Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

refresh

2005-08-15[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 Speedy Keep. Essjay · Talk 04:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Luna class starship[edit]

This is not a star ship class that is known in the Star Trek Series. Should be deleted as it is not cannon Aeon 00:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, previous VfD ended four days ago. - ulayiti (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Ulayiti- repeat VfDs after 4 days is an abuse of process that can set dangerous, dangerous precedents. CanadianCaesar 00:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep...too soon! Incidentally, there's a survey of what to do with Non-canon Trek which I think should probably become a full consensus discussion... -- Grev -- Talk 01:45, 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 05:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla meister[edit]

Hoax. A drink recipe for a non-notable drink that doesn't even list all of the ingredients! Google for "Gorilla meister" pulls up 42 hits, most of them references to actual apes. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it wouldn't show up in a google search because the Gorilla Biscuits show it would have been served at only took place a day before the above complaint. <unsigned comment by User:66.214.140.80> --Fernando Rizo T/C 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

...which means it's not notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Sorry friend, come back when they're serving Gorilla meister pre-mixed in cans at my bar. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alex.tan 01:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, short a flash flood of notability. Neologism. Flowerparty ^talk 02:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifable. --Apyule 02:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Ephemeral. --Tysto 04:06, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
Delete. NN at best, at worst speculative hoax based on a drink someone had on a TV show. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 18:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Allegrorondo 20:07, 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 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klepper Octopus[edit]

Likely hoax [1] [2], or at any rate unverifiable. CanadianCaesar 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I remember seeing references to astral octopi in another ECK article which was up for deletion a few weeks ago. I don't remember the fate (or title) of that article, though. Pburka 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Gopal Das and Rami Nuri were both up for VfD a little while ago, and the former mentioned this octopus, but there were never any references. I have merged those into something with references, and the octopus had to go, unfortunately. CanadianCaesar 02:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point: [3], delete. Flowerparty ^talk 02:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete unverifiable. --Apyule 02:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Humbug. --Lomedae 22:39, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverified. Almost sounds like something out of D&D. --Etacar11 00:04, 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 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Holloways[edit]

Recently formed unsigned band according to the article. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No All Music Guide entry, and they are unsigned. Nice website, though. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:Music. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Howcheng 22:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails music project criteria. Secret london 05:07, 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 KEEP. -Splash 08:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aftertaste[edit]

A dictdef that has been marked {{move to Wiktionary}} three times, was transwikied, and is now happily living in a totally rewritten form at wikt:aftertaste. I can't think of anywhere to usefully redirect this, and I'm tired of taking it back out of Category:Copy to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment; I'm not entirely sure it can't be expanded beyond a dicdef - principally what chemically causes aftertaste? What foods are especially good at creating aftertaste? How does it vary between people? [4] [5]. Dunc|☺ 01:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the "Definition" heading is inviting the {{move to wiktionary}} tag. Perhaps it would be more helpful to remove it and turn it into a stub of some sort. Flowerparty ^talk 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:34
Delete. I cannot envision how this article could possibly be expanded into something beyond the simple dicdef it is now. I'll happily change my vote if proven wrong. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well look at that, I'm wrong. Nicely done, Christopher. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
possible keep aftertaste is another term for finish in winetasting and hence a category of evaluation. This might make it more than dictionary entry (?) Dottore So 03:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expanded per above. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
- well done (expanded the entry) Dottore So 05:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewrite. Notable topic in... now what is the science of wine called...? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oenology, I think (do we have a stub category for that?)--Doc (?) 11:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've got {{wine-stub}}. Aecis 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nice start, I'll be glad to add the beer point of reference also. Allegrorondo 13:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid concept. Lots of foods have aftertastes also. And it's a recognised problem with certain medicines and tablets. Proto t c 14:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done Christopher Parham. Capitalistroadster 15:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aecis 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Encephalon | ^ζ 22:24:51, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
Split - merge alcohol section with beer, wine, and whiskey (the separate paragraphs, that is), and transwiki the rest to wikitionary. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Alex.tan 03:02, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Smudge[edit]

Hoax. There is no IMDB entry for a film called "Mr Smudge", and a Google search for "'Mr Smudge' 72 foot rabbit" pulls up 1 unrelated hit (somehow). The external link appears to be a photoshop of a normally proportioned rabbit with some women who just saw how much the price of gasoline went up today. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. sigh. Alex.tan 01:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete speedy? Dottore So 04:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sent it to BJAODN-MicroFeet 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--SpaceMonkey 19:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear hoax. And don't forget to add Mr. Rizo's hilarious comments on the BJAODNpage.Zanaq 20:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified/hoax. Wouldn't his height be given in meters? --Etacar11 00:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non existant. Secret london 05:08, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xplkqulkiccasia[edit]

Delete: nn cruft. Karmafist 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article admits its a neologism found only in a particular series of novels. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nonsense. Alex.tan 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. speedy at that. Dottore So 04:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-admitted novelcruft. — JIP | Talk 06:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jasper Fforde, or the appropriate book (can't remember which one, or I would have done it myself Lectonar 09:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOFTBLOW[edit]

Possibly vanity page. Non-notable? Alex.tan 01:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:35
Delete. Journal editor might be notable (except that WP article is copyvio). The journal probably isn't. --Alan Au 02:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. www.softblow.com doesn't have an Alexa ranking. --Alan Au 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:53, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Current content is poor, but it exists; it publishes poetry; why not? Dottore So 04:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Alexa ranking leads me to believe that this site and the associated journal are not notable. If someone comes up with a good, thorough citation of it in a more notable publication, I'll change my vote. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexa. WP:NOT a webguide. R adiant _>|< 13:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content is not about the title, and the title is about a nn journal. -Splash 18:56, 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 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of smokers[edit]

Unmaintainably huge list with little encyclopedic value. Something like one out of three people in North America smokes right now; a century ago probably virtually every historical figure smoked cigars or a pipe. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TenOfAllTrades. This is an impossible list. --Apyule 02:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unmaintainable list. People decide to smoke/not smoke on the whim of a moment. I do anyway :/ - Longhair | Talk 02:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Alan Au 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above. Dottore So 04:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Vast and ephemeral. --Tysto 04:05, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
Delete, although I could see a use for something like List of iconic smokers (bad name, but hopefully someone can think of a better one), for people like Churchill, Castro, etc, for whom smoking is clearly a recognised part of their public image. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Unmaintainable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after moving iconic smokers to the new List of Iconic smokers. A very nice idea, nice title too, Grutness. It would be nice to have some peculiarities of their smoking habits there. Like Bill Clinton's. -- Zanaq 11:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though it's inconsistent with List of Roman Catholics being kept. Martg76 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, after moving per Grutness' suggestion, altho Clinton wasn't exactly known for smoking those cigars. :) Caerwine 02:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Alex.tan 03:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't really see the point. NickBush24 08:10, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kickass[edit]

NN slang term, Wikpedia is not a slang dictionary. Zoe 02:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. At best, a dic-def. At worst, neologism. --Alan Au 02:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary CanadianCaesar 03:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the word only requires a simple mention in one of the articles listing slang words and phrases--JRL 08:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep: I knew this word before reading this article. Www.wikinerds.org 08:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? How many thousands of words do you know that don't deserve articles in an encyclopedia? Zoe 19:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicdef. Nandesuka 12:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more of a dicdef than Jargon compliance. It even starts with "defined..." - Tεx τ urε 17:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe make a wiktionary entry or merge with Kick Ass. Or at least add {{clean up}}.
Delete. Not a dictionary. Alex.tan 03:03, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ng2[edit]

Vanity page. Andrew pmk 02:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to verify beyond supplied link, probably not sufficiently notable. --Alan Au 02:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, hard to verify anything else. --Apyule 06:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. --Bhadani 08:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 00:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Alex.tan 03:04, 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.

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 closed. Eligible for speedy deletion at request of author, and has been rewritten without reliance on original text at De sphaera mundi; this article now redirects there. --Michael Snow 05:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaera Mundi[edit]

This article is copied from my wiki but does not contain a proper attribution notice (e.g. "This article is based on the JnanaBase article Sphaera Mundi, used under the GFDL" with an external link to the source. I consider this to be plagiarism and violation of academic standards of citation and attribution, as well as a breach of the GFDL licence. Furthermore, it is against the Wikipedia:Cite sources policy which states "What are references good for? Giving credit to a source for providing useful information. Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty." When a third-party website copies Wikipedia content, you require a GFDL notice and a link back to Wikipedia. We require the same. Moreover, another user says the article should be improved. Please delete the article or add a proper attribution notice with a link back to the source. Www.wikinerds.org 02:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fix any alleged problems. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:38
no vote Voters may wish to bear in mind that this is part of a broader matter being addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany 2. For my part, I speedied the article earlier since User:www.wikinerds.org is the sole author who has contributed anything of significance to the article, and since he had requested deletion on my talk page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. I've re-added the citation to avoid any copyvio allegations in the short term. However, it turns out that this is part of a larger ongoing edit war (see the article edit history and talk page). There are also related issues being discussed at WP:RfC. --Alan Au 03:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' Why not merge/redirect to the author Johannes de Sacrobosco and amplify details of the text there? Dottore So 04:11, 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 concensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Habashies[edit]

Yet again another article which contains nothing but external links. Zoe 02:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete a massive amount of links but no content or context. Can always be recreated later as an actual article should the author or someone else want to. --TheMidnighters 03:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs to be rewritten, but the subject is legit. Just delete the links and leave as a stub? Dottore So 04:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as per Dottore So. --Apyule 06:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrible article in desperate need of a cleanup, but the subject matter is notable. Nandesuka 12:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, it's "Habashis" ("Habashies" is a non-standard spelling). Secondly, I'm wondering if it's a derogatory term for the movement itself, since I can only find it on hostile sites. The article as it stands is utterly hostile POV. It should be deleted and recreated at "Association of Islamic Charitable Projects" or "Al-Ahbash", or else at the existing page under copyvio dispute Ahbash (Lebanon). Here's an academic article giving a far clearer idea what it's about [6]. Tearlach 23:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The basic topic is probably worthwhile but this article doesn’t make it. Needs 100% rewrite and reposting under a different title. ♠ DanMS 04:18, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XingDaorong[edit]

Article has no meaningful content to those who don't frequent the GameFaq board mentioned in the article. Wikipedia is not a database for keeping track of what unknown forum users do. Nezu Chiza 03:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity--Exir Kamalabadi^{Feel free to criticize me} 04:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. - Thatdog 07:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, as usual. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 12:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Alex.tan 03:05, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Alphax ^τεχ 05:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hayashi Yoichi[edit]

OK I'm bringing this one in as kind of a test case. Hayashi Yoichi seems to work for Konami on music video games. The article is linked to from the List of Bemani musicians, Bemani being the name of Konami's musical games division. The list itself seems questionable to me in it's notability, but the sheer volume of red links to other music video game artists kind of scares me. I don't really think working on a musical video game is terribly notable, but I'm interested in hearing community opinion. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

After a quick look over the parent list article, it seems to be some kind of ugly, ugly list of various people who work in Konami's music department, and an unverifiable list of pseudonyms they've worked under. I've removed all the redlinks, to try and discourage further ones being made. I'd be tempted to remove all the pseudonyms (or at least most of them) on the list, also. But that's sidetracking. The actual article you've nominated is a delete as not notable IMO, but some of the people on the list are more notable than Mr Yoichi, so be carful about mass-nominating them all. Proto t c 11:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not mass nominating anyone yet, most of the links on that list were red, I just wanted to establish some kind of precedent first, by seeing how this nomination fared. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

- The pseudonyms are verifiable through original soundtrack booklets and other official Konami sources. [7] has compiled these sources. --SPUI (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~No vote~~ (see vote below). I'm sincerely conflicted on this one. Merely having a credit on a game does not make one notable, anymore than being Gaffer on a film would make one notable. On the other hand, its clear that a game music composer or sound designer could be notable. It's just that this article doesn't actually assert that notability in any way I can understand. I'd like to invite the author of the article to clearly state why this person is notable, beyond his name appearing in the credits of a game. I almost wish there was a variant of WP:MUSIC specifically for "embedded music" such as in movies and games to provide us with guidance. Nandesuka 12:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, contributing music to a popular series of music games is even more notable than having a top 100 hit single. Kappa 13:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was conflicted, but you just pushed me over the edge with your patently ridiculous assertion. Nandesuka 12:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm disappointed that you would be voting on personal feelings rather than the merits of the case. Please think of the users, wikipedia content is not your personal property to dispose of at your whim. Kappa 12:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - You misunderstand, of course, just as you misstate my intentions. Perhaps you should stick to describing your own rather than inventing motivations for others. Your ridiculous claim merely served as the catalyst to demonstrate exactly how non-notable this sound engineer is. From that perspective, I suppose I should thank you for placing the issue in such clear relief. Thanks! Nandesuka 14:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - As the article makes clear, he composes music, so he is not just a sound engineer. I have no idea why my assertion is "patently ridiculous" so there is no point trying to explain it or asking you to explain why. Kappa 16:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Sdedeo 13:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the phrase "generally ignored" in the article itself best exemplifies how wikipedia ought to view people who's only claim to fame is adding music to music games. Sorry, Kappa, but as far as I can tell, this guy is just an average sound engineer, not a musician. --Scimitar ^parley 14:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a composer, [8] confirms this. --TimPope 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. R adiant _>|< 15:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, pop'n music is a VERY popular game in Japan, there are 11 arcade and Playstation versions, which unfortunately have never been released in the west. I am quite confident that he meets the WP:BIO criterion of being known by at least 5,000 people. --TimPope 18:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't put much store by the arbitrary numer in WP:BIO as 5000 people is nothing (or at least, not enough for me). He is involved in music-making for video games; that's not special. -Splash 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been checking out sales figures for the pop'n music series, [9] tells us that pop'n music 9 sold 14,874 copies in one week --TimPope 19:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rob Hubbard yes. Martin Galway yes. These people are titans. Hayashi Yoichi is no Jack Kennedy.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I'm not sure where the line should be drawn here. I think that extremely prolific composers for this sort of game (e.g., Naoki Maeda) are certainly notable enough to merit their own article, even though they fail all the steps at WP:MUSIC. But the writers of one song on DDR 3rd Mix who were never heard from again are probably not worthy. This article is in a gray area to me. ESkog 23:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creating one or two songs on a game, unless they can be shown to be songs that, individually, were wildly popular, does not smack of notability to me. I'd compare it to "mainstream" muscician who's only work on a major label production was in a single track as a guest, rather than a whole CD. --Icelight 00:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- "He is the composer of works in nearly every home version". There seem to be 11 or more home versions, so that's more than one or two songs. Kappa 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline notable. Sam Vimes 12:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 19:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep composer of at least 38 songs, all on the popular pop'n music series, plus singer on others. --SPUI (talk) 00:23, 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 KEEP. -Splash 08:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil_Hall[edit]

appears to be a Vanity Page 141.155.149.137 04:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the recent debate I participated in over whether to keep this (to my mind insignificant) [fellow], a film reviewer of some (even minor) repute seems worthy of inclusion. Plenty of reviews on Rotten tomatoes from his pen, for example. Dottore So 04:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be a notable journalist. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 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 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fabai[edit]

Nonsense, but perhaps not patent. Zoe 04:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Seems patent to me. Dottore So 05:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either nonsense or an in joke. --Apyule 06:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I feel it is amazingly untrue! In case, I am wrong, please help me out. --Bhadani 08:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Fabai is the capital of Vilnius" ... what the hell?! In fact, Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania. Patent nonsense (or somebody's private fictional country at best) - delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 15:16, 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 speedy delete. – malathion ^talk 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tetardking[edit]

vanity page Kewp 05:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn vanity page Dottore So 05:51, 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 05:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Sev Red Kabah[edit]

Looks like vanity. This person gets 4 hits on google, all of which are Wikipedia or mirrors. Totally non-confirmable. - Nat Kraus e 05:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree to the comments of Nat Krause. --Bhadani 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:V.-Splash 19:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Howcheng 22:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears nn. --Etacar11 00:20, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Harper[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This incident might be better mentioned in an article about stadium safety. --Howcheng 21:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I figured it wouldn't work. I'll stop working on it. 69.137.95.102 22:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dottore So 05:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BigGuy219 You guys must not watch sports, this is/was a huge sports story...nationally, not just in New York. 16, August 2005
Keep. I heard this briefly mentioned on a news site, so the first thought I had was to Wiki it. If it had been deleted, I might not have even bothered to leaf through badly organized news site archives. I mean, what's the harm? It's not offending anyone. I say just give Aerostratus his page.
Keep Mentioned on the front page of New York Times. Borderline notable Sam Vimes 12:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather interesting. Grue 19:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Yankee Stadium Accidents and link from Yankee Stadium. Let this article contain details for this and similar events (as the current article contains). The event is more notable than the person, in my opinion.David Henderson 04:23, 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 redirect to Nancy Drew. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanzy drew[edit]

Google displays 7 non-duplicate results from 88. [10] lots of issues | leave me a message 05:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn band vanity. no allmusic page and no claim of satisfying WP:MUSIC in article, in addition to low google. --TheMidnighters 08:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nancy Drew as a typo - Skysmith 11:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Skysmith. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 12:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Proto t c 14:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in a redirect. We don't redirect typos; they're infinite. -R. fiend 23:26, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce (explorer)[edit]

Short explanation: there is no Robert Bruce the explorer -- but there is a James Bruce who explored Africa.

