Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 15 August 17 >

refresh

2005-08-16[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paedoracism[edit]

Delete appears to be a neologism, although I can imagine the concept may exist. I get no Googles for either spelling, so it is at best unverifiable, and might be original research. -Splash 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I got an edit conflict trying to put the vfd header on this article. I get zero Google hits for either spelling and only one Yahoo! search hit for Paedoracism. (and the site it comes up on is a pretty disgusting blog) Zoe 00:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism for sure. Like Zoe, I do not recommend clicking on that Yahoo! result. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the site (Take my word for it, nothing worth reading). Only thing I found on the net relating to it though, which makes it a neologism with a website. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepGoogle hits[1] [2] [3], Others: [4] [5] unsigned comment by 62.255.64.6. -Splash 00:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, the Google hits counts are, respectively: 1, 0, 4 (and of the 4 at least two are "pedo, racist"). -Splash 00:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • paedophile racist results from google [6] [7] unsigned comment by 62.255.64.6. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • This just shows the word being mentioned in passing in two obscure websites. It needs much more than this for notability to be proved. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 01:11, 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. Redwolf24 03:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A. F. Gotch[edit]

WP not a memorial - he wrote a book with an real ISBN that in itself is not notable --Doc (?) 00:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, writing a non-notable book does not make you notable. Amazon sales rank is about 777,000th. -Splash 00:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not persuaded about this guy. He's a minor academic who's written a book or two, at least one of which got pasted. He's significantly less notable that your average professor, and fails WP:PROF — it's entirely run of the mill for junior, middling and senior academics to write books. This doesn't make the notable above the average in their profession, though. -Splash 19:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be entirely fair, it should be pointed out that he actually published (at least, but probably no more than) four books (another one is an omnibus reprint of three earlier ones in one volume). One of them (Mammals: Their Latin names explained, 1979) was given a pretty devastating review by Bryan P. Glass in The Quarterly Review of Biology 1980, p. 85. He summarizes it as a "virtually useless book". Delete. Uppland 04:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. A tip: While searching for this Gotch, I keep noticing the name John Alfred Gotch (Alfred Gotch, J. Alfred Gotch) who appears to have been a fairly prolific historian of English architecture. Somebody should write an article about him instead. Uppland 04:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we can't keep everyone who has ever written a nn book or four. the wub "?/!" 07:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I'm seeing double standards on academics here. Dead ones seem more deletable than live ones, especially if they died before google started indexing their homepages. --zippedmartin 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the article he was "a retired teacher of physical education, anatomy and biology". He presumably had some academic education, but I see no evidence that he was actually a scientist. His books on Latin names of animals (three of the four books I could find) seem to have been rather unsystematic collections of curiosities, at least if the other ones were similar to the one I found a review for. There are certainly amateur scientists who have done important things, but Gotch does not seem to be one of them. Uppland 14:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note my vote is a delete, I basically agree with you. I just can't but think if he was alive and publishing today he'd have got enough google hits and flashy looking amazon pages to be keeps across the board. --zippedmartin 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't consider amateur scientists who write books that don't sell well notable.--Scimitar parley 14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. -(unsigned 14:01, 16 August 2005 by User:Dottoreso)
  • Keep Why on earth would we delete an author who has published works? I could see arguing that he's not very well known, and thus links to his page should be constrained, but there's no need to delete at all. PS: I wikified, added a second book and added stub tag. -Harmil 11:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Suppose it comes down to 'notability'. I've published a book, its got a real ISBN, and it is listed on Amazon (thus verifiable), admittedly, it has sold only a few hundred copies, mainly to specialist libraries, and has been cited about twice in other works. But can I get my own article, and can my book get another? --Doc (?) 11:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely! Why would we not list a published author? Shouldn't Wikipedia at least have a chance of listing those people whose books are at the Library of Congress? Doc, give me the ISBN and I'll write your article myself!
The part that really kills me is that the Digimon fancruft of the week is kept, but a published author and teacher is not. Sometimes I wonder why I even contribute... -Harmil 11:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the Digimon fancruft is far more vocally supported than actual educational concepts.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 12:27, 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. Redwolf24 03:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Living Edge[edit]

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. If someone finds any albums by this group, then write... feydey 00:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Exists, but still only playing local gigs - [8]. Nothing on amazon.co.uk or AllMusic. the wub "?/!" 07:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Wub. Fails to meet any of the criteria for music articles. Fipe 09:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wub as well.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails music project criteria. Secretlondon 05:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgi mcTach[edit]

Delete, either unverifable or made-up. I can't conjure anything relevant from Google using either his full name, alternative spellings of Gorgi or just his surname. Could be wrong, though, but the bit about being drunk in Ireland doesn't instill me with confidence. -Splash 00:17, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Syde[edit]

Delete a band that only ever made one album and don't have any other apparent claim to WP:MUSIC, which asks for at least 2 albums. There's a lot of fluff in the article, but that doesn't change much. I only get 70 useful Googles, too and I would have supposed the frenzy about reforming recently would have helped them to Google. -Splash 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band vanity. --Howcheng 15:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For not having enough albums, no evidence of vanity however. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band, vanity or not. --Etacar11
  • Save. Their new album is coming out very soon. --Guest 01:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by 205.188.116.139 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Down the Street[edit]

Delete, an individual nightclub is not notable. This name is impossible to Google for, so I cannot find any claim to fame, even if it was very large. -Splash 00:31, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AMDAANA[edit]

A copy of the constitution (of a Dental Alumini Association) is not, I think, encyclopedic. --Doc (?) 00:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikisource. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio, according to the mark at the bottom. But it says "for non-commercial use only" — is my understanding that this is no longer good enough for WP correct? I haven't tagged it as I am unsure but someone should if they are. -Splash 00:50, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Extreme Keep. Redwolf24 03:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Hossa[edit]

