren't called that in the US. --Calton | Talk 16:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
God knows why they did it, my brain just has problems when the subtitled names bare little relation to the dialogue (not a problem you have with printers). If you(pl.) watch either dub without little letters along the bottom, I'm sure that isn't an issue. --zippedmartin 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright: nothing worth merging, and if the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't think it's worth a stand-alone article, then it's not. --Calton | Talk 00:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Right then. Delete and Redirect entry to main ZB! article. Abb3w 01:37, 15 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. – malathion talk 02:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Abramson[edit]

Obvious vanity. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete --Lomedae 21:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This is clear CSD A7. Not only is it utterly nn per WP:V, the article does not even assert any claim to notability. It's a list of his bands, and some quotes. See WP:DVAIN. Also has copyvio feel to it, but am unable to locate via google any mention of either writer or subject (with full names.) Tagged.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:22:22, 2005-08-14 (UTC) Ran google search again just to be absolutely sure. "Corey Harris Abramson"=0, "S. Blair Levinson"=0 Corey Abramson=31,000, but first 100 has no mention of musician.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:31:10, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Encephalon. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no claims that any of the bands he belongs to qualify under WP:music or that he has any particular claim to notability. Capitalistroadster 00:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redelete - This was actually speedily deleted before. --Calton | Talk 01:18, August 15, 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. Redwolf24 04:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cpixel[edit]

Vanity page Andrew pmk 21:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete The site has one Google hit, itself. --Lomedae 21:52, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete but note that when googling "Cpixel.com", or any website, you have to click one of the buttons below it (usually "link to"). ral315 21:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite/Extend I stand corrected, the site is extensively linked and referenced. Alexa rating of 9,468. From what I've seen it's indeed popular with its target audience. Who am I to judge its importance? The piece article itself should be added to extensively though.--Lomedae 22:21, August 14, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten scroll[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Regardless of whether the speedy deletion was valid, this VFD is about a wholly different article, so the arguments used here aren't particularly valid. Keep. If people assert she's not notable, please start a fresh discussion. Radiant_>|< 13:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Monique deMoan and Monique deMoan/Temp[edit]