Long explanation: When I made a sizeable addition to Lake Tana four months ago, I misremembered the name of the explorer James Bruce calling him instead Robert Bruce, & added a link on the name. Since it does link to an existing article about another Scotsman who is known by that name, I didn't notice that I made a mistake at the time. Since then, someone else discovered my mistake -- but also misremembered the name creating this stub that clearly is meant to be about James Bruce. I'd list this as a Speedy Delete -- except that there is no category for "Information misremembered, & duplicates existing content." llywrch 06:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. --Apyule 06:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a mistake. Delete; does not seem to meet any speedy deletion criteria. - Mike Rosoft 14:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge" with James Bruce. Capitalistroadster 16:20, 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 concensus. (17K/16D/4M) - Mailer Diablo 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Widdifield secondary school[edit]

This doesn't really assert the school notability <drini ☎> 06:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It clearly says in the title that it's a school. Philip Arthur 07:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with North Bay, Ontario. The school doesn't appear to have any notability separate from its geographical locale, so since it is a sub-stub should be merged. If sufficient information could be produced at a later date to warrant a separate article (without pointless padding by listing generic courses, teachers, redlink or unlinked lists of alumni, pictures of buildings, etc. etc) then it could be spin out as a separate article. Average Earthman 07:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, schools are definitely encyclopedic. Www.wikinerds.org 08:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kill it dead goog. It's a school. Pilatus 08:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schools are intrinsically notable. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Celestianpower ^hab 10:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they are not. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. If the school has an illustrious history, a notable building or something, let the article stand, but if it's just a run-of-the-mill school like the hundreds of thousands of schools around the globe by all means subsume the stub under the town that it serves. Pilatus 10:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, four walls and a roof are not notable. Proto t c 11:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Proto. Nandesuka 12:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow for organic growth. Kappa 13:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D nn. R adiant _>|< 13:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a nano-stub, a short, contextless, low quality pair of sentences about a subject that may or may not be encyclopedic, depending on your POV. Furthermore, when the article creator can't be bothered to correctly capitalize the title (i.e. Widdifield Secondary School), why should others be forced to move it and then expand on it? Utter garbage. --Scimitar ^parley 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with North Bay, Ontario since the article is so short. It is highly unlikely to get school articles deleted, but a short stub can usually be easily merged with the location without having to go through a VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. We are far more likely to have a good article some time soon if we keep the one we have already. Osomec 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But how many people outside North Bay Ontario really know that much about the school? So if someone was going to expand it, they'd probably be looking at that article too. Merging does not preclude separating again at a later date once it warrants it, and frankly is more useful and convenient to Wikipedia users than leaving hordes of sub-stubs around in the vague hope that someone might expand it later. Average Earthman 15:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:41, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
Merge per Average Earthman — RJH 15:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll expand it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you Tony Sidaway. SchmuckyTheCat 17:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What we seem to have here is a school with a considerable commitment to excellence particularly in sport. Its alumni have gone on to join the National Gymnastics team, Track and Field Olympic teams--one guy was once rated 5th in the world--Olympic Beach Volleyball, Olympic Paddling Team, National ski and freestyle ski teams, and even a NHL referee and a St Louis Blues (NHL) player. This isn't quite like having Franz Beckenbauer or Jackie Charlton as an alumnus, but it's close. I could be wrong, but my seat-of-pants feeling is that this article is already beyond being a merge candidate, and we can already see that it certainly isn't about to be delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you've created exactly the sort of Alumni list I already said I wasn't impressed with. So to me, this doesn't count as creating a good expanded article, this is just filling space for the sake of filling space. I want some form of proof that the school created these great athletes, not that they just happened to live in the area (I went to school with an Olympic swimming finalist, and I can guarantee the school had nothing whatsoever to do with her competing at the Olympics). So while, say, Permian High School gets an article because of sports achievement, it is the sports achievement of the school (National champions, featured in a book and a film) rather than that of people who happened to go to the school.Average Earthman 22:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So you missed the long but by no means exhaustive lists of championships won in gymnastics, volleyball, basketball and badminton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 August 2005
  - I missed the list of National champions. Unless Northern Ontario has become a nation since I last looked. Average Earthman 09:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't recall making any claim about national championships. The population of Northern Ontario is some 800,000; it isn't a little village outside Nova Scotia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I gave an example of a National Champions, of a country with a population of just under 300 million, a team that almost uniquely has more than just the parents of the players turning up to watch it (they have their own stadium that can seat thousands), and you expect me to be impressed by badminton champions in the 18 year old age category from a population of 800,000 is impressive? Exactly how many 18 year old badminton players do you think there are in North Ontario? It's just local padding, it might make a brief mention in the local news, it won't make the national news, there won't be any books written on them by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, and nobody will make a film about them. 128.243.220.41 10:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per standard school deletion argument. Rkevins82 17:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Andrew pmk 18:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete over atomisation of education coverage on wikipedia. --TimPope 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not paper. But it is also not toilet paper.--Encephalon | ^ζ 19:53:06, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
Delete. They have sports teams and drama. I'm happy for them, but it takes more. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schools are inherently notable. This one is even more so. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Un focused 21:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 22:26, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, no matter how many dodgeball champions they fostered. --Lomedae 22:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems sufficiently notable. I'm okay with a merge too. JYolkowski // talk 23:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a box with students in it. It's got sports teams. So what? --Carnildo 23:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please and stop attacking article creators its not necessary Yuckfoo 17:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally non-notable middle school. Please see my rationale at User:Gateman1997/Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 18:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems real to me. Trollderella 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of athletes and trophies they have won is not notable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. It clearly says in the title that it's a school. Relax and allow for organic growth. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Etc. —RaD Man (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Not a partidularly notable school. There is no good reason for articles about run-of-the-mill schools. DES ^(talk) 20:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop nomimating them until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. --Zero 13:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this school is notable enough to warrant an article.David Henderson 04:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- DS1953 18:42, August 20, 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 05:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structural differential[edit]

PSimon removed relevant References to this article. What he/she saw offending in referencing the original Korzybski book on the structural differential is beyond rational discussion. Also, the description of the structural differential is next to meaningless without the graph I was going to add. Hovewer, altercation with censors of the PSimon ilk is not worth my time. I request that this entry will be removed from Wikipedia. Principal Author - Vote for Deletion: Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.86.100 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-15 01:40:15 UTC

Keep: I'd like to hear from PSimon why he reverted your changes... but the topic seems to me worthy of wikipedia attention... --Raistlin 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cruise was mass adding links to his website, and I went through and reverted almost all their edits. Unfortunately, in this case they also added some references that I inadvertently removed. - SimonP 12:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
now that they are back, i'd say Keep even more --Raistlin 16:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Examination of history does not support the claim that Cruise was "mass adding" links. As far as I can tell, they added a single link; if it was to their own website, it was improper, but there is no clear reason that the other edits needed to be reverted. This seems to be a content dispute, so Wikipedia:Requests for comment or some other dispute resolution mechanism probably would be more appropriate. I don't feel competent to judge the claim that the article is "meaningless without the graph I was going to add", so I choose not to vote. ManoaChild 21:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PSimon, I accept your reversals and rescind my request for deletion. Next time, please say 'sorry,' it goes a long way. ManoaChild, thank you for your comments. I added the graph that you can see for yourself. You are right, it was vendetta, but I hope PSimon and I will get over it. After all, Alfred Korzybski deserves to be remembered.Principal Author 3:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and restore Cruise links and references, SimonP deleted even PRINTED references, not only external links. I have recently read much of Cruise additions and they look serious. Now, either Cruise is a very ingenious prankster or - as he wrote on his own talk page - a retired professor, and so significant himself. I prefer to assume good faith, and not to scare newcomers to Wiki, so unless SimonP or sb else can prove to me Cruise works is fiction/vandalism, I definetly support Cruise and object to SimonP deletetion of useful info. This said, I am off to Cruise talk page to instruct him on wiki-ways and GDFL licences and such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:35, 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 speedily deleted as forum nnanity. FCYTravis 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DMC24guy[edit]

Non-notable web forum poster. Zoe 06:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless there is credible third party references to prove that this subject is important or significant. It is not sufficient to just have external links to that web forum. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forumcruft. — JIP | Talk 06:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
just speedy it lots of issues | leave me a message 07:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Thatdog 07:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn forumcruft/vanity. The author created lots of useless images too. --TheMidnighters 08:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly important enough to be listed here, it's a biased account of what happened as well because it's written by the person the article is about.
Delete. nn cruft. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 12:49, 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 05:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reklamepenner[edit]

Advertising. Zoe 07:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments only: I am not aware of this, please help me out, if possible. Thanks. --Bhadani 09:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifyable --Apyule 10:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think. Gets 70 useful Googles which would usually be indicative of nn. However, they are in a foreign language, so I can't verify for myself whether there is somethgin special about this brand or not. -Splash 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Reklamepenner isn't a brand - it's Norwegian (or possibly Danish) for "Promotional Pens". This is possibly a stab (or a stub) at an article about collecting promotional pens (at best; at worst it's linkspam). If this article could be cleaned up and expanded it might be a link from Collecting or Collectibles, I've fixed his (broken) link to his Norwegian language site to point to his English version as this might aid the VfD. Apologies if I've added to the linkspamminess Tonywalton 20:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Norwegian, and I can verify that this person is advertising for his own hobby. Probably so that people will send him promotional pens. Punkmorten 20:19, 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 speedy delete as a hoax. --malathion ^talk 09:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Confederation of Hunters[edit]

I can't find anything on Google on what this may be. It might be refering to a fictional book, but none of the "organizations" listed show any hits. NN at the very least, quite possibly ment to be nonsense or a hoax.

Speedy as joke or just delete as hoax. --TheMidnighters 08:33, 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 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superheroinat[edit]

False, no such myth exists in Albanian mythology. Zero google hits. Someone's been watching too much Powerpuff girls GeeJo 07:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Unverifiable --Apyule 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V -Satori 21:01, 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 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shitastic[edit]

Neologism --malathion ^talk 08:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CSD not a dictionary, etc. --Apyule 10:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is meaningless.Leonig Mig 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and no objection to a speedy. It's plainly a joke article, joke articles are Wikipedia:Vandalism and vandalism is removable at speed. -Splash 19:09, 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 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drops Of Light[edit]

Despite what the article says, I can't find any net verification. No all music entry or results when I query the name paired with band. [11] delete lots of issues | leave me a message 08:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only song with that title I could find in that time period was by Phish. JDoorjam 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Howcheng 22:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity/unverified. --Etacar11 00:26, 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 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No direction[edit]

Band vanity. --malathion ^talk 09:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article written in the first person just shouts out "Vanity!" at your face. — JIP | Talk 09:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that the article was written by User:Nodirection is kind of a giveaway as well :) GeeJo 12:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, although there was a band called "No Direction" back in 80s.[12] --Howcheng 22:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. Blatant. --Etacar11 00:28, 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 06:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gebardibot[edit]

Band vanity. --malathion ^talk 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, less than 2 albums released (WP:MUSIC), not notable.feydey 10:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, no AMG entry. --Howcheng 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. And no google hits. --Etacar11 00:30, 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.

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 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't write things which you don't know about[edit]

All of the content is patronising grammar lecturing, as if Wikipedians were schoolchildren. It should already be covered in the editing guidelines anyway. Delete. — JIP | Talk 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Supurfluous to wikipedia's needs. --Apyule 10:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Useless content. The author should have followed his own advice. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 11:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete AN 11:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inside, I'm weeping. Nandesuka 12:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it should be recursively applied to itself. R adiant _>|< 13:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
All nonsense really needs is a little DELETE.: A little Speedy-THIS, a little VfD-THAT! MessedRocker 15:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
comment: Looks like it was speedy'd Wikibofh 22:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Douche. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D-bag[edit]

Slang dictdef --malathion ^talk 09:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to douche bag if it is acually a slang term.--nixie 09:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has encyclopedic potential. Www.wikinerds.org 09:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nixie. --Apyule 10:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nixie. feydey 10:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Proto t c 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this abbreviation into the proper section of douche (douche bag is, itself, a redir). JDoorjam 17:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to douche to avoid the dreaded double redirect. --Icelight 00:14, August 16, 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 06:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon compliance[edit]

Wired magazine neologism without encyclopedic potential. Www.wikinerds.org 09:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If it was created in the 1990's is not really a neologism, but is a 'logism of some sort. It gets about 75 Googles, so can be ditched as a made-up phrase that didn't catch on. -Splash 19:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not neologism, then hopelessly obscure. ManoaChild 21:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my Latin's not good enough to figure out the type of 'logism :) -Satori 21:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What about cacologism? Although itself a neologism (invented by me right now), I think it's great. (note that it's derived from Greek and not Latin) Punkmorten 20:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government simulation[edit]

Page serves as nothig mroe then free advertising to these GAMES, which attract perhaps 10 or 20 regular players. Pellaken 10:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is clear (if slightly POV), and the topic is genuine. --Apyule 10:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article serves as an excellent guide to a subject matter that is a vibrant community on the internet. A possibly motivating factor is that the user proposing deletion was an administrator for Canada GovSim which just folded and has been permanently banned from several other political simulators. --Drew82

Drew82's first edit. ESkog 23:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, real thing. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article serves to explain the basis behind political simulators and what they are- the user who voted for deletion was the manager of CanadaGovSim and has been banned from several political sims, as has been said, so the case for deletion is biased. --Nightsabre- not a registered user, but knows the politics behind this