Delete. This appears to be a nn hockey player who "isnt polished in the defensive zone". I brought it here since I presume this doesn't fit nn-bio. -Splash 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep important player for the Montreal Canadiens. The article just needs some cleanup. - SimonP 01:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep professional athletes in top divisions. Pburka 03:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable ice hockey player. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, also Marian Hossa's brother --Madchester 06:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep professional athletes, but the article is in desperate need of some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This currently reads like a scouting report. Mindmatrix 11:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well duh - the words are right there on the page...Mindmatrix 11:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I re-wrote the article. It's much better, though it still needs a little cleanup. Mindmatrix 12:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all professional athletes, particularly ones of NHL caliber.--Scimitar parley 14:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Almost certainly - not a useless page at all--Knucmo2 21:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, professional hockey player for the NHL. Hall Monitor 16:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

APfeL bITs[edit]

An internet phenomenon - with about 12 googles doesn't look notable (soory for the all the VfD's - I'm cleaning up in dead-end pages) --Doc (?) 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Doc is too generous. They(he/she) were not and are not a phenomenon. The article is more than you need to know without the exhortation to follow the link. -Splash 00:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails Google test, vanity, non-notable, and whatnot. And Doc: don't be sorry :D the ones that should be deleted should be deleted, no matter who gets to VfD them first :D Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, one place where the Google test doesn't lie. --Etacar11 01:26, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 03:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra ianculescu[edit]

Wishing all the best to this ambitious 14 year old speed skater, her Wikipedia page will have to wait till she's older. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:N, WP:NOR—Encephalon | ζ  02:58:23, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Cute, but delete -- MacAddct1984 03:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as not yet notable. Third best junior skater in Ontario is not notable enough. Capitalistroadster 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if she was notable this article is virtually all trivia/fancruft. the wub "?/!" 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not only does she receive a stunning 16 Google hits, most - if not all - of the article is non-encyclopedic material apart from the fact she's a speedskater. - Mgm|(talk) 08:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 18:10, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jester west 1227[edit]

Delete ad for a nnnightclub on a campus. -Splash 00:56, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Biographical Dictionary of Railway Engineers[edit]

Very interesting I'm sure - but nn --Doc (?) 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unverifiable, as the ISBN is invalid. Pburka 03:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote withdrawn, as the ISBN problem was simply a typo. Pburka 23:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what the policy is on articles on individual books, but I think reference works of potentially wide interest should be allowed, as opposed to most monographs (which can rather be treated with their subject if they are important but not yet classics). The existence and publication details of the book are very easy to verify, c/o the British Library[9], for instance. A second edition was published in 2003. The ISBN is actually quite valid (for the first edition), but there is something wrong with the Wikipedia ISBN search function. Keep. Uppland 05:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC) 0715374893 : £10.00[reply]
  • I included this originally as part of the Wikipedia series of entries of biographical dictionaries. I am using it as a reference to biographies I am writing on railway engineers. Keep Apwoolrich 07:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe it's got to do with conversion to 13 digit ISBN numbers? - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a typo - should be 0715374893 not 0715374983. (I've checked the LoC catalogue, and this one checksums). Shimgray 12:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd gently question Uppland's logic. Monographs, whilst often not widely read, may have an important impact within a field {e.g. obviosly Origin of Species, and in my own field Quest of the Historical Jesus or Paul and Palestinian Judaism are good examples (I can't believe they just went red!)- but there are plenty of less well known ones). Reference works may be more widely read, but their contents are derivative and their intellectual impact usually negligible (and there are dozens of 'Dictionary of ....' 'encyclopaedia of ...' and 'introduction to...' in every field). Whilst obviously some have cultural impact (e.g. Guinness Book of Records many could have nothing more said about them than 'contains lots of info on the subject - and sold a lot of copies'. My own test for any non-fiction work would be: is it possible to write a paragraph on the 'influence and impact' of this work - if not, list it under 'references' in the relevant article (which is what I think Apwoolrich should do here). --Doc (?) 08:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may not have been clear enough. I wrote "important but not yet classics", and was actually thinking of Origin of Species as one of the works definitely belonging to the "classics" category. Normally, even a fairly significant monograph on some smaller topic would not be important enough to be treated as a subject of its own but is better treated in an article on its topic as well as mentioned briefly in an article characterizing its author (if s/he has done enough other things to deserve an article). A reference work such as this could possibly be mentioned in an article on the profession of railway engineering, but it is much more likely to be used around here the way Apwoolrich is apparently using it, as a good reference source for articles on individual engineers. as such I think an article describing the work is useful. In either case, standards for including articles on books seem de facto to be quite inclusive. Just look at Category:Book stubs, and its subcategories, such as Category:Non-fiction book stubs. I occasionally get the impression that it is easier to get an article on a single book pass VfD than an article on a scholar who has published fifteen books ("just another nn college prof - publishing is what they do"). In either case, I think this is more useful than many other books for which we have articles and would like to see a policy discussion before I am willing to vote to delete this particular one. — A reasonable compromise, especially considering the size of this article, may however be to merge this with similar minor and specialized biographical dictionaries in a list in the Biographical dictionary article. Perhaps only the large multi-volume works with a long history (like DNB) need to have articles of their own. Uppland 09:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--published book with multiple editions and published by a major house. Meelar (talk) 15:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Meelar. Kappa 17:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 1,431,026 , less notable than 1 million other books --TimPope 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a specialised reference book - sales figures would be expected to be low. It's not much of a basis to rule on. (Were it a novel, this'd be a much stronger argument...) Shimgray 02:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Firstly, apologies for the typo on the ISBN. I would be happy, if pushed, for the compromise of Uppland, if the alternative was deletion. In the Encyclopaedia article is a listing of many historical ones, including several specialist titles, which might, I am sure, be argued for VfD on the grounds of non-notability. They are there as an historical record, and, more importantly, as a resource for readers and editors who might otherwise never get to learn of them - and use them in their writing. The internet is very weak indeed on information of this kind, and Wikipedia enables a record to be maintained, - hopefully in perpetuity.Apwoolrich 18:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest that if it's used as a reference in a wide range of articles, which I gather from context it is, then it's probably worthwhile keeping - I mean, we think it's notable enough to use as a reputable source! Perhaps it'd be useful to link to it when you reference it on those pages, though? It means you can keep all the bibliographic information centralised; I've expanded it a little from catalogue research to cover both editions. Some notes on scope of the entries would be helpful, and make it a bit more than a simple catalogue entry - how summary is summary? is it good, accurate, well-written? - but I can't add those without reading a copy. Shimgray 02:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (Also, can you check if there are any illus.? Cataloguers tend to notice, but you never know.)[reply]
  • Keep per Meelar. -- DS1953 22:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - doesn't seem to be any reason not to keep this. Trollderella 01:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expandable. Shimmin 13:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shimgray. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added a bit more about the contents of the articles. I will see if I can find out about the author and if lucky will add a sentence. Apwoolrich 17:31, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spodi[edit]