Originally speedied by Lucky 6.9, it was recreated. No notability established (though the author says the word "notable" does so). ral315 22:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the rewrite at Monique deMoan/Temp contains no material from the original speedied article. All content has been authored by me. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy redelete. Adding one word to an article does not escape the "substantially identical" CSD, and this article is currently on VfU with near unanimous keep deleted's. This article's creation is a WP:POINT. -Splash 22:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly, Tony's done a decent job of writing up a filmography. I've little further interest in the notability or otherwise of a porn actress so I'll retract my deletion vote, although that act does not constitute a keep vote. My votes at VfU stand until the conclusion of both the VfU and this VfD. -Splash 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not substantially identical since the original was speedied on the basis that it didn't assert notability, and this has been changed now. Or else just what would be an assertion of notability for a porn star who is simply notable for her porn? NoPuzzleStranger 22:51, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    The fact remains that you have only created this 'article' because you're losing the vote at VfU. It is an experiment to prove some sort of a point, and is a WP:POINT as a result. Moreover, you have repeatedly removed the speedy tag from the article: something that you should not do. If you care so strongly about this article: {{sofixit}}. -Splash 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I really don't see what this has got to do with WP:POINT. I also wonder why he bothered listing the article on VFU, since it had never been VfD'd in the first place. It was just the usual bad speedy, the kind of collateral damage that does happen now and then but is easily fixed. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:POINT was obviously that the addition of the single word "notable" was an assertion of notability, when the VfU discussion was clearly in opposition to the undeletion of the article on A7 grounds. The recreation at an alternative capitalization with practically the same content is gaming the system, and falls under the same ambit. Had the author just behaved properly when the vote went against him/her, this just wouldn't have happened: alternatively, the good sense to {{sofixit}} might have helped considerably, but it took multiple deletions, undeletions, blocks, unblocks, messages and AN/I before anyone got around to that, and did it in the proper way with a /temp page. -Splash 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand accordingly. Notable peformer in her genre. 23skidoo 02:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. As per Splash and entry history "you have repeatedly removed the speedy tag from the article". --GraemeL 23:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted and protected. Also Monique DeMoan. <removed personal attack> NoPuzzleStranger has been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly recreating them. Zoe 23:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The above "removed personal attack" is a removal of {{vandal}}. Whether implicitly calling someone a vandal is a personal attack or a comment on behaviour is left for the reader to decide. JRM · Talk 00:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't enforce a speedy--much less a patently invalid speedy, in this way. I've restored the speedied article and will unblock this editor. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. Zoe, don't do that again. NoPuzzleStranger 00:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: She has something like 80 videos listed on IMDB.com [15] so in normal circumstances she would survive a Vfd. This also demonstrates that she's got an audience of more than 5,000 people and passes WP:BIO. Speedy deletion criterion A7 was supposed to remove uncontroversially non-notable people - if it doesn't apply to a band (that proposal failed) why should it apply to a porn star? Kappa 00:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    "She has something like 80 videos listed on IMDB.com [16] so in normal circumstances she would survive a Vfd." Could you point me to precedent nominations of porn stars where such numbers were quoted as relevant? Please do note I am explicitly asking for porn stars, not just actors, unless you wish to argue the same criteria clearly apply to both categories. JRM · Talk 00:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: my inquiry stands, despite Capitalistroadster's comment below. I really would like to know about prior nominations of porn actors, if any. If your comment referred only to actors in general and you don't know any porn actor nominations in particular, that's fine too; please clarify in that case. JRM · Talk 01:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    One I remember is Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nautica Thorn. Kappa 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. You see, Nautica Thorn would definitely qualify as notable in my book. To me this indicates the guidelines are lacking when it comes to determining what porn actors and actresses are notable. The present one seems to imply they're all notable. But while that's fine if you are of the viewpoint nearly every person on Earth is notable anyway (or "worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia", if you will) it seems quite uneven to use the guideline in singling out porn actors this way. I doubt anyone would argue there's not a difference between porn actors and actors in just about any other genre in this regard, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to have that spelled out at WP:BIO. JRM · Talk 01:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Immediate delete; kindly specify how this article is not speedyable material? Erwin Walsh
    • Because someone added the adjective "notable" to it. Meaning that by that logic, of course, an article reading Jimmy Lugnut is a notable student at BFN Junior High couldn't be speedily deleted, as it is a patently invalid speedy. --Calton | Talk 00:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
      Nonsense. A student is not notable as a student except for very few rare cases, which would have to be explained. But is it very common for an actor to be notable for simply being an actor and having a minimum name recognition, but there may be no practical way to demonstrate that in an article. Here on VfD we can point to Google counts and other metrics which would be unencyclopedic in the article itself. NoPuzzleStranger 01:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Someone -- more than one, it looks like -- needs to read WP:Point. --Calton | Talk 00:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've expanded this article a bit to stop these silly speedy delete games. Now someone who has appeared in movies enjoyed by many people over a period of more than ten years really can't be written off under CSD 7, and the article is not longer a substub. You'll just have to discuss in on VfD. Goodness knows why it was speedied in the first place. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to guess, it was probably because it read "American porn-star who entered the business in 1993." Then, of course, NoPuzzleStranger changed it to "Notable American porn-star who entered the business in 1993." In light of this I can at least have some understanding of why some people might have thought it was a speedy. JRM · Talk 00:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but I don't see how *either* version is remotely speediable--unless the admin in question had done his research and honestly failed to find the copious entries concerning this porn actress. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it works that way for any speedy. WP:CSD explicitly talks only about the content of articles, not about their topics. The criterion under which this article was deleted reads "an article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" (and follows this up with the reason why we're here: "if the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead"). It seems hard to argue that the article "asserted that person's importance or significance", unless you want to agree with NoPuzzleStranger that adding "notable" is such an assertion. (Grammatically speaking he's completely right, of course.) If you want to argue administrators additionally have the requirement of checking whether the article doesn't happen to ineffectively talk about a notable person who's significance is not established before speedying: I can't see anything in any policy anywhere where that is even implied. If you want to hold administrators responsible this way, I suggest amending policy to make this more explicit. I will agree with you that continuing to speedy an article despite objections is a bad idea, but I cannot agree with you that the original speedies where as baseless as you seem to suggest they were. JRM · Talk 01:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No matter what the CSD's say, we don't expect our administrators to act blindly and delete perfectly good articles on the basis of content--at least I don't. Obviously this was a VfD candidate from the first, asserting as it did that the person named was an American porn star. The way to remove doubt would have been to type her name into google and see if anything comes out--if it doesn't, then it's a clearly spurious claim and can be speedied; otherwise some discussion may be required.
    • I'm sorry that you don't seem to see anywhere in policy that says administrators are expected to be persons of generally good judgement. Maybe we should add something to that effect to our policy, though of course it would be superfluous because obviously we all are, so we don't usually go around blindly deleting articles on the basis that if we squint a bit we can pretend that the subjects aren't pretty famous people. But we all make mistakes. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Rational continuation of this argument seems pointless. You clearly believe administrators cannot delete articles (or ought not, at least) unless they first make a good attempt at establishing the notability of their subjects, and failing. I do not. The remainder of the straw man arguments and hyperbole are not worth addressing. I understand your point perfectly well, Tony. No need to give it an ironic, or even sarcastic edge. JRM · Talk 02:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry that you thought I was being sarcastic. I do sincerely believe that we're all capable of being good administrators. I don't think that ever involves deleting articles that say stuff like "X is a porn star" without even checking on google. The claim that a person is a porn star is a claim of notability (porn is mass distributed and so thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands of people may be exposed to the attributed work of a person who works in that industry). Now if I wrote an article "Meritanio Gonzalez is a porn star" you would obviously want to know if this were a likely claim. But it's easy enough to check it. I have done RC patrol myself, it just doesn't make sense to blindly delete stuff because a lot of it turns out to be easily verifiable and if you delete it you've just deleted something that can be made into a good stub in a few seconds. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, now I see where the argument lies. You consider porn stars (existing ones, obviously) to be notable because porn is mass distributed. I find myself holding the exact opposite opinion: I'd expect that so many porn movies are made and so many porn actors hired that individual ones need to have good claims to fame. Now I also see why you must have thought me a bit of an idiot to belabor the point: you would consider the assertion "X is a porn star" to be a good claim of notability and thus not something you could apply the speedy criterion to; I'd consider it insufficient. This seems like a pretty serious discrepancy, though. We should definitely try to get some consensus on the issue outside this individual case. I'd imagine we're not the only two people representing either side. JRM · Talk 03:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:BIO. It refers to actors who appear in commercially distributed films with audiences of more than 5,000. She qualifies under this criteria easily. It does not specify that people who appear in a particular genre of film should be excluded. Mind you, this does not mean that articles that do not assert notability should not be deleted as per the particular guideline. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
    I'd be inclined to agree with you. It seems nobody ever raised the issue of whether the criterion was appropriate for mass-produced genres like pornography, so I've taken the liberty of doing just that. JRM · Talk 01:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Monique deMoan/Temp and move to Monique deMoan, deleting the original. I am the author of the new article and, all content is my original work. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to uphold the principle that the previous vote matters. Jonathunder 01:41, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
    • Which previous vote was that? Kappa 01:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a very good question. There was no previous VfD. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without, hopefully, talking out of turn, it seems pretty clear to me Jonathunder might be referring to the (two) VfUs on the matter. It's likewise equally clear that Kappa and Tony are disputing they're relevant to the VfD. Do you think I feel stupid for pointing out these things? Man, you better believe it. But it's better than refusing to "aid and abet" the "opposition", so to speak. JRM · Talk 02:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The VfU vote presumably. <after an edit conflict>-Splash 02:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I understand it, VFU is a place where people are supposed to go to appeal bad deletions. It isn't VfD, it has no power to mandate deletion, only to recommend undeletion. I'm grateful to my fellow administrators for permitting this VfD, finally, to continue. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the /Temp version, so long as somebody goes in and italicizes all of those titles. Zoe 02:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep temp and move to Monique DeMoan (capital D is correct). NoPuzzleStranger 02:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. My keep stands, but either spelling is okay with me so if it will help consensus I agree to move to that spelling. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A notability vote and an unclear one at that. The last one I participated in was daring enough. No vote. To recap my opinions on the matters that inadvertently trickled over here: I believe the original speedy was perfectly fine, I believe NoPuzzleStranger's actions were unproductive, and I'm glad Tony Sidaway is more interested in expanding the encyclopedia than belaboring a technical point—which I'm perfectly willing and unashamed to declare myself guilty of in this particular case. JRM · Talk 02:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again another county has been heard from that felt they had to muddy the waters. The original article has now been once again undeleted. I will not redelete it. But I want to make it abundantly clear: DELETE the original article. Zoe 03:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