Keep This article is very informative and provides decent background information for people starting out in this genre of games. The user seems to be putting up this vote for personal reasons. Chris Glew 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

just to clear up some misunformation, the only government simulations I was banned from were those I asked to be banned from because of the constant personal attacks against me. the admin of PolCan decided to turn this entire thing political and take a shot at me over wikipedia. this is my responce. whatever the result of this vote is I will respect. Pellaken 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If the only reason you posted this vote is because of a personal comment made against you and not due to a genuine concern then this is an abuse of Wikipedia and the vote should be removed. Chris Glew 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Despite (or even because of) the "politics" involved in this VfD, this article should be kept. --Daedalus-Prime 00:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep bad-faith nomination. Nifboy 06:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep So far it's been unanimous - keep the page. The history of govsims is an intriguing one that ought to be told through Wiki, and it has been shown here that the vote to delete this page had ulterior motives. ThrashersSyn 13:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. User:Pellaken desperately needs referring to meta:Don't be a dick and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Apologies, I forgot to sign. The above comment was from me: fuddlemark 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a real game, and it is regularly used for educational purposes. A new medium that teaches people politics and government. --Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm perhaps a bit biased, as I participate in a Government sim (one not mentioned in this article) but the topic itself certainly meets the test for natability even if few, if any, of the individual sites do. Caerwine 22:29, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke darwin reyes[edit]

This is a resume, not an article. Delete as outright vanity. — JIP | Talk 10:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. While you were tagging the article for deletion, User:Petaholmes, speedy deleted it for being vanity without assertion of notability, and you ended up unintentionally recreating the article. There is no assertion of encyclopedic notability in the article (actually a CV), so I am speedy deleting this article again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 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 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almond Beach Village Barbados[edit]

Advertising --Celestianpower ^hab 10:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising. --Apyule 12:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. --Howcheng 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad/spam. --Etacar11 00:32, 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 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beneath The Frozen Soil[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet band notability criteria at WP:MUSIC gkhan 10:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I agree. feydey 10:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WTF guys? This is one of the best Doom Metal acts to come out of Gothenburg! NNBV -- Delete. JDoorjam 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete nn, no AMG entry. --Howcheng 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cool name, but nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Fred-Chess 05:41, August 21, 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: Speedily redirected. - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slant-6[edit]

A single link to an external site, no text at all. --Janke | Talk 10:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it only contained a HTML link to another Wikipedia article. Redirected. - Mike Rosoft 12:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the redirect. I only saw a link to an "external" URL (didn't notice it pointed back "in". The original poster (anon.) obvioulsy didn't know how to make a redirrect. But I did get to try making a VfD proposal, so now I know how to do that... ;-) --Janke | Talk 13:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now a useful redirect, close VfD please. Just this vote, not VfD in general ... that would be foppish. Proto t c 14:30, 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 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doody Trap[edit]

Patently non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to listing of practical jokes. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 12:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no indication of non-notability. Kappa 13:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- do you really think that's the same thing as "notable?" Do you ever vote to delete anything? Apollo58 00:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike. R adiant _>|< 13:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of notability, either. Proto t c 14:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and a neologism, not to mention what Mike said. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. a google search is revealing (talk about failing the Google test!) gkhan 18:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete obviously. -Splash 19:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably wouldn't work, either. I note the vote above to keep this; do we have a new Everyking at work?-Ashley Pomeroy 22:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability, original research, neologism. Nandesuka 12:46, 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 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Van Ornum[edit]

Vanity entry. A PhD chemist who now works at a contract research company is even less notable than the average assiatant professor. Hey, I have got a dozen papers or so and won't be getting an article in here anytime soon. Pilatus 11:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Andrew pmk 18:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, thy name is CHEMIST! Sdedeo 19:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pilatus. ManoaChild 21:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless he discovered/invented something of note. --Howcheng 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is given. "Over 10" is nothing in scientific circles. --Etacar11 00:37, 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.

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 Merge/redirect to WP:INS (3k, 11d, 3r, 2m) R adiant _>|< 11:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No infobox standardization and WP:NIS (its redirect)[edit]

People opposed to infobox standardization should discuss that on the relevant page, instead of making a WP:POINT by creating a stubby counterpage. Proposing that no proposals may be proposed is not constructive (not to mention m:instruction creep). R adiant _>|< 13:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep, of course. At least thirty users have confirmed on similar VfDs that putting policies and policy proposals on VfD is "the wrong way to handle policy proposals" (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Template standardisation). The right way for user:Radiant! is to express his concerns about the new proposals on the talk page of the policy proposal. In general, articles should not be put on VfD just to make the point that a user thinks they are POV. --Fenice 13:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, we should now create Wikipedia:No "no infobox standardization" and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/No infobox standardization. A more relevant precedent to cite would be -Ril-'s latest strangeness. R adiant _>|< 13:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I wish people would take deletion discussions more seriously...--Fenice 14:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as instruction creep. There's no need for a rule that just says that another rule doesn't exist. sjorford →•← 14:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are wrong, sjorford. Proposals to have instructions for the standardization of infoboxes are in existence right now on Wikipedia. More are certainly to come because this fails. Please consider the dangers of m:instruction creep. Standardization of infoboxes on Wikipedia will impede work on Wikipedia severely.--Fenice 05:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. VFD is the wrong way to handle this. Maurreen (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article misses the point (no pun intended), I think. It would be quite valid for the Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation article to consist of an injunction to follow the constraints imposed by WikiProjects where they exist ... and nothing else. This page is therefore redundant. Noisy | Talk 17:49, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

That of course boils down to no standardization. The projects use a template which by definition standardizes itself. Your argument is faulty, there is a logical inconsistency.--Fenice 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the policy is redundant as described above. I'm also concerned that it is essentially a fork of the infobox standardization discussions, and this suggestion should have been made there. -Splash 18:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation to see it is not redundant. Believe it or not: there is a proposal to just standardize infoboxes - which have been used successfully by hundreds of projects. It is not easy to get a Project to work, many die. Imposing rules on the participants will no doubt scare hundreds of users who have expert-knowledge away. The benefits of this standardization are nonexistent. The projects standardize themselves, because they use templates. A layout suggestion that corresponds to the taste of a tiny minority who will be signing the standardization creep is of no benefit to Wikipedia, the readers, the rest of the users of Wikipedia etc.--Fenice 19:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should say so in the talk for that discussion, and not fork a whole new page. Raising your concerns in the original talk page is far more likely to get them heard by the interested community. -Splash 19:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your invitation to discuss the standardization of infoboxes. However, I would not try to create a policy against the standardization of infoboxes if I found the standardization of infoboxes helpful in any way. I am against this standardization, so I cannot contribute anything useful on how to standardize them, so I keep my contributions to the standardization of infoboxes-policy proposal to a minimum.--Fenice 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Policy discussion belongs on the appropriate policy discussion page, not on VfD. Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This so-called policy annhiliates the ongoing discussion in Wikipedia:Infobox standardization over whether or not a standard should be followed. (Don't forget to delete its redirect page WP:NIS). CG 19:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on Wikipedia:Infobox standardization was not anihilated. There were several contributions on that page since the creation of WP:NIS. The participation has been low before that point in time as well, maybe because this vote here is not representative. There may actually be lots of people out there to oppose standardization. They just don't realize that their project is threatened.--Fenice 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no need for two separate pages on the same policy. Eugene van der Pijll 20:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no second page on the same policy. The second page mentioned by some people here actually proposes the opposite policy, it is at: Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation.--Fenice 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Quote that page: "it has been suggested to discuss whether there should be infobox standardisation." Quote the talk page, first sentence: "To standardize, or not to standardize?" That is, the outcome of that page could be either "there should be standardization", or "there shouldn't be". Those are exactly the same possible outcomes as your policy discussion page, which means that either there will be the same discussion at two sides (completely unnecessary), or the discussion will be different and the result can be two contradictory policies. Eugene van der Pijll 20:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Eugene, may I just point you to the fact, that that is a little contradictory. You are obviously not against this text or else you would vote against it. Please note the hundreds of users that will be subject to bullying due to the instruction guidelines you support. It will be extremely diruptive to Wikipedia.--Fenice 04:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The text you are quoting was added by me, and I deleted the original proposal, which is: To try to ensure some level of consistency throughout Wikipedia, the infobox standardisation page explains how general infoboxes should appear. Please go to the talk page to discuss policy. The current text is likely to be reverted in no time. Since people apply completely different standards to the proposal I brought forth here than on other policy proposals (one was even kept speedily for the reason that VfD is not the right place), I had to resort to change the text of Ed's standardization frenzy. People here are so standardization crazy that in my case they break their own propositions not to find VfD the right place to discuss policy proposals...--Fenice 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first version of the page was inappropriate for a proposal for a new guideline. With your text, and with {{proposed}} at the top, it's much better now. Eugene van der Pijll 21:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Eugene, if you supported my text, you would obviously vote for it wouldn't you? My text is on vote right here. So if you are consistent, you would have to change your vote. Please also consider the dangers of instruction creep m:instruction creep will give you some idea of what you have (accidentally?) voted for.--Fenice 05:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only your text is on vote here, but its location too. I'm voting against having 2 different pages, not against your text. Eugene van der Pijll 07:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So your vote is against Wikipedia:No infobox standardization. that is contradictory to the fact that you like my text better, which does not support the standardization of infoboxes.--Fenice 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting on your text. (And besides; I was talking on your text at Wikipedia:Infobox standardization, which basically said "Standardisation should be discussed"; at WP:NIS you wrote "There should be no standardisation", which I don't like nearly as much.) Eugene van der Pijll 08:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm breaking my "no voting while VfD is in flux" rule here because I feel this one is important. This is a fork, and an attempt to disrupt an otherwise well organized discussion. It's arguably speediable. -Harmil 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hamil, I would like you to also consider the dangers of standardization of infoboxes before you support it speedily. You are voting for instructions which are going to hinder Wikipedia forever. Numerous users will be busy putting through rules that serve no purpose whatsoever. Numerous users will leave Wikipedia due to the edit wars that you are laying the basis for by voting for the standardization of infoboxes. Infobox standardization is going to disrupt the work of innocent human beings for an indefinite period of time. Maybe if you have time you may qwant to sit down and think about the conswequences of voting to have what we call m:instruction creep around here. --Fenice 05:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but redirect to Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation, unless that page becomes a failed proposal. At which time Infobox standardisation should then be turned into a redirect to No infobox standardization. BlankVerse ∅ 05:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it, though. I mean, really - think it through, and if you stick to this position, that's all right, because at least you've thought clearly about it. The question you should ask is this: does the fact that a policy proposal fails mean that the flip side of that automatically becomes policy? In other words, if Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation fails, does it mean that Wikipedia:No infobox standardization automatically succeeds without further discussion (because that's what redirection will imply)? I'll let you ponder that, and say no more on the subject here. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

A redirect is a redirect, Khaosworks, it does not imply anything.--Fenice 06:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:POINT. It's time to chill out, then calmly talk about things in Wikipedia talk:Infobox standardisation. I strongly doubt that that proposal will go anywhere, but this isn't the way to resolve the issue. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to chill out, Man in Black. You are claiming in your statement right here that your POV should be discussed, why not let there be a discussion on someone else's POV? Yes, this proposal will go nowhere because you want to push your POV and cut off discussions on other opinions. --Fenice 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think my POV on this issue is clear. Please assume good faith, especially before accusing someone who agrees with you of POV-pushing.

If you oppose Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation, go there and state your case clearly. This sarcasm and disruption only serves to detract and distract from your goal of defeating that proposal. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, Man in Black, we're all rotfl. You have just left a message on my talk page that you do not want me to participate in the discussion on Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation, did that slip your mind. My goal is not to defeat any proposals, I have my own proposal to defend, Man in Black. And you know that too, you do not need to be told here again. Cut it out.--Fenice 10:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this comment? Perhaps you're thinking of my talk page, where I suggested you might be happier taking a short break, cooling off, and coming back to the debate, calm and refreshed. I still feel that you will be happier, as well as a more convincing advocate, if you do so.

As for the rest, this line of discussion, again, has ceased to be productive, and I don't plan to continue it further. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man in Black, again. You have suggested in seveal places I leave the discussion. It does not make you appear in good faith to ask other users to leave a discussion, just because you don't agree with them. My proposal has been trampled on so you think you can just tread on me a little more. I have no words to describe your behaviour here, it speaks for itself. Again, I am asking you to stop this. There is no reason to attack other users, man in black.--Fenice 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very difficult for me to do anything because I disagree with you, given the fact that I agree with you. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, please, just get it: I do not agree with you. And stop pestering me.--Fenice 10:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete all anti-policy pages. The effort and material on this page should have been used to promote the opposing pov to the infobox standardisation policy proposal. Thryduulf 12:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite apart from anything else, this is a piece of instruction creep as an unneeded derivative of IAR. *yawns*. James F. (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially inclined to support a merge-and-redirect to the main proposal, and would still support a redirect if it is kept. However, this page appears to be actively disrupting the ongoing discussion about infoboxes, and therefore should be deleted. -- Visviva 06:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation -- without deleting the history. Wikipedia only needs one article to explain what the state of infobox standardisation is and whether or not it exists. Wikipedia:No infobox standardization appears to have been created for the sole purpose of opposing another proposal, so that it is not really a distinct proposal in its own right, but a possible outcome of the debate on Infobox standardisation; if the outcome is that there be no standardisation, then Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation would/should be made to explain that fact. --Mysidia (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, do not delete. The WP:NIS discussion should have been taking place at the already-existing Wikipedia:Infobox standardization rather than on what could easily be called a POV fork. -Sean Curtin 04:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Infobox standardisation David Henderson 04:51, 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 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 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mortualia[edit]

Unverifiable, nn.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. Andrew pmk 18:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - Thatdog 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Splash 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, no AMG entry. --Howcheng 23:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 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 come on, folks, have some common sense and don't nominate that kind of crap on VfD. Grue 17:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel_ninja[edit]

Original entry: hoopshapooperdoop This entry is rubbish. Zaknib 14:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as nonsense article. Allegrorondo 14:55, 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 07:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DiceScape[edit]

unpublished RPG, non-notable, written in first person. Allegrorondo 15:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not notable, which goes for the attendant articles as well. - Randwicked 16:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article and the three related ones; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 17:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, it's signed by the author, bad sign. --Etacar11 00:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and related articles. Nifboy 06:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I acidentally created the page. please delete it and all related as soon as possible. TVR Enthusiast

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese box (torture)[edit]

The page should be deleted because it is a hoax and completely lacks any credible source Lao Wai 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Andrew pmk 18:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Add reasoning to taste. -Splash 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete, we already have the dab page Chinese box and the bit at the bottom of this article (which is its content, really) at least from a Googling, I can't verify. The stuff above the {{NPOV}} tag duplicates the dab page I mentioned.. -Splash 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is already a perfectly good disambiguation page or at least there was last time I checked. The bit at the bottom is the article. Lao Wai 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've changed my vote. -Splash 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Both the reference books listed do exist, although are out of print (searched on Amazon). It should be possible to find them in a library somewhere and verify.