Not encyclopedic. brenneman(t)(c) 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Agree it's non-notable, and I've never heard of it. Perhaps a move to WikiCookBook?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Keep based on rewrite.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 01:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. and clean up. Contains facts and follows all wiki rules except higher standards (thus the cleanup part). Vicarious 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low Google hits for spodi + drink (55 unique) screams non-notable term. (Can't say "neologism, because one site claims it was used in a movie in the 50's.) --Icelight 16:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC) Feel free to transwiki to the cookbook if someone feels this should be saved.
    • There are some things which exist outside the web. I'd encourage people to ask parents or possibly homeless people (I spoke with one about a spodi) and then vote. As for wikiCookBook, a recipe there would be great but this is not a Mai Tai (which ironically does have an article with recipes) this is more similar to a keg/kegger or coctail/cocktail party, while the specific beer or cocktail should make it to wikiCookBook. Vicarious 17:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep you kids need to get out more. SchmuckyTheCat 23:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have entirely re-written this article. SchmuckyTheCat 00:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I got out plenty in college. We just used syringes to inject the liquor straight into the watermelon. ;)  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 01:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on re-write. Trollderella 01:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now valuable. Punkmorten 09:40, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Findology[edit]

Advertising, though, surprisingly, the creator didn't bother to link to their page. Zoe 01:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Deleteology. El spammo. - Lucky 6.9 01:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks vaguely like spam to me. Delete. -R. fiend 01:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, go figure. Delete ad anyway. Ken talk|contribs 01:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. I enjoyed the EXTREME UNECESSARY CAPSLOCK, though. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT.—Encephalon | ζ  02:45:49, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Delete useless ad. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad spam. -- DS1953 04:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, spamology. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Findology's state-of-the-art conextual mapping technology" = spamming Wikipedia poorly. the wub "?/!" 08:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apply Wikipedia's state-of-the-art spamvertisement deletion technology. -- BD2412 talk 16:30, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starfat[edit]

Delete. Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, vanity page. Googling for "Captain Starfat" returned 8 results. Celzrro 01:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I agree. Seems to be a "personal page". Poppypetty 02:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what the? the wub "?/!" 08:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the band's website Nidingr only seems to have released one 7-track album this year and a handful of MP3 files. That would make the band, and as a result its member not notable. (The Norwegian Wikipedia doesn't have an article on either of them. - Mgm|(talk) 08:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity. No offense to the guy, but that's just silly looking. ;) --Etacar11 01:31, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proponent[edit]