    • I won't push this and I hope you won't take the suggestion amiss, but in this case would a history merge be appropriate in your opinion? Just say no if you oppose and I'll forget the idea. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems verifiable. - SimonP 03:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new version; 11 years in the business with that many credits would seem to establish notability. And for heaven's sake unprotect it--why is it still protected? Aquillion 03:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 80 videos is not necessarily notable. This could be a month and a half of work over 11 years with 40 compilation videos. I mean, married couples have more sex than that. And, I admit to not being a no-it-all when it comes to this subject, but I would have thought I would have heard of her at some point. --Noitall 04:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. To maintain integrity of CsD, VfU, and VfD. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have a lot of articles on pornstars. It seems to me that the burden ought to be on those in favor of deletion to explain why she is not notable - the presumption is, I think, in favor of notability for porn stars. john k 05:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Extreme Holly where 3/5 or 60% of the voters disagreed with that. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Extreme Holly was kept; there was no consensus to delete. And that porn star didn't even have any imdb entry. She worked solely from her website. The bar for porn stars is evidently fairly low. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Closer inspection will reveal that the two "keep" voters quoted the same links as "notable", and that the addition of a single delete voter would have resulted in deletion. Thus demonstrating that there is no current consensus, and that both User:John Kenney's and your comments are not representative of any facts in evidence. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above: that there was no consensus was my point. Recall that a minute ago you cited the "three-fifths" as a significant result--now you've just as good as admitted that if a single delete voter had gone the other way there was have been three-fifths in the other direction. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If imdb is a criteria, it should not matter what type of film they are in. If the type of film listed on imdb affects the vote, then something is wrong. Vegaswikian 06:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Highly notable and the speedy delete team protecting the page as a nonentity was clearly way out of policy here. DreamGuy 06:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Using a VFU debate about a substub as a reason to delete an article which is not a substub makes no sense to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 15 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jane mcgonigal[edit]