--Howcheng 22:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well George Mason's book is there because I put it there. His book does not refer to this alleged form of torture at all. The British Library does not hold the Sair book which suggests to me that Amazon is wrong and it does not exist. If even Google produces nothing then I'd say it is a myth. Lao Wai 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Sair book exists in the Library of Congress so it's real. It's not in my local library, though, so I can't verify the information for you. --Howcheng 15:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked and no one has been able to verify it. Sair is not a China scholar so even if the book existed it would only prove that in 1944 people wrote dumb things about China. If it were real a real scholar would have mentioned it. They do not. Lao Wai 16:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given Lao Wai's legwork, I hereby change my vote to Delete. --Howcheng 20:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until verified. Make sure the article reflects the unverifiedness. -- Zanaq 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a myth, how can one verify it? Surely the burden of proof ought to be the other way around for an encyclopedia? Lao Wai 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Charliez 09:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC). Articles that cannot be verified in any way, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. To add insult to injury it's written in a manner that is completely unscientific. Remove it but by all means let someone write a completely new article at a later point, should they somehow manage to verify these claims. As anyone with even a minor interest in the logic of philosophy would know, it's in fact not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Unless articles like this are deleted, Wikipedia will slowly be filled with undocumented claims and nonsense.[reply]

Normally I'd agree. However the two referenced books seem to exist, so it seems verifiable in principle. -- Zanaq 11:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least one of the books is claimed to have been checked, and no reference to this device found Charliez 12:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
changed vote. Lao Wai makes a lot of sense. -- Zanaq 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be unverifiable. --Carnildo 06:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ maybe. As far as I know, a chinese box is a box within a box, within a box, etc. It's also an expression and a famous thought experiment. In terms of the torture device, it does seem like something that would be written about in the 19th century, when China and the far east were "exotic" and any tale of bizarre torture would please 19th century audiences, whether they are true or not. Both cited sources are real. Thus, if the article were written in terms of how this 19th century term for a torture device came about, etc., then I say keep the article. The device is obviously an exaggeration, but there may be something to the myth which might be worth preserving. Of course the article as such does none of this. Nrets 01:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disambiguation page that provides links to the box-within-a-box and to the famous thought experiment (and to a film as well). There is no need for another one. At least one cited source is real, but as I said, it does not mention this device (which suggests it is not true). The other one is more elusive. As I said above "Sair is not a China scholar so even if the book existed it would only prove that in 1944 people wrote dumb things about China. If it were real a real scholar would have mentioned it. They do not." What is worth preserving and where is the evidence for it? Lao Wai 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but even if this Sair fellow is not a Chinese scholar, he might have used reliable sources in his book. I think someone, preferably the original editor of the article, should produce a more specific citation of the Sair book, or check which original sources he used before we discredit the whole thing. That being said, it sounds like this article is more of a myth than a hoax, and from that angle, the myth of the so-called Chinese box can be written about. I think we should at least give the editor the benefit of the doubt. I agree, in 1944 people probably wrote dumb things about China (and about a bunch of other things), but dumb things usually have a source in the collective unconscious of the time and reflect interesting cultural trends. This is why myths are worth preserving, so we can understand how our thinking has evolved over time and why we see things the way we do. Nrets 14:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, there is a book in print called "The instruments of torture" by Michael Kerrigan which lists in it's index under China:death by insects. I wonder if anybody has access to this book if this mentions anything about a box?? Nrets 14:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I do, but I won't be able to get it until Monday. I'll keep you posted. Lao Wai 10:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, read that. Not a bad book really. I guess Jane Austen got a little too boring for him. It refers to one case in modern China in which a man was allegedly chained up outside where the mosquitos bit him. And another few cases from the rest of the world. As far as myths go I am happy enough with moving the page to Sexual Fetishism or the like. It seems more appropriate and as long as it is rewritten that way. But it would probably be best to delete it and add some stuff to the pages that exist already. Lao Wai 13:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I guess it is unverifiable. The burden of proof is on the original editor and he hasn't come forth to defend his position. Nrets 15:14, 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.

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 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Casey[edit]

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 15:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the redlinked bands are notable. He's a drummer in both of them. Meelar (talk) 15:57, 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues[edit]

While not completely unmaintainable yet, it will become less maintainable in the future, not very uncyclopedic (Who looks in an encyclopedia to see where they can find an IMAX nearby?), and wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a general knowledgebase of everything ever known by anyone in the history of the world. --Phroziac (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMAX venues are rare enough that this list should be maintainable. - SimonP 16:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - agree with SimonP. We'll deal with the future when the time comes. Wikipedia is not paper. The JPS 16:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IF the list was shorter, I'd support merging it into the IMAX page. As it stands, it's too big to merge and too small to consider unmaintainable. --Several Times 17:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. IMAX theatres are uncommon enough to have such a list. Jaxl | talk 17:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MicroFeet 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with IMAX. Shingen 19:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for once this is a list that is actually useful. As long it doesn't get complimented by List of IMAX cinemas where there are trees near the back door and so on. -Splash 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, Mea culpa, per WP:BEANS. That list actually got created (not by me) and deleted: [13]. Come on, own up, who was it? -Splash 02:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did it. It sounded useful... :) Voyager640 19:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say they're rare and notable enough, as temples to the cinematic arts etc; the one at Waterloo is possibly even a notable building in its own right. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi there, we moved the details out of the general IMAX article because it grew too big and the IMAX article was more about the list of cinemas than about the other aspects of IMAX. Moving it back again would just recreate the problems we were trying to solve. Plus we didn't find such list readily available elsewhere (while this [14] site contains all the theatres, all items are hidden behind a flash interface - there is no free access to the source list. Peter S. 21:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful information, why on earth would you have it deleted? --Mb1000 23:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with SimonP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the good reasons given above. --DrTorstenHenning 07:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everybody above. Zoe 07:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep 2.5 Dimensions Klonimus 17:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fraser (columnist)[edit]

Delete - Original work / conspiracy theory / attack on columnist - brought to you as an advert for www.wikinerds.org spam. Tεx τ urε 16:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is ~~slander~~ libel gkhan 18:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Noyt quite slander (actually libel - slander's spoken). The cited article does opine that there may well be an attack in Egypt; shortly afterwards there was. The author of the article doesn't go as far as saying that there's a connection. Delete anyway; purely an attack page. Tonywalton 19:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand, as I often do, corrected :P gkhan 19:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I corrected my typo (but I was sitting) just so you don't feel alone ;-) Tonywalton

Delete, wouldn't object to speedy as a thinly veiled attack page. -Splash 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that I never meant to attack this columnist. What make you to believe the article is an attack? He predicted an event, and I documented this, and then I just asked how he did that and I added the information that the event occured on the national day. That's all. I can't understand why someone would consider this libel. It's just a neutral documentation of something that happened in reality (columnist predicts an event, event actually happens). Can someone please explain to me why you consider this an attack? Wikinerd 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It very much implies that there's a connection. If it is not an attack page, what, exactly, is it for? "Ian Fraser made a guess which subsequently turned out to come to pass" is hardly encyclopaedic, is it? If you consider it is, please explain how. Tonywalton 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is natural that on the national day there may be terrorist attacks, since this has happened before too. I believe this columnist just guessed and his intention was to put some tone of conspiracy in his column and attract readers' attention. I considered this interesting and funny so I documented it. I could not even imagine that anyone would consider this libel. Wikinerd 02:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, not encyclopedic. --Howcheng 22:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (author request) because it's an article from my wiki and the attribution notice (required by GFDL in my interpretation) was removed, and the fact that some people here consider Ian Fraser (columnist) libel and attack means probably that my humorous intention is not clear from my writing. If more people consider this libel I may also delete it from my wiki. Wikinerd 02:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Humorous"? You realize this is an encyclopedia, right? Not a blog? - Tεx τ urε 03:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explain in my userpage, I don't believe in the old 18th century encyclopedia concept which has no place in the digital era (see my blog post The future of wikis). Wikinerd 04:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - On your own wiki, I can understand your intent to make yours more humorous, or blog-like. But, why do you think this is appropriate for the "free encyclopedia"? Original work (in this case, in the form of your humor) is not accepted as basic policy. - Tεx τ urε 14:25, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monique DeMoan[edit]

I think I'm going to have to renominate this, because otherwise it just serves to undermine VFD process. The article has not undergone a VFU and so should not have been reposted, regardless of merit. I also disagree with the unnecessary inclusion of non-prominent actors in a serious encyclopaedia. 80 films is actually very little for a porn star. Most notable porn actors/actresses have appeared in several hundred. If you want an example of a porn star who qualifies for inclusion, take a look at Vince Vouyer. Monique DeMoan is a total nobody. --Erwin Walsh 16:43, 15 August 2005 UTC

Additional note: see [[15]] as a reference. Erwin Walsh 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous nomination got completely confused on what problem was being addressed, but can be found here. I would ask people to please not vote on issues of process again, or this VfD will just be a repeat of the previous discussions. Those can be found at WP:AN/I. Vote as if the article is newly created and has had no prior history on VfU—which, in case of Tony Sidaway's rewrite, it doesn't. JRM · Talk 17:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Erwin is mistaken. There's no rule against recreating a speedied article with different content. As to the merit, she's notable enough with over 65,000 Google hits. That's more than Caressa Savage gets. NoPuzzleStranger 17:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually a contested speedy (and this one certainly was contestable) can be recreated with exactly the same content. The rule against recreation of deleted content doesn't apply to speedies for this reason--such articles should be taken to VfD unless they obviously fall under a CSD. The initial version of this article accurately described the porn star, thus providing ample context to enable the article to be extended, and asserted notability; it wasn't even remotely speediable. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note Verifying the notoriety of porn stars via a standard google search is highly dubious. The vast majority (over 90%) will be spam or commercial sites, which demonstrate nothing. A more accurate method is to use the Image Search with filtering turned off. This results in about 350 hits for "Monique DeMoan" , not many. Comparatively, an image search for "Tower of London" returns 23,000; "The Beatles" returns 170,000.
keep, 1.5% as notable as the Tower of London. Kappa 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC) LOL.[reply]
Delete. Notability of porn stars cannot be determined by Google. Google is inherently biased towards any internet-based phenomenon, and it seems safe to say that pornography is relatively internet based. --Scimitar ^parley 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough. Why commercial sites should be ignored in counting Google hits I don't know, and why being an internet-based phenomenon means it should be deleted I don't know. If your point is that we should add more info on porn stars from the pre-internet era, I'm all for that. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:34, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
- My point was that a prominent and notable person, such as Robert Countess, only gets 816 google hits because his field doesn't lend itself to internet sites, whereas a much less notable porn star, by virtue of her field of endeavor, recieves a misleadingly high amount of internet hits. Further proof of google's bias: Clement Kayishema gets 962 hits, while Melanchlaeni get 92. All are far more notable than Ms. Monique, so dont quote me google hits.--Scimitar ^parley 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment That's a very good point, Scimitar. The deMoan debate has, if nothing else, highlighted how widely good, well-meaning editors can disagree in assessing the notability of persons. A corollary to your excellent point about things that are popular on the net is the differing perception of notability in the things that one does. It has been repeatedly pointed by excellent commentators that the sentence "X is an American porn-star" itself establishes a basis for notability. Being a porn-star is felt to be notable, in and of itself. This is quite extraordinary, when one considers that none of the following sentences, for example, would be thought to indicate notability: "X is an American dermatologist," "X is a British lawyer," "X is a Japanese researcher," "X is a writer," "X is a chess player;" this last of course, being the prototypical CSD candidate. A one-sentence article containing any of the preceding would be immediate candidates for CSD (assuming for the purposes of discussion that X is simply an ordinary, regular member of his or her profession). However, an ordinary, completely unremarkable pornstar has apparently a firm claim to notability, and inclusion in an encyclopedia — simply by virtue of being a pornstar. Ie. we have, incredibly, elevated pornstars to the level of US presidents and senators. It doesn't matter if they are the most unremarkable, unnotable of their kind — they still get in.—Encephalon | ^ζ 23:19:17, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
    - I think this may be a confusion between what asserts notability and what establishes it. A claim that X is a porn star is an assertion of notability that (if a sanity check on google seems to confirm it) means the article can come to VfD where we decide whether or not notability is established. And that is something we decide by discussing amongst ourselves. An article about a US senator probably wouldn't end up on VfD; I expect we'd just say "speedy keep" and move on to the next item--not so with an article about a porn star. Monique DeMoan may or may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. That's what we're here to determine. She doesn't get an automatic "in" just for lying on her back and gargling sperm. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your thoughts, Tony. That's really the point I'm making: that being a pornstar is apparently an assertion of notability. Why is it? What is it about simply being a pornstar that automatically makes it an assertion of notability? This view supposes that pornstarhood is inherently a claim or assertion of notability. Yet if we follow the reasoning that merely being a member of the pornstar profession is a claim to notability, that leaves us with problems. Is "X is an accountant" an assertion of notability? What about "X is an epidemiologist"? You seem to be saying that if someone asserts they do something professionally, then they have asserted notability. If you are not saying that, then you are using some method of distinguishing the "notability merits" of professions that I am unfamiliar with. Because if "pornstar" is an automatic assertion of notability but "biologist" is not, how are you distinguishing them? I would find it difficult, if only because being, say, a neurosurgeon means being a member of a far smaller, far more selective group than being a pornstar. Yet if I wrote an article with only the sentence "X is an American neurosurgeon" here, it will be knocked out, almost certainly with CSD (assume X is a regular, ordinary neurosurgeon who when you google him has an office address and online CV). What are your criteria for distinguishing which professions are automatic assertions of notability? If they are WP criteria, Tony, I hope you can point them out to me, because I'd like to learn them to make sure my time on VfD is more usefully spent for my fellow Wikipedians. Finally, if you are not using distinguishing criteria but simply believe that "X is _____(profession)" automatically rules out CSD, since it is an assertion of notability, may I ask you to kindly consider where that leaves CSD A7? It would mean that all those A7s we've been passing, on articles like "X is a computer developer," are invalid. You appreciate the difficulty? Very kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 00:41:44, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
      - Well I fought this new CSD tooth and nail because it's very ambiguous. The wording was something like "bakers aren't notable but professors may be". I still thought that was ambiguous, and I believe I warned that in the event it did pass we'd have stub articles about professors being speedied instead of VfD'd (this is important in my country because professors are pretty rare--I know in some countries the title is handed around like sticks of chewing gum). And this is indeed what has happened--sysops on RC patrol are deleting stubs which could be expanded easily.
      - But we've got it and the compromise interpretation I've arrived at is that if I, a sysop who looks at the article, think a description of a profession amounts to an assertion of notability, then it is. Other sysops may look and see no such assertion. If there's doubt like this (eg: sysops in good faith deciding an article is deletable, and other sysops deciding it isn't) the policy is at least clear that the thing goes to VfD anyway. And I'm reasonably happy with that. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the proposal explicitly noted that "people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society." This certainly suggests that a person being an actor is a sufficient assertion of notability to demand a VFD. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:25, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
        
        Tony: Participating in VfD has been a productive experience for me, and the main thing I've learned is that it's not straightforward. Many of the guidelines are sensible, but it is no less true that there are a few (it seems especially some newer ones) which offer conflicting interpretations. For example, WP:BIO, which I don't use when doing VfD, has arbitrary cut-offs that go against the spirit of WP:V; in some cases it is very illogical in its discrimination of professions. For example, an actor may merit inclusion in WP if he has starred in a commercial film that was seen by just 5000 people; a professional scientist on the other hand only merits inclusion if her "work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." So we have the ridiculous situation where the bar is set ludicrously low for one profession, and extremely high for another. The irony of course is that it is arguable that of the two professions, it is the latter that is intrinsically more notable even to begin with; it is certainly incomparably more selective.
        