Blatant dictdef.-- malathion talk 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does that make a copyright violation? --Lucavix 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Copyvio? CanadianCaesar 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two Objections: More could had been added to the article. Also how can a definition be copyrighted? --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It could be transwikied, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that wiktionary already has this. -R. fiend 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if not already on Wikitionary, transwiki. and CanadianCaesar: err.. what exactly is it a copyvio from? Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just reading it, it looks like a copyvio, and in fact, it is. [10] CanadianCaesar 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It can not be a copyright violation if it is only a definition. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • After re-reading the article (the "the dictionary definition of..." is a dead giveaway) and a bit of googling, I have come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, a copyvio. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please describe how giving a dictionary definition is a violation of a copyright. --Lucavix 00:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the dic def and leave the space open for anyone who wants to write a real article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • How does starting an article with a dictionary definition prevent people from adding anything they want to it? I had a series of contributions for the article including examples of political proponents. --Lucavix 23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • move it to dictionaryDemodike 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary already has proponent, and had it for 4 months before this copyright violation even existed. Please check Wiktionary before nominating things to be transwikied there. Uncle G 15:51:46, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
      • how do you know this is a copyvio? Is it a copy from a dictionary? What dictionary? Is this considered a copyvio too? If yes, then why they have no legal problems for caching copyrighted documents, and wikipedia has? Demodike 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • We know that it is a copyvio from the discussion immediately above. As for your final question, please read the prominent bold notice that is below the text entry field on every edit page, and our copyright policy. Wikipedia is not a "cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents". Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Uncle G 16:33:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
        • Objection: We do not infact know that it is a copyright violation. In fact, since definitions can not be copyrighted, it can not be a copyright violation and every dictionary seems to have the exact definition in question. Futhermore many articles are listed on Wikipedia, that are in fact copyrighted, including quotes from magazines and the results of various studies, but they are not presented in such a way as to take credit for the studies and sources are typically given. I would argue since the dictionary is given as a source and no one took credit for the definition, it is impossible for it to be a copyright violation. --Lucavix 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not carefully. It is NOT mentioned there that Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. I think you are not authorized to tell what wikipedia is not, only "Wikipedia_is_not" official policy is. So either "Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents, like search engines are." quote must be added to the official policy, or otherwise wikipedia may be consider by some wikipedians, among other things, also as a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. Of course cached copyrighted documents must be locked with the help of an admin, to protect the copyright and prevent changes to the document, similar to what all internet search engines are doing to their cached copyright documents (search engines readers are not allowed to edit cached copyrighted document). On the other hand, discussion on a cached copyrighted document must be allowed. Cached copyrighted documents may be considered encyclopaedic too, so they also have a place to a free encyclopaedia. Am I wrong somewhere? Demodike 17:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I refer you a second time to our official copyright policy, adding that our copyright stance is a foundation issue (unlike WP:WIN, which only applies to Wikipedia alone) and non-negotiable. Uncle G 18:51:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
            • Provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia seems to be a free encyclopedia, NOT an encyclopedia enslaved to GFDL license. Thats why other licenses are also allowed here, although, most of the times, not in the main articles space but in users' pages. The existence of many other licenses in many wikipedians users pages is against the GFDL foundation issue argument of yours, which is also supposed to apply to Wikimedia projects in general and not to wikipedia encyclopedia specifically. Wikipedia, having many different types of licenses in many user pages, seems to be an exception of the GFDL foundation issue. For example, have a look at the homepage of a wikipedia administrator which agrees with Dual Licensing instead of having a single GFDL. As you can see, the userpages of wikipedians are already free from the GFDL slavery. One step beyond, lets free article space from GFDL dictatorship too, and let cached copyrighted documents to reside (for legal reasons only as protected ones) in the main article space, along with the rest GFDL licensed articles. And as long as wikipedia does not comply accurately to the foundation issues, give to the encyclopedic articles having any other license the chance to become wikipedian articles.
              • And here is another argument showing that wikipedia does not comply to the foundation issues. According to the third foundation issue, "The wiki process is the final authority on article content". If wiki process is the final authority on article content then why locking or protecting pages is allowed here?
              • Could you also please tell us what is the exact copyright violation here? You accuse that there is a copyvio here, without pointing to the exact copyrighted document! If it is a dictionary copyvio, please tell us its name and its ISBN number. Accusing a text of beeing copyvio without pointing to the exact copyrighted document, this gives everybody the right and the reason to revert your copyvio accusation.Demodike 19:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • from here. and if it's not explicitly CC'd, GFDL'd, or PD'd, it's safe to say that it's not any of those Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In that case the content of "proponent" article should not be deleted but rather protected and marked as a cached document of an unknown license. It shall stay in this state until someone proposes (in the discussion area of the article) a different content that can be safely considered as non identical to the cached document. Demodike 07:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Objection: No one actually owns the definition of a word, and all kinds of use the exact same definitions. Also providing a factual definition is not a violation of a copyright but a reporting of the facts as they stand --Lucavix 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Erm, Hosterweis, that exact same definition is also in the webster and the msn dictionary, did they commit all commit copyright violations against eachother. Well, I would say No because Definitions can NOT be copyrighted.--Lucavix 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would had liked to contribute to the artice, giving examples of proponents of various things, but since someone suggested a copyright violation even though the definitions of words can not be copyrighted, it seems I can not. Oh, and to that special someone, MSN, Google, and Dictionary.com all share the same definition. Gee, are they all committing copyright violations against eachother? Can you even provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted? Since the US Supreme Court and the patient office both seem to dismiss attempts to copyright any definitions (typically by corporations like Microsoft) I highly doubt it. --Lucavix 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can still contribute to the article. I think the problem is not article's title, but article's content. Someone accused the content of beeing copyvio, and we are trying to find out whether the text contained inside the article is copyrighted or not. On the other hand "proponent" may be considered to be a word and not an article. If it is a word then according to policy (wikipedia is not a dictionary) both the content and the article title should be moved to wiki dictionary. Of course some names can be both articles and dictionary words. For example, have a look at the words apple or Beautiful or Supporter which can be found both here, and to wikidictionary. Demodike 06:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Google just pulls dictionary information by spidering and caching pages (which is why many times Wikipedia articles are found using the define: operator). And also, if the dictionary from which the content was stolen borrowed was made by a private corporation, and its contents not explicity licensed under Creative Commons, the GNU FDL, or put into the public domain, it is grounds for a {{copyvio}}}. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations? If this is the case, then why they are still operational? Demodike 06:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you'd look at the message I was responding to, you'd see that I'm backing up Google. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering to my first question. Could you please answer to my second question too? Supposing that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations, then why they are still operational? And I have another question now. Internet search engines are caching for at least 10 years billion of billions of pages, and, as far as I know, they have not yet any serious legal problem. Do you think that wikipedia will be in danger if (and supposing that the content of "proponent" article is really a copyvio) we decide to keep, cache and protect the page instead of deleting it?Demodike 06:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia has quite a stricter copyright policy than most search engines, pretty much just to be on the safe side. And actually, many search engines (read: Google) have been slapped around a bit with C&Ds, not only for copyright stuff (and the DMCA), but for other things such as providing a medium for such content to spread. Here's some examples:
There. can we please delete this article now? It's not as if it was even particularly good, anyway. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a minor question, what does someone vote if they do not want it deleted? I would also like to note that a few of the votes to delete gave reasons which have been debunked (such as the transwiki argument). --Lucavix 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They would vote keep. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary definition. Proponent seems to be a particular term in environmental policy. See the article temp page for a stub. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Why not revert instead of delete? You want to delete it because you think that the text is a copyvio? And why you want to delete from wikipedia copyrighted documents that can be found on internet ? Do you believe that its better for copyrighted documents (that can be found on internet) to be deleted rather than preserved in history as cached documents? Let me remind you that all internet search engines are caching and showing copyrighted documents (that can be found on internet) without having any serious legal problems. Why wikipedia community cannot do the same? Demodike 09:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: Is there issue here rather or not the definition is copyrighted (and since the definition of a word can not be copyrighted in the United States I highly doubt that it is) or rather or not it violates the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" policy? Futhermore, why can a dictionary definition not be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded? Unfortunately rather or not I can make any contributions hinges on rather or not this article is deleted, were the article left alone it may have well expanded to far more than just a definition (If I had my way for example). --Lucavix 12:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. It is a nice idea a dictionary definition to be given as the basic introduction to an article that may well be expanded. I have read many other articles which refer to the meaning and etymology of the article title, so why not this one too? But let me object that we should also move the current text to wikidictionary. as long as the current definition in wikidictionary is deficient. Demodike 13:37, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Star City Times-Entertainment[edit]

I don't know if this is a hoax, but I found nothing on google, nor do I know any in the state/county/nation of TAR. I guess they could mean Star City, Arkansas, which perhaps no longer qualifies as a city. Unless they mean the paper is defunct, not the city, in which case this article is too subliterate (as well as unverified) for inclusion. -R. fiend 01:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyung-Dae Shin[edit]

Appears to be non-notable; Google results for "Hyung-Dae Shin" are few in number, and all are either from WP or a site using its content. Delete. Joel7687 01:53, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Nelson (Democrat)[edit]