  • Game designer. Re-creation of an earlier speedy. No notability proven. Slac speak up! 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Soltak 22:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Article has been expanded. Delete. Judging by the external link (now removed), looks like blatant self-promotion. --Blu Aardvark 23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete under CSD A7, and under G4 if this is an exzct or near exact repost of a prevcious valid speedy. DES (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article asserts notability, although it is highly questionable. Still, it may fall under G4 --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a CSD IMHO. It doesn't qualify under A7 because it does assert the notability of the subject (the word "noted" is actually in the lead sentence). As for being reposted content, the previous deletion was a speedy, and the guidelines suggest that if content is speedied and re-created, then it might conceivably be deserving of an article, so VfD might be a better place to resolve the issue (as Lacrimosus did). Nonetheless, delete unless references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure if this counts as a reference or no, but the article initially contained a link to avantgame.com. I removed the link because it appeared to be to a personal website, rather than an actual reference, but it may be worth noting, and getting a second opinion on. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is inserting "noted" into the first line of an article really the same thing as asserting notability? I seem to remember reading something about observing the spirit, not the letter...Apollo58 06:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, see the debate surrounding Monique deMoan for the answer to that one :). . . Slac speak up! 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: This article has been expanded since being placed for VFD. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 01:07, 18 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 A4. Essjay · Talk 06:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lost Warld[edit]

This page has already been deleted once, and has simply been reposted with no new content, as noted by DoubleCross on the talk page. I therefore formally propose that it is deleted again. ThomasHarte 23:07, 14 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.
.

Original discussion of deletion follows:

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Warld[edit]

I think this article seems more like a footnote for the Hideo Kojima article than something that deserves a whole page. Considering that:

  • Very little or no information is availble about the game other than what Kojima has stated in various interviews.
  • The game is unreleased and will probably stay that way for quite awhile.

What does anyone else thinks?

Jonny2x4 03:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This article was first nominated on April 24, 2005, but was never listed on vfd. You (Talk) July 6, 2005 22:03 (UTC))

Keep all commercial computer and video games. You 18:04, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Completely useless; it could be (and basically already is) summed up in the Kojima article without any problem. --DoubleCross 06:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN. 1980s Game that was never published, so not a "commerical" game. --A D Monroe III 6 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)
  • All non-notable unreleased games from the 1980's unconnected with scandals or other newsworthy events should be deleted.--Scimitar 6 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)
  • Delete per DoubleCross. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 23:47 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable gamescruft. JamesBurns 7 July 2005 08:23 (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. Oh my StIcKy cApS. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Script pirates[edit]

A neologism.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:14, 14 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Chris Jansing"[edit]

Hardly encylopedic material. "Somehow this woman will be turning 49 Years Old in 2005 while looking in her 20's !!!!!!!"

No. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete - the title is horribly incorrect, the article doesn't assert the woman's notability. If it gets through this hell, however, move to Chris Jansing and clean up that article. Rob Church Talk | Desk 23:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since there are many other national tv news personalities on wikipedia. But it must be rewritten and redirected to Chris Jansing. ErikNY 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just created a proper stub for her, so the article should be redirected to the new stub. ErikNY 23:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only since [Chris Jansing] entry exists already and this adds nothing new; ergo nothing worth keeping. I agree with ErikNy's point generally, though: TV news anchors and reporters are certainly worthy of entry. Dottore So 00:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not likely to be searched for. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 15 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. Redwolf24 05:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vice City, Florida[edit]

Fictional place in a video game. Not a likely search target. Content already covered in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Not encyclopedic. No need even to retain a redirect. Delete. DES (talk) 23:45, 14 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. Redwolf24 05:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Rorke's Drift hospital[edit]

This not an implicit vote for deletiion, but my remedy for the procedurally defective nomination of a page whose deletion i will oppose below. (User:GJeffery placed the VfD tag 22:56, 2005 August 13.)
--Jerzy·t 00:49, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

  • Keep & send to cleanup (or Merge as (sub-,sub-sub-, etc.) section in Rorke's Drift & probably keep rdr). I suppose this VfD is my fault, for not extending the distraction the article represented long enuf to put that article on cleanup myself. As careful consideration should make clear, the content belongs in a single non-bio article, which is the purpose that i created the article for. The event the title names involved equally Pte. (not Pvt., i gather, in His Majesty's terminology) Robert Jones and Pte. William Jones, who each received the Victoria Cross in citations that IIRC differ from each other only by the switching of the positions of the names. Each pte. still has a bio stub (They are known to have separate lives: IIRC, one was a suicide, one's medal was sold to a toff, each married, whatever.), left after the bulk of each of the VC-site bios (essentially common to both) was reduced to a lk to this new article. WP is not a hagiographic work (in contrast to the site from which these bios were "migrated"), so it is neither necessary nor remotely acceptable here to retell a heroic deed jointly performed by the two or fifty who were equally decorated for it, two or fifty times in their respective WP bios. "Contents moved [sic] to Robert Jones (VC)" (presumably meaning either "copied to" or "... to be moved, immediately prior to deletion, ...") would in any case be a mistake, for they would also be needed in William Jones (VC) (unless i failed to insert the lk in place of them, as i intended and described above).
    --Jerzy·t 00:49, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to be mean or anything, but I don't understand a single sentence of the above Apollo58 06:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Truly unnecessarily convoluted explanation. All I can make out is criticism to migrated Victoria Cross articles. As for me, I would vote to merge to Rorke's Drift - that article would also do with lots of expansion - Skysmith 11:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only response called for is this off-topic one for the record; it is necessary only bcz "criticism" (such a loaded word) has been attributed to me. My only "criticism" of the valuable VC articles is that they are well suited to their source but not yet to WP; they have suffered neglect. That is not a complaint about their authors: WP may need to consciously seek balance by compensating for ignorance of military affairs, as it has been argued WP should compensate for ignorance of 6 of the 7 continents.
        --Jerzy•t 15:34, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
    • The effort made toward comprehension is clearly adequate to this uncontroversial nom.
      --Jerzy•t 15:34, 2005 August 18 (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. JamesTeterenko 03:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atromeroptic Law[edit]

No such physics law. This is a made up fact. Hfwd 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see no evidence that such a law exists. Google yields nine results - 7 from Wikipedia and its mirrors, and 2 from this bizarre website the article sites. Looks like original research to me. --JJLeahy 04:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 03:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator.Dottore So 03:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't verify, possibly original research. A search on atromeroptic yielded essentially the same results as the above mentioned search, so atromeroptic appears to be a neologism, which, to me, says that this alleged law is not encyclopedic. ManoaChild 11:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, along with Atromeroptics Tonywalton 18:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. --Pjacobi 20:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research Salsb 11:14, August 17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_14&oldid=1081091576"