        Be that as it may, I do disagree with you wrt the CSD, especially in this particular case, Tony. There is nothing in the CSD that requires "X is a pornstar" to be interpreted as an automatic assertion of notability in and of itself. That's the reason it is difficult for us to provide a reason why "X is a pornstar" is an assertion of notability, but "X is a particle physicist" is not. In truth, in neither instance has the assertion standard been met. If the sentence was, "X is a legendary pornstar felt by many to be the greatest artist in adult movie making in the 1980s," yes, that is an assertion of notability. "X is a pornstar" simply isn't. The old deMoan "article" clearly qualified for CSD, and was validly deleted. (Equally, I think the recreation was valid). It is instructive to note the concluding sentences on notability on the WP:DVAIN page: ...For instance, if the person's profession is cited, a reasonable guideline would be how many people have the same profession: there are tens of thousands of porn models, but very few senators. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ 12:01:30, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

- - I apologize, I misread the second "Google" as "Wikipedia" for some reason. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:48, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
    - Your point being that once the Wikipedia hit is removed, he has even less "google notability"? Because as far as I can tell, that implies less google hits (wikipedia and mirrors), indicating exactly my point- that google is inherently biased in favor of internet based phenmoena.--Scimitar ^parley 21:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, my point being that I interpreted your point as being one about the bias of Wikipedia rather than the bias of Google; e.g. I read your point as being we are already too inclusive in this area, and need in some way to stem the flow. I don't dispute the point you actually made, obviously Google hit counts can be very inflated in instances like these. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:19, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
    - This rather overlooks the fact that Monique DeMoan has performed in principally VHS and DVD-based pornography, rather than website-based porn. In fact some of her most prolific years were immediately prior to the era of internet porn. Google is never much use for gauging the notability of anyone, it's just a useful sanity check. The large number of mainstream porn movies (rather than net-based shorts) that she has appeared in is a much better guide. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And keep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gaa. Keep current incarnation. Zoe 23:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:BIO as an actress in commercially distributed work seen by an audience of 5,000 or more. Capitalistroadster 23:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough. Why is someone who was a main actress in quite a few X-rated movies any less notable than someone who was an main actress in some PG-13-rated movies?--Prosfilaes 02:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the argument that this is a recreation of previously deleted material is false. Radiant_>|< 10:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually it's true. The earliest version of the current article is the version that was speedied [16]. Not that this is relevant to anything--it would be silly to vote to delete perfectly good articles just because somebody speedied them earlier. Every article has to start somewhere, and most start small. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Complainers should just let it go already. DreamGuy 12:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- After 6 straight keep votes, I think maybe they have.--Scimitar ^parley 14:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For better or worse, we have an extensive Category:Porn stars and this article, as rewritten, is comparable to all those others. -- Curps 18:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The debate over this article shows that there is a serious dispute over just what people considers is a "notable" pornstar. This argument will keep resurfacing until a consensus is reached, so I'm offering a few facts to try to poke this debate into a consensus:

A 60 Minutes segment on the porn industry noted that 70% of the women who start out as porn actresses survive only 1 movie.
Is the individual somehow acknowledged for their work in some way other than the kinds of sexual acts she/he engages in? I ask this because if one were to detail the activities of these people, a lot of what they do in front of the camera either conforms to a job description from a resume/CV (e.g., "while working for this producer, I not only had sex with every man, woman or animal as the script demanded, but also convincingly expressed my satisfaction with that individual"), or resembles the typical Monday morning boastings of the previous weekend (e.g., "you won't believe how drunk/stoned/etc I got the other night"). Before someone accuses me of dismissing all people in this category, I would defend individuals like Linda Lovelace, Marilyn Chambers, Brandy Alexandre (pornstar), Sunset Thomas, & a few others as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. (Note: the Wikipedia article on Brandy Alexandre currently fails to even mention her significant 'Net career.)
Can something worthwhile be said for the movies they appeared in? I ask this because whle some porno movies did have an effect on popular culture (Deep throat is a defensible example), can the same be said for, say, "Sleezy Lovin' Sisters #22"?

I mention all of this because this genre requires that we define specific criteria for inclusion that won't apply to other subjects. So far, it appears that no one has attempted to do just this. -- llywrch 23:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . What else ? MutterErde 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (just wondering )[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough to me. I can't imagine the project that attempts to define any specific criteria for notability for porn. Perhaps somebody can take a stab at a porn equivilant to BEEFSTEW used for schools. David Henderson 05:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and for heaven's sake let this be the end of this. I can't believe someone opened another VfD over it, especially one citing that fiasco of a VfU as a reason. As others have said, that VfU should never have happened (and was never required) in the first place. Notability already seems to have been established above and in several previous discussions. Additionally, Erwin seems to be mistaken about the fashion in which this article was deleted, saying that it would "undermine the VfD process." To my knowledge, this article was never the subject of a successful VfD in any incarnation (but it was the subject of one botched one that appeared to be heavily leaning towards "keep"); therefore no outcome here could possibly undermine the VfD process. Aquillion 22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Might I humbly suggest that this should be an end to star chambers where a sheep-vote is rendered as a rubber stamp on the summary deletion by a single person. Once undeleted, a disputed speedy can be seen, and edited, and submitted for deletion if necessary. VfD has been criticised of late, but it's not as tyrannous and anti-wiki as VFU, where votes are carried out concerning an article most people cannot see and nobody can edit during the vote. VfD and VFU should be amalgamated and no speedy deletion challenged by any administrator should ever remain deleted merely because its deletion has already been challenged by a non administrator. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:58, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Corps[edit]

Original research/vanity. Author admits it in an edit summary. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Copyvio of [[17]]. Erwin Walsh
comment real organization that is notable enough to warrant an article, but not as written. 12.22.157.3 18:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Vfd is not cleanup, and even if it were, this article is not terrible. A little stubby, but not spammish, especially after Ril's expansion. Meelar (talk) 21:03, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Needs a rewrite, but seems like a notable organization. --Howcheng 22:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - organization is notable. -Satori 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not original research. I created this entry before I was hired from publicly available sources -- only the latest update is while I've been working here. The Using Sources section of the NOR guideline makes it clear that provided my info is publically available (which it is), then my input as an employee is valid. Here're a couple recent articles from mainstream, published media which reference Democracy Corps' work: Washington Post, August 10, 2005 St. Louis Post Dispatch, August 13, 2005. Feel free to rewrite, but I tried for the most neutral POV I could. There's no praise in the article, just a little background for someone who wants to know more about an organiztion that gets a decent amount of coverage, particularly online. Based on the press, I'd say it's not a vanity entry, either. [ [-Piro 15:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poking around, I've found on-line references to polls conducted by them. David Henderson 05:15, 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 redirect to Massage. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massage therapist[edit]

Does not expand or elucidate any more information than Massage so relatively pointless. Erwin Walsh

Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk 18:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Howcheng 22:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 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 07:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atromeroptics[edit]

Self-invented branch of physics / original research with no supporting citations, other than the author's own website. Please note that author has other disputed entries re: original invention up for VfD (see Wehner blower, Atromeroptic Law), non-supportable medical facts that have been reverted(see melasma suprarenale). Hfwd 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Andrew pmk 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tonywalton 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Pjacobi 20:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not verifiable. ManoaChild 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. --Etacar11 00:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research Salsb 11:15, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 07:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Pollyanna Principle[edit]

"Machines should work; people should think." Besides being obscure, this statement uses pointless and facile logic. Erwin Walsh

Delete. Erwin Walsh 17:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your disagreement with the article's contents is not a criterion for deletion. Google shows numerous academic studies based on or relating to "Pollyanna Principle." Lomn | Talk 18:34:00, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
Keep. IBM's Pollyanna Principle has been a well-known computer science creed for decades. The "pointless and facile logic" is quite intentional and serves to illustrate some of the misconceptions people make about computing. - Thatdog 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a lot of things that use 'pointless and facile logic'. That doesn't mean they're unencyclopaedic Tonywalton 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a little cleaning, it could be a perfectly good article on the subject. Certainly there is room to be fleshed out, but the term is used. --Icelight 00:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Move. It should be under 'Polyanna Principle', it is usually quoted as such. I have heard about it frequently but never knew the origin. there should also be a reference to Think (IBM), probably the most famous one word mission statement for a company.--Gorgonzilla 16:46, 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 . - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Very Secret Diaries[edit]

Popular slashfic, but not a general internet meme, never made it into pop culture. This is no All your base. SchmuckyTheCat 17:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep, no reason to deny users information about popular slashfics. Kappa 18:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, '"The Very Secret Diaries" cassandra' gets about 1600 hits on google. Notable enough for me gkhan 18:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Andrew pmk 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "brief internet fad". -Splash 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slashfic, even slashfic with 1600 hits, is non-notable. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 21:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if and only if the article is expanded on. There is way more history to this article than the little tidbit provided. TheImpossibleMan
Keep. There's no reason why slashfic is inherantly non-notable. --Prosfilaes 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This slashfic is inherently non-notable. Nandesuka 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Surely it's absurd to say that it's inherently non-notable; if it became commonly read in schools, or even as popular as Bored of the Rings, it would be notable.--Prosfilaes 17:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. R adiant _>|< 14:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As per google count, note that googling '"Very Secret Diaries"' by itself gets a little shy of 10,000 hits. Seems notable to me. Am confused by notion that something could be particularly non-notable. If it is well-known enough for many to have specific opinions on it, isn't that in some way notable? Tromboneborges 15:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Very Secret Diaries" contains gajillions of hits that have nothing to do with this slashfic. Add any form of the name, "cassy" "claire" "cassandra" and the hits drop down a few hundred. Also, do you edit anything other than this article and VfD? SchmuckyTheCat 18:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure -- I'm just only recently newly-pseudonymous. Tromboneborges 19:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Trollderella 01:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic--nixie 01:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fic has inspired a fair number of other fics, to the point that members of other fandoms refer to a general "VSD" without explaining the term, so the article is useful, although it needs expanding. Google hits are not that reliable a guide for fanfics like this as they are mainly quoted on sites like LiveJournal and Fanfiction.net which don't show individual entries in Google.
Eaten by a hamster my vote has been eaten by a hamster due to the fact that I dont care--205.188.116.69 19:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable to me, by Google count alone. –Shoaler (talk) 19:08, 17 August

2005 (UTC)

Keep Reasonably famous internet meme. There was a VfD for the author a month back, where consensus (admittedly ridden by socks) was to redirect to here. Sam Vimes 12:31, 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 no consensus to delete, but with all the keep-type votes being merge votes I will call this a merge. I am having trouble finding a good place to merge this, but I will try merging this with the note section of Interstate 69, but if someone thinks that was the completely wrong place to merge it, go ahead and merge it somewhere else. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Interstate 69 (between Lansing and Flint)[edit]

This page is for a section of Interstate 69 that no longer exists. It does not need it's own article. Gateman1997 18:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my reasoning above.Gateman1997 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as well as its entry on the List of highways in Michigan. --Howcheng 22:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since interstates do not have at grade intersections. Vegaswikian 05:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- List of gaps in Interstate Highways#Freeway gaps lists several. --SPUI (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Does not need its own article. --SPUI (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one cares about Temp Interstate 69 (preceding unsigned comment by Aranda56 01:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Merge, redirect, move to Temporary Interstate 69 and delete double redirect. Alphax ^τεχ 05:43, 24 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 07:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Road Baptist Church[edit]

churches are not inherently notable; the "new attendence record" of the church is well below megachurch standards Sdedeo 18:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should update that: the megachurch article defines megachurch as 2000 or more. I still think the bar for church inclusion should be set higher than 2000, however. Sdedeo 18:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the UK there probably isn't a single church with an average congregation of 2,000! Osomec 01:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it happens, Franklin Road Baptist Church is in Tennessee, in the US. Everything is bigger in the US. Pilatus 16:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable church. Gateman1997 18:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 18:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's just a church, and they aren't inherently notable. -Splash
Comment: Isn't it unusual for a Baptist church to have a school on-site? Gazpacho 20:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2700 on one occasion is piddling for a megachurch. Now a regularly a crowd of 13000 at the Southeast Christian Church, that is phat! Pilatus 16:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to avoid slippery slope. Grue 19:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has entries for denominations that are smaller than 2000.
Delete. Nothing about this chruch seems notable to me. I've already forgotten everything I read about it as I type this. David Henderson 05:21, 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 07:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer boxing[edit]

Non-notable collage drinking game. Also, although irrelevant to the vote at hand, quite disgusting gkhan 18:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini | ∂drini 18:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MicroFeet 18:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Delete Tonywalton 19:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--SpaceMonkey 19:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you would think vomiting once would be enough to end the game. but three times??? Allegrorondo 20:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pronto. Drinking game articles are like a plague. Be vigilant. Paul 21:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just deleting articles about drinking games doesn't stop people from drinking. Accept that this stuff happens in college and document it, don't try to censor it.
- We don't want it deleted because we thinks it will stop people from drinking. This isn't because we want it censored, we have articles on way more hirrible things than this. It is just that we do not think a drinking-game that very few people have heard of fits into the encyclopedia. gkhan 10:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Drinking games are inherently notable. Voyager640

"Drinking games are inherently notable." May I ask why that is, exactly? Fernando Rizo T/C 01:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Add a mention of beer boxing to the drinking game page and delete this article. --Kerowyn 19:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My original thought was that this was not notable enough to keep... After reading the above comment, I checked out Drinking game, and my opinion is this variant is equally notable as many of the many other drinking games listed. I've wikified it somewhat. David Henderson 05:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable enough, sorry. Also,ick. Sean Black 05:35, 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 07:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with minimal Jewish ancestry[edit]

This is stretching it by a long shot. Sdedeo 18:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree it is a stretch gkhan 18:47, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tonywalton 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletethe word "minimal" does it for me. -Splash 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Zoe 20:21, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete — RJH 23:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless List of people who have briefly spoken to the Queen is allowed to exist. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As a result of my objections to the ridiculous criteria involved in classifying people as "Jews", I think my vote is appropriately regarded as a superfluous afterthought. The only reason the article was even created was as a result of splitting up the List of Jews article, per the discussion that took place on its TALK page. This VFD underscores my objections to the list itself, so while it might seem incongruous that the author of an article might vote "strong delete", perhaps now my vote is more understandable. Tomer ^TALK 06:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 06:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not cool ~~~~ 09:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tomer's point is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. Punkmorten 20:31, 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 djelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fjact[edit]

Utterly non-notable term. Gets 67 hits on google, almost all unrelated to this term. gkhan 18:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete MicroFeet 18:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is commonly used in the forum cited. --Cheese Sandwich vote wikified by gkhan

It has to be more notable than just being used in one forum (especially a forum that in itself isn't in wikipedia, which www.reefs.org doesn't appear to be) gkhan 19:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'll defer to the good judgement of the admins, however I'll note that it is a well established forum, in operation for over 4 years, with a relatively large readership (the site overall has 5000+ members). In any case, I'll suggest to the site owners that they catalogue this site in wikipedia (it is a notable resource in the saltwater aquarium hobby, and "The Sump" is the off-topic discussion area). Thanks for your time. --Cheese Sandwich

KeepI have seen several words here used in small circles unrelated to wikipedia. And I agree with Cheese...ask any saltwater aquarist about reefs.org and they will know it is an important source of information for a very popular hobby. Thanks, Manny

users only edit gkhan 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. gkhan, don't give these guys any more ideas! Sdedeo 19:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, wont happen again :P gkhan 19:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete injoke, the importance of reefs.org has no bearing on anything. Ben-w 19:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes enough baring on anything to allow a word to be recorded in the annals of this illustrious internet word bank? Let’s not forget, wikipedia is an internet based phenomenon that allows people to change the meaning of the language with modern speech. This word is internet related in nature, and therefore, it relates to this internet based site. The word is new and not widely used because it is internet forum based. Ask someone what a “blog” is a few years ago and see if they thought the word had any baring on anything. Thanks…I’m done now.
- A few years ago, when blog was not a notable word, it wouldn't have merited an article. Now it is a notable concept, so it does. Wikipedia is not a means by which to spread your little in-joke made-up word. Come back to us when this is a concept in common currency among people other than your little group of piscine pals. Ben-w 21:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Piscine Pals' - heh heh :). --Cheese Sandwich
- (BTW, adding 'little', twice, in your description was a nice touch --CS)
Speedy Delete not a useful addition at all. PT 19:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Cheese and Manny. Bierboy

users only edits on this page gkhan 19:58, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - I agree with Cheese, Manny, and Bierboy. Poptart

users only edit gkhan 20:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Useless neologism, apparently only used on a single Internet forum. (And even if it were used in any significant way, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) Delete. (And votes from accounts which were created just in order to influence a VfD discussion will be disregarded.) - Mike Rosoft 20:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary.' - Sure it is - I had to look up 'injoke', 'neologism', and 'sock-puppet' to understand the comments here. There they were, in Wikipedia. --Cheese Sandwich
Delete neologism. Kill the sockpuppets Dunc|☺ 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Djelete this nelogism. Allegrorondo 20:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Djelete' - Ok, that was funny. :) --Cheese Sandwich
  - doing my part to keep spirits up so we can deal with Kukla, Fran, and Ollie around here. :) Allegrorondo 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and thanks to the sock-puppets for making an easy decision easier. --Scimitar ^parley 20:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, fjact is a word I have heard used before. It usually refers to baseless political spin that is totally contrived and fabricated for the sake of proving a point.

users only edit gkhan 20:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Dont let let the delete nazis change the fjact that this would be a great addition to Wikipedia. - Dave

user's only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Milz'd due to a small perturbation Barkingsheltie 21:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user's only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - That's the fjact Jjack (seven)

user's fjirst and only edit gkhan 21:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Keep - Fjact is Amjerican slang used in many fylker, including Sogn og Fjordane and Sør-Trøndelag. Hjiddendragonet

user has..ohh, why do I bjother? gkhan 21:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

comment Any word that brings this many brand new users to this site can't be bad right? ;-) I do get a sense of over potectiveness from the delete fjascists though.