Non-notable person --BaronLarf 02:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. He has worked with many notable people, but doesn't meet the standard himself. Also, I never thought I'd see an article with too many wikilinks. It's almost unreadable. Pburka 03:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is clearly a vanity page. Equally clearly, this person is not well-known, and would ordinarily not be viewed as a person of sufficient significance or importance to merit mention in an encyclopedia. The greatest claim to fame appears to be in regards his political activities: eg. he's a member of the Democratic party, a delegate to various DNC conventions, etc. Most of the page lists his membership of organizations such as the NRA and various gay committees and groups. There is a curious section entitled "Politcal ancestry;" like everything else in the article it is unverified. There are two references, both books; it is unclear how relevant these are as source material for the subject (one is on the Sundance Film festival, the other a history of Salt Lake county). Problems: massive. This is an account of a largely unknown individual, which seems to stress his society memberships. The notability of any of it is difficult to see. All of the statements are unreferenced and most of the statements will be practically impossible to verify reliably without a great deal of primary research by Wikipedia editors. It is highly unlikely that the User is the subject of genuine research or reputable study/reporting. The autobiographical nature of the article gives rise to concerns of balance. All this results in a severe NPOV problem. I think this should be deleted. WP:VAIN, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE. —Encephalon | ζ  04:10:42, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Never mind that I was a professional writer for some years and that I structured this article to resemble other existing Wikipedia:Biographies and Wikipedia:Autobiographies, I consider this article now to be copyrighted by me and not public domain. It can't be used by Wikipedia. Look for it elsewhere. Wikipedia just isn't worth it. --David Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Nelson (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 05:23:49
    • Comment Mr. Nelson, thank you for your comment. I agree with you that the article was well composed. WP has certain policies in place that are meant to encourage the creation of encyclopedic entries of notable subjects, and as a community we are all bound to uphold them. It is important to note that criteria like "notability" refer only to significance with respect to the encyclopedia, and not the enormous importance and significance all of us have to our own communites and the people around us. While the above autobiographical venture may not be especially suited to WP, a writer of your obvious talent and diligence is bound to be a valuable contributor to the project. I hope you will reconsider and decide to stay. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  06:14:02, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
    • You can't just suddenly decide to seize rights to text submitted under the GFDL. Nonetheless, delete. Non-notable. Neurophyre 06:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With emphasis: I structured this article to resemble others. How exactly is it more NN or VAIN than, say, that of my acquaintance and Wikipedian Pete Ashdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Ashdown)? I wrote mine; he wrote his. I described my more than 25 years in local, state and national politics and government; he described his ... months of experience. I'd hoped to include my more than 200 mainstream news media references (not knowing I'd be tarred "vain" in less than a day thereby making editorial additions seem moot and reactionary); he's apparently happy with a few hundred words about his rave dances and what amounts to an unauthorized political advertisement. And on, and on, and on. No, I'm certainly not going to reconsider staying on with the kind of group this is. Your "expert" Wikipedians leave much about writing and editing to be desired. They're seemingly more interested in quick-on-the-draw intellectual one-up-manship. And, Neurophyre, yes, I can, I did. Too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.181.18 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 05:23:49
        • yes, I can. No you can't. I don't see a law degree anywhere in that glorified CV of yours, but so you'd best ask someone who does and can explain copyright law to you. Your sour grapes face-saving notwithstanding, this article is going to be deleted because of non-notability, not because of you. So delete on that basis. --Calton | Talk 09:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
          • I would argue that the context of this article is not even copyrightable. There are certain minimum standards, and this article is suspect. Regardless, read this Wikipedia:Copyrights#Contributors_rights_and_obligations - When you wrote this article you agreed that the license was irrevocable. Sorry, you can't revoke it. Peyna 13:46:28, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
        • I live a few thousand miles away from Utah but take moderate interest in American politics. Do I know about Pete Ashdown? Yes I do. Notability is hard to define, but I figure that's a good start. I also doubt we could call that page a vanity article, on the grounds that it was written by... someone in New York who is, on the balance of probabilities, not Mr. Ashdown. Shimgray 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, I am not Mr. Ashdown. Andre (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. Peyna 13:46:28, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Delete, but no hard feelings--simply put, Senate candidates are more notable in an encyclopedic way than are interest group members and political staffers. Best, Meelar (talk) 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless; vanity page. Dottore So 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well structured article, why not use your skills for some notable articles, bear in mind, everything you do write, including your autobiography is release under GNU! And I don't think Pete Ashdown wrote his own article, unless he is Andrevan a wikipedia admin. - Hahnchen 01:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, on further reflection, I'm not sure whether this should be a delete. This guy is a gay rights activist, and I don't know about you guys, but just because I don't know any of them, doesn't mean they are none notable. Deleting this may be part of systematic bias, I'm not so sure. - Hahnchen 13:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hahnchen, that is truly an unsettling thought, isn't it? For a second it made me search myself, to wonder if that could possibly have contributed even an iota to my vote. I'm solid in the conviction that it couldn't, but the thought that people might face systematic bias in this way is always upsetting. My reaction to David's article was pretty straightforward. I thought it illustrated perfectly why writing about oneself is always problematic: if one is very famous and there is an embarrasment of sources available, there is the danger that only those supportive will be used; if one is less famous and there is little or no independent source material, there is a chance biases may not even be detected. The other problem is that people tend to focus on things that are personally important to them when they write about themselves. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but an encyclopedia article is meant to be an unbiased, neutral exploration of many important aspects of the subject — including those important aspects that the subject may not believe are important. I noted the policies I thought this article contravened, and voted accordingly. I do wish to note here, though, that I, and I'm sure all editors who voted here, bear no ill will whatsoever toward Mr. Nelson. Participating in VfD can be very painful, and sometimes we say things factually that we could afford to say more accomodatingly. I'm always trying to find the balance, and I hope I wasn't too badly off here. I addressed only the article and meant no offense to the person, and hope the comments weren't construed as such. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  00:51:08, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
  • Delete - A notable person in contemporary U.S. politics should be findable in Google News. Shimmin 13:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Encephalon. Johntex 19:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. The comments that follow, apparently part of an email exchange between David Nelson and Kat Walsh, were pasted to this VfD by David Nelson at 2005-08-21 00:57:05 [11]


Hello and thank you for your message, Kat.

I wonder if those who wrote the messages that you described as "unkind" and "uncivil" will be treated as I've been by receiving warnings about their unapproved writings, temporary suspension or permanent cancellation of their publishing abilities, or other equitable restrictions for their actions that have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If not, why not?

If you agree, as others have, that my submission was "well-written," why delete it? This kind of policy of strict democracy and majority rule seems egalitarian, but, as some of those who voted to delete my submission also wrote, they know little if anything about the topic of gay politics. What other topics are they judging from a position of little or no knowledge? I wonder if the idea of "tyranny of the majority" is a Wikipedia topic.

Instead of deleting my submission, why wasn't there any official Wikipedia opinion voiced during the voting to consider EDITING? Your policies often and strongly encourage this approach lest the submitter take the path of least resistance and simply leave Wikipedia altogether. That's exactly what happened here.

As for the frequent claims that my submission violated the policy against vain and non-notable submissions simply because I wrote it myself, I wonder if all submissions are held to the standard of no autobiographical information. Too bad. I guess the autobiographies of Helen Keller, Benjamin Franklin and Marilyn Manson would be equally substandard for Wikipedia. I can point out several topics that would be equally vain and non-notable, but enjoy publication by Wikipedia, so it appears that the policy is applied arbitrarily.

Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?

Do you see where the policy of strict democracy and majority rule gets us? It's at best clumsy and at worst punitive. Hardly the stuff of "bringing encyclopedic information free to the world."

Finally, I believe that the Bomis ownership and management of Wikipedia and its subsidiaries is an uphill battle without the added trouble of appearing to censor information that is published elsewhere. But that's just my advice.

Meanwhile, I'll be working with other online pedias which take a less strident approach of exclusion.

-- David Nelson Salt Lake City

+++++Original message++++ From: Wikipedia information team <[email protected]> > Dear David Nelson, > > Thank you for your mail. > > [email protected] wrote: > > > *Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified. > > > > You have received the following link from [email protected] > > > > ******************** > > > > If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the > > URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom > > of this email. > > > > Title: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/David Nelson (Democrat) - Wikipedia, the > > free encyclopedia > > I'm sorry your Wikipedia experience has been a frustrating one. > > This discussion on this article will remain open for five days, according to > our policies, and may remain open slightly longer until an administrator comes > around to close it, at which time it appears that the article will be deleted. > > I'm disappointed to see that you were addressed unkindly here; uncivil > statements are discouraged but they do appear on occasion; on a public forum > there will be all kinds of people not all of whom are interested in productive > discussion. The article was well-written and I'm sorry to hear you don't > intend to return, and would encourage you to reconsider; however, I do > unserstand if you don't wish to do so. > > Sincerely, > Kat Walsh > > -- > Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org


  • David Nelson said:
"Furthermore, would my submission be alright suddenly if I asked a friend to publish it?"
Quite simply, no. David, you seem an intelligent chap, so why can't you see if we let every person who use Wikipedia create their own article, there would be madness. Thus we have a in-built "notability" idea (notability is actually not a reason for deletion, but that's not the issue). You already have a talk page on which you can espouse about yourself (User:David Nelson), why need an article too?
Please read this article to get some idea on why your article was put for VfD: WP:VAIN. Oh, I am voting delete. Kel-nage 01:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe babcock[edit]

Vanity-- malathion talk 02:10, 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 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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

D'artagnan[edit]

D'Artagnan already exists and the "a" has to be capitalized. The small "a" is never used (I think that the deletion is a little bit better that the redirect because the redirect would make people believe that both forms are possible, which is wrong Poppypetty 02:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Seems to be that redirecting for misspellings is an okay use of a redirect. Otherwise couldn't someone just make the misspelled version again? A redirect would stop that from happening. Jessamyn 03:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Common misspelling. Pburka 03:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I disagree with you, Poppypetty, I think only having both forms bolded in the first sentence of the article would make both appear correct. The Literate Engineer 03:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as some users look for articles in all lowercase letters (and this is what you'd get, since a lowercase first letter will still come out as a capital letter in the article name). -- BD2412 talk 04:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 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.
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 01:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-informed[edit]

It's by no means a common term, and this article is just a quote anyway. AdamAtlas 02:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hyper-delete. Unencyclopedic. Even if cleaned up, no potential for growth beyond a dicdef. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT.—Encephalon | ζ  03:02:03, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hyper-delete is also acceptable. 8^) -Hyad 03:20, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suvorova[edit]

Could not find in any search engine, tried Cyrillic letters too. Maybe a hoax? --Irpen 02:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Suvorova Alyonushka Born Alona Kuprienko, 18th july 1973 in Chernigov, Ukraine. Star reporter in Hit FM in Kiev, Ukraine, and also in TV programs. Well known all over Ukraine. Currently preparing to live in Spain and work from there.

  • delete or give references of notability as per above. --Irpen 02:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • please delete this trash. --Ghirlandajo
  • delete. Dottore So 19:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete need references to show notability. --Etacar11 01:40, 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 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 deleted as nonsense. "James Marcel was the product of an experiment in which a human embryo was planted in the uterus of a horse", indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Marcel[edit]

Vanity, nonsense--BaronLarf 03:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Not worth cluttering up VFD for, this meets speedy delete criteria. - Chairboy 03:01, 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. Redwolf24 04:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Christopher Dundas[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:20 Z