Speedy. Protests aside, there's no reason to even have this. If you want to catalog your own in-group information you can start your own wiki. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 21:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment "Start your own club" he he he
Delete. No evidence that this word exists. There appears to be an unrelated non-English word with the same spelling. ManoaChild 21:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New words enter the lexicon all of the time. Someone above cited "blog" as an example. I'm sure that there are many examples of words that are new and strange at first that are now considered a normal part of the lexicon. --- Bierboy
KeepI for one think that fjact should be a part of the English language. Why? Well, because there are all kinds of English words that give teachers teaching young children to read absolute fits because they are not spelled the way they sound. Furthermore, adding Fjact to Wikipedia will increase Wikipedia's accuracy. There are people in this world who use the word Fjact all the time. And I do mean all the time, in fact some of those people use it so much that it just gets tiring, and I end up making my way to bjed for the evening. -- kjnucklehead

User has only edited on this page Mr. Know-It-All 05:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* Haters be danged. Fjact is as good as it gets.I use it daily, and look what its done for me! -- Muad'dib
Keep* If not for things like this, new words would never be coined, such as "Danked". Gimme a freakin break. -- Hesaias ;)
KeepThis word may have started on only one forum (RDO), but it has already gained the status of not needing an explanation there, and I, for one, have seen it appear on other Reef related forums. Give this a year. If it doesn't spread any further, then maybe delete this. I'd hate Wikipedia to miss a chance to be ahead of the curve... -- burntom
Gentle Wikipedia Moderators* - Since you all agree that this (and the other term I have submitted, 'milz') can be classified as an 'unstable neologism', I have entered these words here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms I assume that that is acceptable... --Cheese Sandwich
Move to List_of_protologisms Fjact is a common term in Northeast Ohio, at least in my house. --3M TA3

user has only edited on this page. Mr. Know-It-All 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A look at the sock-puppeting of this vote is proof enough of why this should be deleted. Mr. Know-It-All 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RETAIN: This has now become world-wide accepted terminology for auto-generated, unsubstantiated "facts." You absolutely must retain it as an entry, or risk losing credibility with a wide readership. And that, my friend, is a fjact. William Scott Associate Professor of Chemistry University of California, SC

This is the only edit by this IP user Mr. Know-It-All 05:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Djelete as fjast as pjossible. No joke. -- DS1953 05:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the socks just make me vote delete, and the nominator and previous are right too, of course.-Splash 15:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
no puppets here I just looked up "sock puppet" to see what you're talking about. Every single keep vote here came from a different person. Sure we all came from the same place, but have your admins check the IP addresses if you care. We're all in different cities.

Keep* - This voting process is enough validation of the word Fjact that it must be kept. --Bucolic Buffalo

MODERATORS - Is the Sexual slang article really necessary?? I mean... Wow. And here we are arguing over 'fjact', lol. Cheese Sandwich 18:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, the necrophelia portion of it is a real treat. --CS

Cheese...After that post, I believe you deserve "the supreme houdini" pulled on you!

Scary stuff 'round these parts gentlemen...scary stuff. Slightly sickened, Manny

- Well I hope that doesn't involve any santorum - I'm trying to cut down. --Cheese Sandwich
shocking...the only term I can use to describe the pedophelia section of that sexual slang article. Making light of such a serious topic seems a bit tasteless. How do I move to delete "michael jackson" from the list? I mean he was found innocent! I'm appalled...and it takes a heck of a lot to get me appalled, right Cheeso? ;-) Manny
- True, you usually qualify as the "appaller"... BTW, thought we are not sock-puppets, we do qualify as Meatpuppets. Manny, you are spicy Cuban meat (I presume). Cheese Sandwich 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sexual slang also went up for deletion. It was an almost unanimous keep. Excepting your meatpuppets (good term btw) this is a unanimous delete. gkhan 21:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    - "Meatpuppets" was defined in one of the sock-puppets topics. "Almost a unanimous keep", eh? How nice. Cheese Sandwich
    - Added my 2 cents in the "talk" section there. Cheese Sandwich
Speedy Delete a sad day for Wikipedia when Fjact stays. Rkevins82 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All right already, delete the d*mn thing, no need for dramatics. Be happy, 'fjact' will be gone & Sexual slang will still be here. Jeez. I concede. Cheese Sandwich 23:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. Delete fjact (and milz). Like I said, I've included them in the protolisms page. --Cheese Sandwich 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN this VFD Punkmorten 20:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- JamesTeterenko 18:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- why is this still here? David Henderson 05:35, 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 merge (only vote). - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mormons[edit]

It seems hopelessly confusing to have two separate lists: a list of Mormons and a list of Latter-day Saints. The biggest problem is the redundancy between lists. If a Wikipedia reader sees one list, they may not think to look at the other list, or if they add an entry to one list, they may not think to add an entry to another list. If there is to be made a distinction in some cases between Mormon and Latter-day Saint, that can be done on the one-page list itself, and not through nebulous and unstated differences between the two lists. 149.169.29.84 18:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it then, it shouldn't be deleted. I believe there is an appropriate wikiproject to contact. Dunc|☺ 19:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GKO[edit]

Gibberish. MicroFeet 18:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Transwiki as a dicdef transliteration of a Russian term. After all, "Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti" is also apparent gibberish, but is encyclopaedic as KGB. Whether this particular transliteration is notable in any way, though, I doubt! Tonywalton 19:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Irpen's expansion Tonywalton | Talk 11:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - such a term indeed exists, but it's not among commonly used abbreviations, and there's no encyclopedic value to that. Non-notable term. Solver 21:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after expansion. Solver 23:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extend - there was quite an interesting story besides GKO that lead to August 1998 financial crash in Russia (so called default). GKO was the official name of these papers then they were traded on the west abakharev 05:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep and expand further as per above. GKO-story immortalized the accronym. --Irpen 06:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
keep - the term is very notable and informative. --Ghirlandajo 09:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep after expansion. Specific historical value. Although at the moment of nomination it was indeed pitiful. 19:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- (the vote above was by user:Mikkalai who forgot to sign)
keep, how ironical, such catastrophe is not known [18] –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The abbreviation was also used for the State Committee for Defense, presided over by Stalin. It was the collective supreme commanding body of the USSR government during WWII and issued many direct orders to the RKKA. --DmitryKo 15:11, 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 07:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JAMin[edit]

non-NOTable PROgram; ESSentially an ADVert. Sdedeo 19:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Sandstein 20:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spam/promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when articles about open source software are spam or promotional or advert? Your reaction is quite unfriendly and definitely not helpful. Helpful would be leaving a message that something is missing or wrong with this page. I don't see that Cubase (which actually costs money ) article is about to be deleted, neither are lots of others covering commercial software, while here we are talking about open source software. So, again, please investigate first the subject you are considering as "spam", "advert" and "promotional" and then suggest please, what could be improved ;) --Prokoudine 10:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Alexander, there are lots of articles even about not so notable software as that. See for example Category:GNOME stubs or Category:KDE stubs. --Anthony Ivanoff 12:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. David Henderson 05:38, 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 08:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFADD[edit]

trivially non-notable in-joke Sdedeo 18:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Sandstein 20:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:52, 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 08:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Alliance Ministry Center[edit]

churches are not inherently notable; this one makes no special claim for inclusion Sdedeo 19:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is indeed non-notable. --Several Times 19:27, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough Allegrorondo 20:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 20:46, 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 08:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United States/Gallery of Cities[edit]

WP:NOT -> Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of ...images... Basically I don't really see anything encyclopedic or beneficial to having this page. Delete. RJH 19:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The images belong on the city pages. Zoe 20:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think that a picture gallery of cities is very encyclopedic. But I would suggest that many of the cities that have old pictures that date back to circa 1890, 1907, 1910's must be replaced with updated images. --Gramaic | Talk 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See previous discussion of this subpage at Talk:United States#City pics. -- Visviva 02:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The idea is interesting but a single image is not enough, and there are over 200 cities likely to be added. I did use this gallery to initialize Category:Images of cities of the United States, where the present small number of cities is apparent. Image galleries are already set up under Wikipedia:List of images. (SEWilco 07:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: Note that those images which are unlicensed can not be used in List of images. (SEWilco 07:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Don't see any point to having such a gallery. Perhaps an individual gallery for each city though. Kaldari 22:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image galleries like this one are a Commons or category thing, and subpages are against policy anyway. Bryan 07:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rubit[edit]

Creator of some Stargate fan fiction. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the goal of breaking into the industry as a television writer and producer - when he becomes a writer and producer, he can have a page. Allegrorondo 20:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, smells like vanity. Sandstein 20:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider it vanity, since no one said he wrote that page himself. I'm actually a fan of this series of his, which is pretty good. I wouldn't even consider it fan fiction; it much rather includes 3D art, original musical themes, etc. I vote to keep it, since I'm also aware that he's been working on a feature film project, which he'll be directing, for quite some time. Jim24 18:28, 15 August 2005

User's first edit. Jaxl | talk 20:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Allegrorondo; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 20:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I just wanted to set straight that (as Jim24 suspected), Alex in fact did not create that page himself. He doesn't even know about it. I know that because it was me, a very good and old friend of his. In fact, Alex would be the last to even consider doing something like this. If you read his blog, you get a sense that he's a modest and quite funny guy. Anyway, I don't feel I have to right to vote, so do what you believe is right. Just wanted to prevent you from getting a false impression of the guy I call a friend. Have a good day! :-)

Comment: The Delete votes (including this one) aren't concerned with who wrote the article. Vanity is a frequent assumption when a non-notable bio appears, but regardless, it's still a non-notable bio, which is (regardless of authorship) grounds for deletion. Aspirations are wonderful, but they're not encyclopaedic. Lomn | Talk 21:38:06, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

I never said that a delete vote is concerned with who wrote an article, which as I did say was me (not the guy himself). Delete it if you want to; I can't say that will make any big difference to anyone.
Delete nn no matter who wrote it. --Etacar11 00:54, 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 speedy deleted as patent nonsense. (12:11, 16 August 2005 Geogre deleted "Blood Ov Thee Christ" (allruntogethergushaboutsomethingindirectaddresstothereader = nonsense)) - Mailer Diablo 07:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Ov Thee Christ[edit]

Some strained reading reveals that this is an experimental music project. Everything else is unclear, except for the advertising. No vote from me for now. Several Times 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as patent nonsense. This is frickin' Finnegans Wake! gkhan 20:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, patent nonsense or sufficiently close. Sandstein 20:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a CD review. Allegrorondo 20:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Jaxl | talk 20:33, 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

Re-encoding Glossary[edit]

Ineptly written infodump on digital video editing, with vanity link. Sandstein 20:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered under digital video editing. Allegrorondo 20:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did It Again[edit]

~~Contains no information that couldn't be found in the album article gkhan 20:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)~~ Change vote to Keep gkhan 12:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Kylie Minogue singles are notable. Kappa 20:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how far are we willing to go on including music? are all singles notable? My personal take is no, it would be enough to include a note with the album. But SOME are notable if they are significant to the artist or newsworthy. Allegrorondo 21:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly there are singles worthy of inclusion. Hey Jude is an FA. But when an article just says "it's a single from the album X" it's pretty useless gkhan 21:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I will expand it later tonight. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to album. --TimPope 17:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I also retract as there is now more than one line and a pretty infobox. --TimPope 16:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, (I can't stand her but) it's been used and parodied so much, it's too young to die. Alf 10:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Finally expanded the article. No Change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 10:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for making me look like an ass :P I change my vote to keep gkhan 12:49, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 08:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Vaughan[edit]

"Magnus Vaughan" is not notable or does not exist (no google hits). Reads like a joke page, anyway. Sandstein 20:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do exist. I am 25 and I do live in Slough. I'm glad you think that because my life contains humour, it must be a joke, I cannot be googled, vis a vis I do not exist. You need to leave the house more. Magnus Vaughan

See http://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/archive/display.var.522217.0.horses_for_courses.php for an example of Magnus' powerful work

Mr. Vaughan, please excuse my suspended belief in your existence. Even so, existence does not constitute notability, and neither does a single newspaper article, powerful as it may be. Please note that vanity pages, even those intended to be humorous, are not allowed on Wikipedia. Sandstein 20:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those unfamiliar with North and West London and environs: if that was The Times, possibly. If the Hillingdon Times is anything like my local paper from the same group, the Finchley Times, it's a free weekly paper. Nothing wrong with that, but not a very good guide of international or even national notability. Delete joke article. Tonywalton 20:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nominated this for a speedy delete. Al 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writing an article for a local newspaper does not make you notable. Average Earthman 21:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. --Howcheng 22:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. --Lomedae 23:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non notable. Secret london 05:17, 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 boldly merged. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:33, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dawn Bible Students Association[edit]

Single-line definition, merge with Bible Students. Sandstein 20:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge, and remove from vfd, as there is no need to bring a merge request here. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, no notability established. Seems to be vanity page.Gateman1997 21:27, 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 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nolia[edit]

Housing project, notabily not established by being home to an apparently non-notable rapper. Sandstein 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no google hits. Gblaz 20:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete And my claim to fame is that I regularly met a Nobel Prize winner in the elevator. Pilatus 20:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 20:40, 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 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aether Physics Model[edit]

Original research. Only seen on its own non notable website. --Pjacobi 20:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, original research / pseudoscience. Sandstein 21:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet more rotating magnetic fields! linas 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Pjacobi. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Pseudoscience. ManoaChild 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn/OR. --Etacar11 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research (and also pseudoscience). XaosBits 01:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research and non-notable pseudoscience Salsb 01:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Original research, psuedoscience, and there's no actual theory here anyway. SCZenz 06:44, 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 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

APM Physical Dimensions[edit]

Original research. Only seen on its own non notable website. --Pjacobi 20:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, original research / pseudoscience. Sandstein 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. linas 21:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn Pseudoscience-cruft. ManoaChild 21:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn/OR. --Etacar11 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and original research Salsb 01:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jargon, no content. And nn/OR anyway, as above. -- SCZenz 15:17, 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.