This seems non-encyclopaedic. An unsuccessful election candidate who is not even currently a PPC. Matthew Platts 22:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Many other past failed candidates do not have pages as non notable. Timrollpickering 22:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spare as the article states, he might become a candidate again soon enough. I bet that the timing of Matthew Platts to suggest the deletion of this article is politically motivated. It has been here months, and the General Election were in May. Why does he react now? Coincidence?--213.243.155.245 22:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note vote above cast by non-logged in user.
    • The English Wikipedia alone has 673,035 pages at the last count. A lot of VFD pages survive for months on end before people notice them and bring them to attention here. Timrollpickering 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um. I think you'll find that I've nominated several non-notable Conservatives (eg. Greg Smith (politician), Annesley Abercorn for VfD too. I am a supporter of liberalism generally. But I am a passionate believer in keeping wikipedia from being a political amen corner. Matthew Platts 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And why is it that you woke up NOW to delete this particular article? There are tens orperhaps even hundreds of articles about unsuccessful election candidate, but you woke up to suggest the deletion of this particular one just NOW, when the seat where he stood and might stood again was vacated. I know that can't be a coinsidence. You know, that if he will be selected as a candidate, this article could be justifiably recreated even in the case it would now be deleted, thus your motives to suggest that it should be deleted NOW look rather suspicious.
        • If it means that much to you, if he's selected I will personally go out and leaflet for him. But honestly - nobody is going to vote for him because they've seen him on wikipedia. It is of no significance anywhere outside wikipedia. I'm not framing him for murder, I'm nominating him for VfD. Matthew Platts 22:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You would? A promise? The poimt isn't whether somebody will vote for him or not becaus he is in Wikipedia, but there is no rational reason to spare this article till now, and delete it NOW when it is topical again. Well, how about these two articles, maybe you aren't willing to delete them because these people don't have the chance to become candidates soon enough; Jody Dunn, Peter Hirst.
            • Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. I have added VfDs to Jody Dunn and Peter Hirst, which neatly illustrates two things. Firstly that there is nothing peculiar, subversive, or conspiratorial going on here. Secondly that you are not going to gain anything by trying to call my bluff, as I don't have one. Oh, and do you not think it may be civil to sign your posts? Anonymity isn't prohibited but it doesn't add to your credibility. Matthew Platts 17:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have my reasons to remain anomymous, and I'm not going to tell you, what they are. And you didn't illustrate anything. These are all Liberal Democrat PPCs, maybe it isn't a problem to you to VfD any of the Lib Dem articles. Maybe it would be different, if it was a Labour or a Conservative PPC.
                • If you don't sign in then how can we know all edits are coming from the same person? And care to cite a series of non-notable Conservative or Labour PPCs and there will be a race by everyone on this page to nominate them for VFD. Timrollpickering 18:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have already pointed out that I've added several Conservatives to VfD. If you want to discuss this further feel free to use my talk page. Matthew Platts 17:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a candidate is not notable in itself. David | Talk 22:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must be notable to get listed? I thought that ifan article could interest or benefit people, like in this case voters in Livinston who are searching information about the potential candidates, that would be a reason good enough.
      • Please read our Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. People who are searching for knowledge about this person (note that an encyclopaedia contains knowledge, not information) will not find it. The article contains nothing apart from election result statistics and unsourced speculation that for all we know was simply made up by the anonymous editor writing the article. All bar one of the external links are autobiographies (in fact the same autobiography), and therefore are as suspect as all autobiographies are. And the one that isn't an autobiography, but is a biography given by a third-party source, is empty. There is nothing for an encyclopaedia article about this person to contain. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, you have to be notable to get listed, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or an election guide. Sorry, friend. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless further evidence of notability can be provided. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable non candidate. If he does run in the by-election then he should probably be mentioned in an article on that, as it is bound to attract significant media attention. the wub "?/!" 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--he has been a candidate in the past, whether or not he will be again. Major party candidates are notable. Meelar (talk) 14:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • No, they are not. The size of the party is irrelevant. Politicians who have won elections satisfy the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. Politicians who have never won elections have to satisfy those criteria on the grounds of being widely infamous (such as being widely infamous for losing repeatedly and with flair, for example). This person has neither won an election nor gained any widespread notoriety as a politician. Delete. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most un-elected politicians aren't notable. If he runs again, mention it in the by-election article.--Scimitar parley 16:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Meelar says, major party candidates are notable. Kappa 17:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they aren't. See the first and second of the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. A politician has to either be elected or be significantly newsworthy in xyr field. This person is neither. Also note that there are no sources of information about this person other than his own autobiography, which is as suspect as all autobiographies are. The third-party biography, listed last in the external links section, is empty. A Google Search turns up more repetitions of the same autobiography and other people named Charles Dundas. This article has no hope of expansion into being an encyclopaedia article, because there are no reliable third-party sources to use to expand it. Uncle G 17:02:58, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Delete 3rd place cannon fodder. --TimPope 17:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rubbish. Dottore So 19:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, anyone can lose an election, and by definition, most candidates do. -Splash 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. CDThieme 20:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems genuine, and is not doing any harm. Trollderella 01:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Harmless. (Though speculation on future political activity probably doesn't belong.) Peter Grey 15:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if he runs again he'll still be a non-notable PPC. (This goes for all parties). Secretlondon 05:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:29, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Smith (politician)[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:13 Z

This is non-encyclopaedic. Constituency agents and parliamentary researchers are not notable or even public figures. YBF is of minor importance in itself and Mr. Smith's greatest significance is as a board member of a Conservative Party pressure group. I also suspect (I can't determine this because it's transwikied from wiktionary) that it's autobiographical. Matthew Platts 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, marginally associated with politics, does not meet the biography criteria.--nixie 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Chief of Staff to Greg Hands MP"? MPs have at the most three staff so that's a really pompous title. David | Talk 22:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, British politicians are masters of making themselves seem more important than they really are. the wub "?/!" 10:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Dottore So 19:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Splash 20:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not interesting, non notable. Secretlondon 05:04, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annesley Abercorn[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:08 Z

Parliamentary researchers are not notable. Being a parliamentary researcher is this person's sole distinctiveness Matthew Platts 22:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • He was National Chairman of Conservative Future, which is a bit more notable than that. But the article is very badly written and I don't believe that he is sufficiently notable. Hence I vote delete. David | Talk 22:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was not the National Chairman - he was a co-opted member of the National Executive in previous years. Paul Bristow, then and now National Chairman, did have a page which was VFDed a while back. Timrollpickering 22:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Paul Bristow (CF National Chairman) and Chris D. Kelly (CF Black Country Area Chairman and a former member of the National Management Executive) don't qualify for inclusion then pages like this cannot consistently stay. Timrollpickering 00:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone can join the Bow Group, [12]. the wub "?/!" 10:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 19:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn as above.-Splash 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - dreadful article, researchers not notable. However being national chairman of conservative future is notable as far as I am concerned, but this seems to be disputed. Secretlondon 05:02, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranil Jayawardena[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:05 Z