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 23:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero smell quotient[edit]

Delete: Putting "smell quotient" into Google returns 19 hits. None of them have to do with superheros. Putting "Daredevil McAwful" and "Ludicrously Burlesque" into Google returns nothing. I'm not a follower of comics, but surely there would be at least *one* hit if this had any basis in truth? --Durin 20:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. Sandstein 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as per BDA. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 21:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. Almost patent nonsense: Speedy if possible. ManoaChild 21:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy for patent nonsense, tagged as such. --IByte 22:57, 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 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 08:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whisper IM[edit]

No particular notability is asserted for this beta software, which appears to have been in development for some months only. Sandstein 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. --Howcheng 23:01, 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 08:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article14[edit]

lack of verifiable information Ben-w 21:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conspiracy nonsense. Sandstein 21:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to verify. ManoaChild 22:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want to write a fiction novel, go find a publisher, Wikipedia isn't the place. --IByte 22:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Enjoyable read but I totally agree with IByte. --Lomedae 22:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete too secret. --Howcheng 23:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete it. No one needs to see that. --E_Smith 01:05, 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 vote recorded. - Mailer Diablo 08:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maneturge[edit]

Zero google hits, looks made up. Sandstein 21:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's genuine and accurate enough, but spelled wrong -- the word is Manuturge. I don't know if the word itself is notable beyond dicdif, or if it should be included in Lavabo, or what. Ben-w 21:22, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carmine (band)[edit]

A defunct teenage music band of, er, "In-Addequit" notability. Sandstein 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you looked up "non-notable" in a dictionary, there would be a mention of this band (but that would make them notable .. ahhh the irony). --Howcheng 23:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. There's a blank AMG entry for a band with this name but I don't think it's them. --Etacar11 01:06, 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 into rifling. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Fingerprint[edit]

Very poor article. The term seem to be either far too generic to be an encyclopaedia article, or a slang term; the majority of Google returns for "Mechanical Fingerprint" are nothing to do with firearms, and the ten results which are returned for a search also including the word "bullet" suggest strongly that it's a slang term at the most. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. dictdef. --Lomedae 22:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into rifling. --Howcheng 23:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into rifling and leave a redirect. Vegaswikian 05:44, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aposthia[edit]

Dictionary definition, and an inaccurate one at that. Aposthia one end of a spectrum of foreskin length, and hardly a "defect". This article will never be more than a dictionary definition, and Foreskin describes it all better. No point in transkwiking, as a more accurate definition already exists at Wiktionary. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could easily become an article. Mohammad was said to be born with it? Is this why muslims are circumcised? Let's try to find out. How common is it? Is it ever treated? Is it equally common among different races? Many articles stated as dic definitions Delete. I've been doing a web search and can't really find any info with which to expand the article further. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: If a user thinks an article inaccurate a user is welcome to enhance it. Inaccuracy is not a basis for deletion. I certainly do not think it makes sense to redirect this page to foreskin. It is quite clear that user:jayjg is intent on using wikipedia as soapbox by censoring all information on it that contravenes his ideas about circumcision, the foreskin, or even antisemitism. He is not open to even including information that others do not share his views. Take a look at his edits for proof. He chronically complains of other users not co-operating with him, yet shows little interest in co-operating with others. For example he did not bother to explain his reasons for redirecting the page on the discussion page when he did so. His edit summaries read as arrogant, demeaning and even threatening. This is the basis of the rfc that has been filed against him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jayjg. Sirkumsize (talk · contribs).
- You do know that this page is for discussing whether we should keep an article. Not a place for you to make personal attacks. Jayjg reasons for nominating the article are clearly stated. Now you may disagree with those reasons, but don't go spouting off about motives. They are immaterial. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a dictionary definition, which doesn't even reflect the source Sirkumsize used for it, and was created to support Sirkumsize's anti-circumcision activism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Well then it seems I have a supporter. I did not create this article! Sirkumsize 02:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I will note that User:Theresa knott, like many others is notable silent when it comes to attacks against me! Sirkumsize 16:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Slim Virgin shouldn't have said that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition with little room for growth (The condition is "very rare".[19]) The detail about Mohammad, if true, might be more logically placed in his article. -Willmcw 22:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
I think the deleters mean Redirect to Foreskin, right? In any case...ZOMG!!! Not the anti-circumcision stuff again...I just can't take it!!! Func( t, c, e, ) 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried re-directs at first; that's what led to me being called a "vandal" and having an RFC opened against me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. --Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be merged with foreskin until the material about the condition in Jews and Muhammad is sourced, and then broken out. You could edit out the word "defect" without needing to eradicate the article to remove it.Grace Note 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a medical condition! If that wasn't enough, the article already gives some suggestion of its cultural significance. Can't imagine why you'd want to delete this. Soo 01:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge After doing a quick search, I found that there are only short definitions of this condition. Also, circumcision among Arabs was present before Muhammad's arrival, and that claim about him will be almost impossible to source.Heraclius 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that claim is false or unverifiable then remove it. That's not a reason to delete the article. I repeat, this is a genuine medical condition. On what account would we delete on of those? Lack of notability? Unencyclopaedic? I don't understand. Soo 01:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I've added the main reason for deleting.Heraclius 02:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. "Very rare" is likely notable when extrapolated from the general population, howerver, this article is dictionary definition in scope. I would support recreation if more reliable sources were offered as the basis for expansion. I encourage this, since, at present, the reader needs to extract that dicdef. from the article its redirected into (or worse, mistake the word as a synonym for the article's title). Still, there's always wikitictionary, dictionary.com, etc., to draw out that sentence as pertaining to Aposthia. It stands to reason that there is more in the print literature on this condition, specifically. But if there isn't and the writings on it are limited mainly as asides, or until it is provided, it makes little sense to leave it as is, in the hopes of. This in contrast to other substabs, for ex., Bago (first version) versus now. El_C 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that beautiful illustrate of an expanded stub, but given this, I don't understand why you want to delete an article that obviously has the ability to become encyclopedic. Only circumcision proponents seem to be coming up with this non-existance rule that a condition or opinion has to be common to belong in wikipedia. There is enough room on the server, there's nothing to worry about. Sirkumsize 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to foreskin. Dicdef. Rhobite 04:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Dictionary definition. However, if anything meaningful can said, I would change that view. - Jakew 09:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Redirect and merge with Foreskin. The change is due to Soo's rewrite, and Antandrus's comments. - Jakew 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreskin and include a line about it there. You don't want to outright delete it because someone typing "aposthia" in the search box needs to get to the right place. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now substantially rewritten this article, so hopefully many of the above criticisms do not apply. Please review carefully before voting! Soo 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as re-written. It's now a worthwhile stub. --Carnildo 21:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and redirect --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and include an accurate description of the disorder on the foreskin page.--nixie 03:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as rewritten. -- Nahum 04:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The squabble between Sirkumsize and Jayjg should not be allowed to deprive us of an article which discusses a medical condition. --FOo 05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can easily be expanded into a full article. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Tomer ^TALK 19:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep' in present form. Might be a good idea to put it on some of our watchlists due to past issues with related topics. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreskin per Tomer. Nandesuka 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't looked at what it was like before it was rewritten, but currently it's better than most stubs I've seen. Redirect without merge would be especially silly, because then a casual reader would interpret "I have aposthia" as "I have foreskin," which is precisely the opposite of the correct meaning.
Redirect gidonb 12:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a reasonable article to me. Agree with the unsigned comment two above that redirecting a condition meaning "no foreskin" to "foreskin" could quite easiy cause confusion unless it it mentioned right up in the first paragraph. I also think there is plenty of scope for expansion: Are other mammals born with this condition? Is it ever treated - perhaps with reconstructive surgery? Who are the "key people in Jewish history"? Which other notable people have had this condition? It seems from some comments above that I do not fully understand that this is used in discussions related to the relative merits of circumcision - in what way? MrWeeble 21:57, 22 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 ~~kepe'~~ keep. ;) - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typoglycemia[edit]

Term does not exist, nor is the study real (i.e. it is an urban legend currently making the email rounds) Kjl 22:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As to whether it's an urban legend or not, Snopes' says undetermined. --Howcheng 23:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, you'll notice the actual term "Typoglycemia" doesn't appear in the Snopes article, nor did it in the original email I got a year or so ago - it seems like at the very least that the word itself was made up recently in that way that internet memes evolve... Kjl 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst doing a bit of digging on google I cam across this rather good source The page needs rewriting to explan that it isn't a real term but the element of truth behind it could make for a really good page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, I suppose we could make the page about the internet meme itself, as opposed to the supposed brain condition. Ah, actually, I see you are doing that right now.
Weak delete. This thing has been an Internet meme/urban legend for a while, but I have my doubts it's very notable or encyclopedic. --IByte 23:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well If I got one of these emails in my inbox I may very well want to check Wikipedia to see what if any on the email was true. It's notable enough to be veryifyable, which is what counts. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (change of vote), the article is improving. --IByte 15:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much better now. --Howcheng 15:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has potential, just add a cleanup and stub tag. ≈ jossi ≈ 16:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Well, I originally started this Vfd (my first - be gentle, please) but now that the article is being expanded, it looks like a keeper to me as well. How do I go about removing the Vfd? In other news, where is the correct place to discuss the accuracy of the article? In particular, I don't think there is any element of truth to it at all - I think the "random jumbling" of letters in the email is not random at all; in particular, you'll notice that in all of the words, the ordering of the consonants is kept consistent, or if consonant order has been changed, only adjacent consonants have been switched, and then not separated by intervening vowels (e.g. according->aoccdrnig (accrdng->accdrng) & phenomenal->phaonmneal (both phnmnl), Cambridge->Cmabrigde (cmbrdg->cmbrgd)), but it is much harder to read, of course, if the letter order is actually jumbled: (e.g. phenomenal->pneanoemhl, According->adinroccg or Cambridge->Cimgadrbe). I'd just go edit the article myself, but I don't want to be all POV about it ;) Kjl 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- To close a VfD, you sit back for a few days until the lag time is over and an administrator determines there are enough Keep votes to keep the article, and (s)he will remove the VfD tag. Further discussion of the article can be done on its Talk page. --IByte 00:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kepe Atrilce has potnetail, mybae shulod be rmaend thugoh ;) Pakaran 01:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milz[edit]

Unstable neologism used on a single website. Thatdog 22:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Thatdog 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems to be related to Fjact which is being VFD'd as well. Mr. Know-It-All 05:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe one of your criteria for counting a vote is for the user to have edited another page in the past. I for one have been a long standing member of 2 days now and have edited another page in the past. Therefore, I feel my vote to keep this lovely addition to the english language and the knowledge base of this encyclopedia should count in full. Thank youMannyrdo
FYI, I've added this (along with 'fjact') to the unstable neologisms (specifically the protologisms) page. Cheese Sandwich 14:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, forumcraft. Martg76 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn neologism. ManoaChild 00:01, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified list of effects from drunkness[edit]

Note: I can find no evidence that this was ever listed on VfD, and it isn't listed now, so I'm listing it for today, 15 August. Five more days. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't remotely necessary. Alcoholic_beverage#Effects_on_the_human_body already covers this territory, and if it is lacking then it can be amended. Fernando Rizo 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Alcohol doesn't cause anybody to drink drive. They choose to do that themselves. This list is pointless. -- Longhair | Talk 04:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Things listed other than verifiable effects; blurred vision, effects, etc, are already mentioned in Drunkenness --Mysidia 04:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
del nonsense --MarSch 15:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a simplified list for people who want simplicity when reading about effects for this kind of problem. --SuperDude 15:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Every single item currently on that list of 6 is caused by idiot humans, not alcohol, leaving blurred vision as the only 'effect'. So we're left with a list of one. -- Longhair | Talk 15:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that it is considered polite and in line with Wikipedia policy to state that you are the article's author. --IByte 23:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needless duplication Percy Snoodle 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vaguely amusing but not relevant for wikipedia, perhaps if it was modified and under a different name... --ColdFeet 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is ridiculous.--Differentdamage 18:13, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete after adding Adding superfluous nonsense to Wikipedia to the list. --IByte 22:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish I was drunk. Proto t c 13:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like whoever made this article was drunk--I-2-d2 19:50, 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 08:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Country Talk II[edit]

Delete the same pointless meanderings as in West Country Talk currently also on VfD. Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/West Country Talk and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Somerset talk by the same anon. -Splash 23:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this crap. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unscientific, probably offensive. Secret london 05:18, 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 no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran[edit]

If there's going to be an article on this then it should be an article, not a list with a single (redlink) name and a questionmark for the years served. If it can be improved to even the most minimal standards, fine, if not it should be deleted. -R. fiend 23:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, there's room for improvement here. Zoe 23:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator; there's room for improvement but the article shouldn't even be started until someone has the time or knowledge to make it encyclopedic Soltak 23:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that idea isn't generally applied is one of the key reasons why Wikipedia is so successful Osomec 01:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and why it has so much shit. -R. fiend 01:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Such as obscene comments by you perhaps? Osomec 00:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 00:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In the sense that cleanup is useless and VfD isn't, you are completely correct. -R. fiend 00:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's had no time to expand. I have categorised it to improve its chances. Renominate if it hasn't progressed in 50 years time. Meanwhile, please give it time. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. Osomec 01:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even speedy delete because there is no assertion of notability here. Who the hell is Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran? For all I know this is garbage from someone's private D&D campaign. Delete it, burn it, crush it, tear it in to little pieces, and then throw the pieces on the ground and stomp on the pieces. This is a non-article. Nandesuka 12:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, that's a really good question. It only gets 9 Google hits [20]. What is Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran? Does anyone know? Soltak 17:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - 4 of which are from www.number-10.gov.uk! 80.255 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidently it's the Lord-Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran, which tells you about as much as the article does. I assume it's a legit thing, although I always thought that Lord Lieutenants only were assigned to places with a degree of independence from the UK, but I guess not. As I said, a real article on the subject would be fine, but a redlink with a question mark after it is not an article. The fact that you read it and still have no idea what it isevidence of that. -R. fiend 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Erm, no. Lord-Lieutenants are appointed for ceremonial counties in the UK. They have nothing to do with places outside the UK. Osomec 00:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I reviewed the Lord-Lieutenant article and I think I have a decent idea of the situation. This article is pretty much the same as County Commissioners of Non-notable County, Arkansas or Mayors of Podunk, Iowa. Now that I'm entirely positive of what Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran is, I feel even better voting to delete it. Soltak 00:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you voting to delete when you freely admit to having no idea what you're talking about? All you needed to do was click on the Lord-Lieutenant link to find out what it meant. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nearly entirely lacking in content. If the creator is too lazy to put three sentences together to form something resembling a nano-stub, others might as well start from scratch. --Scimitar ^parley 14:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently contains no worthwhile content --TimPope 17:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Ayrshire is a Scottish county! Secretlondon 05:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We're all aware of what Ayrshire is and no one here is interested in deleting that article. Lord Lieutenant of Ayrshire and Arran, however, is a nearly contentless article and the topic of this discussion. Soltak 17:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this valid article on a notable official position. 80.255 15:36, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset talk[edit]

Delete yet more West Country dialect silliness, much as above. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/West Country Talk and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/West Country Talk II. -Splash 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Delete. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What a waste of time. --Lomedae 01:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is already serious coverage of these topics. Osomec 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unscientific and probably offensive. Secret london 05:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Country Slang[edit]

Delete yet more accent/dialect stuff from the same anon user. Read the other articles, and this one carefully, to realise that they are somewhere along the nonsense-joke-hoax spectrum. -Splash 23:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. --Lomedae 01:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete There is already serious coverage of these topics. Osomec 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unscientific and probably offensive. Secret london 05:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...water...[edit]

Recorded albums - but don't seemto have released any WP:MUSIC not met --Doc (?) 23:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there's an entry on AMG but its blank. I found a couple albums on Amazon, but I'm not convinced they aren't small indie/self-released. --Etacar11 01:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is fine, yesness. --rural 16 August 2005
Delete SchmuckyTheCat 21:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as per Etacar11. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 22:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celcius 02:29, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neck face[edit]

Nn graffiti artist. Google only comes up with 331 unique hits for '"neck face" graffiti', and a lot of those are false positives ("neck, face" for example). Zoe 23:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I get 35,500 when I properly quote "neck face" in Google, and every single hit is relevant.

Try it! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&cl&rls=en&q=%22neck+face%22&btnG=Search

Neck Face is featured in the BBC, The Guardian, The New Yorker, Kultureflash and New Image Art Gallery. You would have to be blind not to see Neck Face as a cultural phenomenon. He is currently hosting galleries in New York and London. Sorry buddy but "Neck Face" is in the map. I have no idea what you were searching for, but this article is relevant. (Eddie Tejeda 06:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I did. Not three pages into your search I came up with "... in order to exercise the muscles of the neck, face and jaw. ... muscular pull of all the neck, face and jaw muscles as they each work upon the other, ...". Now, explain to me how that is "every single hit is relevant". Your search also only returns 603 unique hits. And my search was, as I said, '"neck face" graffiti". Zoe 23:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This grafitti artist is featured in the media. See [21] ≈ jossi ≈ 16:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I don't follow graffiti culture and I've heard of the guy. -HX

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 08:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weeno[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Google for weeno + vespa = 0 hits; weeno + drake = 15 hits, completely unrelated. DS 23:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncommon slang term. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn neo. RasputinAXP talk * contribs 13:17, 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. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives[edit]

unverifiable original research Ben-w 23:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is verifiable. All you have to do is go to a dictionary and look up "ontology" and see that that term means what the article says it means. Same with all the other terms. Is this a shoot first and ask questions later approach? maybe you could have put something on my talk page? Whatever. FuelWagon 23:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is it a good idea to VFD-tag an article, when it's only 9 minutes old? The NPOV tag is what you were looking for, Ben-w. This article was started to fill a very real void. Let's wait an see .. -- Ec5618 00:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Looks to me like something that should be in four different articles - we don't have an article on Communist capitalist autocracy democracy comparing and contrasting the different combinations of these terms. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Except that this isn't an article for four separate topics that just got jammed together. It's an article that is intended to explain the differences in ontology and methods between the two different sides on the Creationism-Versus-Science, Intelligent-Design-versus-Evolution, camps. There are currently several different articles that discuss these different issues, adn all of them share this same difference of views. Rather than have multiple articles report the same chunk of text, the idea was to have one article cover the difference in views and have all teh Creationism, ID, Teach the controversy articles reference this article. The article title sucks, but that can be fixed. I just wanted to start piecing something together so teh editors on the Creationism/ID/teach the controversy articles could take a look. Man, you guys are brutal. FuelWagon 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The age of an article is IRRELEVANT. This is not an encylcopedic subject. Ben-w 00:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, man. It's verifiable, because I've shown you a bunch of links. It's not original research because I added a couple of links to URL's to some reliable sources. The only thing it's got against it right now is a sucky title. Maybe if I had a little more time than 9 minutes to deal with it, either I or some of the editors on the ID/CS/teachthecontroversy articles could have come up with a better title. FuelWagon 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it shouldn't be deleted (although I can hardly say it's a real void being filled) but it needs to be cleaned up not just for POV and style, but to assert the notability of the article in and of itself. The title of the article is confusing and i would agree that as it stands now it's original research, an essay rather than an article; i'm not sure wikipedia is the place for such an essay.Apollo58 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, just deleteApollo58 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just someone working things out in their head. Useless to the rest of us. No-one else is likely to spend time making sense of it. Osomec 01:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work on a title thats not so Jabberwockian. While these philosophy articles seem dry to me, I have nothing against them. Dan Watts 01:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I think FuelWagon's intentions were good in creating this article, but I'm not sure that this article is about a legitimate subject. Joshuaschroeder 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep - this is interesting
Delete - this looks like little more than a series of dicdefs. Maybe send to wiktionary. Rd232 11:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here which is unique to this article. Anything of merit could be covered under methodological naturalism. A better article would be something like "Intelligent Design critiques of methodological naturalism" as a sub-article of Intelligence Designt. It would have to be NPOV, heavily sourced, and arranged around actual critiques (such as those put forward by Johnston) rather than your own pocket definitions of terms. --Fastfission 13:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the article "Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives". I don't want to use a name like "one sides critique of the other side" because it's inherently POV. I did use the term "evolutionary" because that's the one term that all the debates have in common. evolution v creationism. evolution v intelligent design, and because "intelligent design" folks usually distance themselves from the term "creationism", and also some of the "teach the controversy" folks don't even argue that they are for intelligent design, but that they are simply arguing that evolution has methodological problems, so they wont even want to be associated with the term "ID". Therefore the word "alternatives" was intended to reflect (evolution, creationism, creation science, intelligent design, teach the controversy, etc). as for my "pocket" definitions, the current definitions of terms were taken from dictionaries. And I've started to add quotes to show how the different sides use the terms to defend their side and/or criticize the other side. FuelWagon 13:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The new title is better, it's nice to have a summary page of the four quadrants. Let's see how it develops. Redundancy with existing articles on the topic should be avoided. --Parker Whittle 13:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is one-stop-shopping to explain the different views of ontology and methodology around the topic of how life began on earth. It can act as a reference for all the articles about the evolution debate, including creationism, intelligent design, and teach the controversy. And it is limited specifically to the topic of how life began on earth, so while a separate article may exist for ontological supernaturalism, that article isn't limited to how life began on earth. This article is. FuelWagon 14:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've moved the pieces that were relevant into teh methodological naturalism article. feel free to can this one. FuelWagon 20:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FW, how about making it a user page for now. We'll put muscle on it there and then unleash this beast in the wild. Everyone else, how many people do you think are actually going to type in "Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives" and find this article. You are correct, zero. Right now, there is only one article that links to it. We can take down that link, beef this up, and then see if it meets wiki standards before linking it all over. David Bergan 14:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the choice is delete or push it into a user page, then I'd go for user page. I keep backing it up to my talk page because I'm not sure if I'll get any warning if someone makes the executive decision to delete it. I'm not sure how the VFD process works, so I'm backing it up. FuelWagon 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC) I've located the backup here User talk:FuelWagon/ontology. Though I'd prefer to keep editing the real article rather than the backup. FuelWagon 14:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: very real, encyclopedic topic which can be cited and sourced. FuelWagon is admirably interested in npov and primary sources. let it roll. Ungtss 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article consists of amateur philosophizing, is based on a false dichotomy, and propounds sheer untruths. Advaitins and some Buddhists, for example, do not subscribe to the distinction between ontological naturalism and supernaturalism on which the article depends. I believe that the same problem exists with methodological super/naturalism. It is possible to make the text neutral, but this will entail a complete rewrite. Article originator has many assumptions and opinions that he wants to put in the text, rendering this article basically flame bait. The problem is not only one of original research; it's that the research is from a particular point of view, and that the author denies that fact. Article is unsalvagable. --goethean ॐ 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article as it stands is incomplete and is grounded on a classic false-dichotomy, but it seems to me that those are not grounds to delete, but to edit and improve. Ungtss 17:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

goethean, as always, your neutral and unbiased and most humble opinion is revealing. Thank you for being a team player. FuelWagon 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since buddhists and advaitins can be considered to be relatively uninvolved in the current evolution / creation / intelligentdesign / teachthecontroversy debate, their dispute of the entire world view isn't a problem. The creationists brought up the term "methodological naturalism" and evolutionists responded that the concept is separate from their "ontological supernaturalism". It is their debate that this article is reporting on. FuelWagon 18:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your article implies that there are only two sides to "the evolution debate", when in fact there is a multiplicity of viewpoints, many of which reject the terminology that your article applies universally. --goethean ॐ 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When creationists accuse evolutionists of "methodlogical naturalism", and when the reply says that is different than their "ontological supernaturalism", then this article applies exactly, and explains and represents both sides of those two points of view.If someoen is arguing for creation because "the bible says so", then this doesn't apply. That doesn't look like a problem to me. it applies universally to the topic about which it is titled: Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives. FuelWagon 19:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing contests aside, I think both FuelWagon and goethean have good points. If the terms FuelWagon is using are being used by people "out there" to describe a dichotomy, and that dichotomy exists for a number of parties involved in the debate, then it deserves description. If the "philosophizing" is amateurish, then "professionalize" it. If there are those who find the dichotomy to be meaningless, then present that view, as well. It's all too easy to just hit the delete button. It's much more challenging, and valuable, and constructive to roll your sleeves up, employ a bit of the old gray matter and cooperate with others to craft a good article. Unsalvageable, indeed; gimme a break. --Parker Whittle 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bunch of definitions plus some original research. Pilatus 20:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been torn on this one, and have spent a lot of time reading the article, and reading the above arguments. In the end, though, I just don't see that the topic is suitable for a separate article. It would be suitable for a journal paper, but not and encyclopædia article. Aspects of it would certainly be relevant in various other articles, as pointed out by other editors. This isn't a matter of the specific content at the moment (though I agree that it's in need of a great deal of work); it's the very specific, somewhat oblique topic itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add, in response to one or two comments, that of course it exists; that isn't the issue. To say that it doesn't exist doesn't really make sense, in fact. There are lots of things that exist, however, which shouldn't have separate articles. For example, the ontology of possible istuations exists as a genuine topic, but it should be mentioned as part of a more general article on modality, or possible worlds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't exist. Bensaccount 21:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unencyclopedic. Alex.tan 03:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

sourced research[edit]

In case anyone is curious.

Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural (1997)

Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002)

I would have eventually put these links in teh article. I just didnt' think I'd get nailed 9 minutes after I created it and put on the defensive. Suffice it to say, this is not original research. These terms and concepts exist out in the real world. I'm not making this up. This is not original research. FuelWagon 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, maybe not right for a single article. There's a disambiguation page for naturalism. Can varieties of naturalism identified in the article go there? There are already articles on methodological naturalism, and I think philosophical naturalism covers "ontological naturalism." The only articles seeking homes would be the supernaturalism topics. Maybe a template that links them all together? --Parker Whittle 05:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was intended specifically to report the different philosophical/ontological/methodological views around evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and teach teh controversy topics. Yes, there is a methodological naturalism article, but that doesn't have to be limited to how life began on earth. and an article like Ontological supernaturalism really covers everythign from religious beliefs, mysticism, and transcendentalism. I'm specifically trying to limit this article to how these four views relate to the topic of how life began on earth. The term "methodological naturalism" has become an insult hurled by creationists against evolutionists. And evolutionists often respond that their methodology is separate from their ontology, i.e. that they can be natural scientists around evolution but still believe in god. So I want one article that explains ontology, that explains methodology, and how the different views show up in the debates around evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and the like. If a reader is going through an article on "Intelligent Design" and sees the term "methodological naturalism", for them to actually get all the different points of view around that term, they would have to go to four different articles. And those articles wouldn't neccessarily be limited to how life started on earth. FuelWagon 14:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I'm willing to run with it. --Parker Whittle

new intro[edit]

I've rewritten the intro. enjoy. ignore. delete teh article. whatever. FuelWagon 22:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives (evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc) have been attacked and defended by both sided of the debates.

Creationists call evolutionist's subscription to methodological naturalism a "religion to be accepted on faith"[22] and claim that "methodological naturalism cannot be justified as a normative principle for all types of science--without doing violence to science"[23]

Evolutionists respond that "methodological naturalism is not a 'doctrine' but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe."[24] "Science must assume that everything can be investigated empirically, but this doesn't force the abandonment of the supernatural, for those who want it."[25] Evolutionists defend their methodlogical naturalism and argue it does not exclude holding a religious belief system or an ontological supernaturalism.

These differing views implies four distinct worldviews: Ontological supernaturalism(OS), Ontological naturalism(ON), Methodlogical supernaturalism(MS), and Methodological naturalism(MN) which separate the debate.

Still looks like Original Research[edit]

Comment: FuelWagon, as it is much of it still looks like original research. I am not saying that it isn't interesting, only that much of it isnt applicable to wikipedia. Sections 1 to 3 don't have any references at all, they are just presented as bare statements. Who wrote the book or authored the website or wrote the essay that first presented this schema? Who later then further popularised it? Who are its proponents, who are its critics? et cetera. You should describe how this classification came about, proposed by so and so in this book or that website etc etc. If you can't do that, delete the above three sections

OTOH the Introduction and section 4 (Science and Religion) are good and assuming they aren't already covered elsewhere and this article is deleted they can be inorporated together on one of the other pages on the Creation-Evolution debate.

But the overall article at present is not valid as an encyclopaedia article as it is, although it could be made encyclopaedic if you address the above concerns. Also Goethean makes a very valid point that this whole classification would be limited or meaningless to those who hold or represent other perspectives. If the article is retained, this also has to be specified.

so Delete as is, or Make encyclopeadic and acknowledge other points of view

M Alan Kazlev 10:03, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phedegahnishke[edit]

The only mention Google could find on this is a mention (on WIkipedia) of this being a Navaho racial slur for "whitey". This sort of corresponds with the article's description of the term as meaning a total achromatic lack of color, a paleness... in other words, "white". Does this really need an entry? Do we have anyone who actually speaks Navaho and can confirm/deny this? DS 23:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be confirmed as a real word, it should go straight to Wiktionary without passing go and collecting $200. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I saw this come through, did a search and I found a single hit, here. It's in honkey...the whole thing is a little circular for me. Rx StrangeLove 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a dictionary. Alex.tan 03:11, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Diamond[edit]

Non-notable college baseball player. Zoe 00:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, "he received the coveted 'rookie of the year' award for the entire American East conference" Kappa 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Woo-freakin'-hoo. How is that even remotely notable? When he joins the major leagues, then he would rate an article. Or even if he made the Canadian national Olympic team. Zoe 00:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  - So how do you propose to identify notable college baseball players? Kappa 00:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't. College baseball players are no more notable than college athletes in any sport. Only exceptions are for major, national awards. His award was not even for best player in his conference, only best "rookie". If he won the college baseball MVP award, then he would be notable. Zoe 01:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly "notable" in his sphere.Grace Note 00:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a big talent. Cool. Now if he becomes a big player he can have his encyclopedia entry. What's next, voting to keep entries for every highschool's "most likely to succeed"s? --Lomedae 01:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Should Canada Games gold medalists deserve an article? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- My sense is no. The event recieves sparse enough media coverage in Canada, and the only place most Canadians would ever hear about a particular athlete, even a champion, would be in a university or neighborhood newspaper talking about a native son/daughter. -The Tom 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is virtually no way to determine the quality of any school league from year to year. It is possible for some lower quality player to win one year while hundreds of better players in other leagues don't have a chance since their league has too many excellent players. Vegaswikian 05:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The America East Conference is a low Division I league, and being as far north as it is, its baseball lags further behind the "major conferences" than many other sports. I wouldn't probably consider the Big XII Conference's Rookie of the Year to be notable, but this guy is an easy call. ESkog 07:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - it also bears mentioning that most of the best pro baseball players in the USA/Canada do not usually attend college but are drafted straight from high school (with a few notable exceptions). College baseball players are typically less well-respected as a result than their peers in football or basketball, where most pro players at least put in a couple of years at college. Because of this, a college baseball player is going to have a mighty notability hill to climb until he makes a major-league roster somewhere. ESkog 07:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's just a nn student. R adiant _>|< 13:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete--college baseball players have a much higher bar for notability than, say, college football players, as per ESkog. Not many are notable--this one doesn't cut it. If and when he joins the major leagues, or gets some significant awards in the minor leagues, he can get an article. Meelar (talk) 14:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity.--Scimitar ^parley 14:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -The Tom 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've heard of this player. He is the top Canadian baseball prospect for the Major League when he graduates from Binghamton.
Delete. Revisit if/when he makes it to the majors. -R. fiend 16:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks verifiable information. Trollderella 01:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article can be recreated when he hits the big time. Alex.tan 03:13, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Arab Core[edit]

Nonsense created by a vandal. This person is able to come up with such terms as "shia" but can't spell simple English words. Can find nothing on the net to substantiate this supposed subculture. Zoe 00:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. A vandal who made this charming attack against Zoe: [26]. Func( t, c, e, ) 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine", &c. — RJH 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alex.tan 03:12, 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.