This person's main distinction is being a CF branch chairman. Non-notable. Matthew Platts 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This one is bordering on a speedy candidate for not even claiming notability. David | Talk 22:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Paul Bristow (CF National Chairman) and Chris D. Kelly (CF Black Country Area Chairman and a former member of the National Management Executive) don't qualify for inclusion then pages like this cannot consistently stay. Timrollpickering 00:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have kept the national chair of the tory's student wing - but finding stuff within vfd :( Secretlondon 04:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. i think this should be deleted too. luke mercer August 12th 2005
  • Delete, least notable of the lot. the wub "?/!" 10:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--nn student politician. Meelar (talk) 14:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn very. -Splash 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not interesting. Secretlondon 04:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Blink484 22:36, 13 April 2006 (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.
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 Delete. Redwolf24 04:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Pickering[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:50:00 Z

Non-notable. He is a board member of a minor internal pressure group. Matthew Platts 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Dunn[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:49:52 Z

Strong Delete Keeping this twice failed candidate would set the precedent for all candidates to be entered here. Regardless of the Party, this candidate has no valid status here, unless they are exceptional examples - such as former leaders of Parties or notable national or international figures. The English Wiki would double in size with half-page election addresses if this kind of thing is not stopped. Strong Delete dok 14:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC) This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; her primary distinction is as an unsuccessful election candidate Matthew Platts 16:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 17:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one. Byelection candidates attract much more attention than general election ones. She was also notable for her campaign blog and gaffe about "drunk, flanked by an angry dog, or undressed". And for being the victim of the purple powder incident although that's not in the article at the moment. David | Talk 09:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely better known than the average college professor. This is not true of all Parliamentary candidates, even in by-elections, but is the case with the more high-profile candiates. The Land 11:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsuccessful candidate unless evidence of further notability is provided. Capitalistroadster 06:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an exception. Arguably better known than many MPs. the wub "?/!" 10:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She seems notable. Nandesuka 12:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major party nominees for national legislatures. Meelar (talk) 14:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, borderline; the rest of the PPCs up for deletion are probably deletable, but this woman did achieve national media coverage (and brief notoriety). Shimgray 16:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, losing is losing, but this one did at least make the news, if only because of the nature of the contest. -Splash 21:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems legit. Trollderella 01:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep due to the ferocity of the campaign. Secretlondon 04:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike the vast majority of PPCs, she is probably notable. By-election candidates get national attention, and she got more due to the controversy mentioned in the article and for raising the LibDem vote by such a margin. I also seem to remember her appearing as a panellist on Question Time at one point, and they don't just pick any old PPC. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hirst[edit]

I'm just finishing the nomination. No vote from me. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-16 T 03:49:48 Z

This does not satisfy the criterion for notability; his primary distinction is as an unsuccessful candidate Matthew Platts 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 17:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. David | Talk 09:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Not notable. ≈ jossi ≈ 04:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--major party nominee for national legislature. Inherently notable. Meelar (talk) 14:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Meelar. Kappa 17:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 3rd place cannon fodder. --TimPope 17:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 19:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a nominee isn't notable. Winning the election is. --Carnildo 21:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just about every libdem candidate lost, as did all but 640ish other candidates. It's dead easy. -Splash 21:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems legit. Trollderella 01:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable PPC. Secretlondon 04:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like many other PPCs. -R. fiend 14:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable politicians.  Grue  19:34, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nerf Shaman[edit]

Not notable. No redirect required. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Annihilate. Warcraftcruft, crystal ball, POV. the wub "?/!" 10:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prejudicially. Nandesuka 12:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Cruft and injoke of the more irritating type.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless GregAsche 19:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be cruft crysal-ball gazing of zero encyclopedic value.-Splash 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wishful thinking. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedify. --Irpen 23:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as literally every sentence in the article is false, as well as all above reasons. Junjk 01:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. --Anthony Ivanoff 09:52, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (video game)[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is an article on a game based on the sixth Harry Potter book; the fourth video game won't even be released until this November. The article consists of three templates and a category – there is no non-template article text. I can understand having an article on an unreleased video game or even on an untitled, unreleased book, but this is too much. Recreate this when there's some definitive details about the game, if it ever gets announced at all. android79 04:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article was originally created by anon vandalous IP 68.238.19.245, who posted one spurious sentence [13]. I removed it and placed some of the templates, but we are nowhere near the game's release, so therefore it is Crystal Ball, and I support deletion. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The video game is too far in the future to make a WP page about it. 204.210.195.4 04:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC) IanManka 04:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't realize that I was not signed in. I have changed signature above.
  • Delete, no actual content at all. Also suggest removing the template link if there is no possible way to write an actual article on the game so far in advance (note that I think predictions and speculation are fine, provided they are all cited as having come from others and aren't original). Everyking 04:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Everyking(!) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although I'm sure this game will eventually get made, there's currently no solid plans to do so. As said before, the fourth film and game are just being released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - <spoiler removed>. Kwh 09:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Now you've gone and spoiled it for me. I haven't even read the first book yet. — JIP | Talk 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy no content. the wub "?/!" 10:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This game isn't even in the planning stages yet. --Deathphoenix 11:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sounds like a prediction Trelawney would make. Hermione1980 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator --Urbane legend 11:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above --Dysepsion 05:04, 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 speedy delete as nonsense. – malathion talk 05:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tduff[edit]

I was going to speedy delete this, but it does make a lot of claims of notability ... Zoe 04:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure he's like, totally hot, but I think you should just speedy it--nixie 04:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Wow. Yeah, it should be speedied, but not before being BJAODN'd. android79 04:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I love how he's "6 foot 1, 185 pounds of pure muscek". Zoe 04:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Tommy duffy, if it doesn't get speedied. android79 04:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy but BJAODN. 185 pounds of pure muscek is not to be treated lightly, after all.  :) - Lucky 6.9 04:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy I wonder who actually wrote that? --Apyule 04:55, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talisman centre[edit]

"The Talisman Centre is a recreation facility in Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Recreation facilities are not notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.—Encephalon | ζ  06:31:01, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. While I agree recreational facilities are not often notable, a facility which "is one of the first organizations to have survailence cameras in a changeroom in Canada." is worth looking into in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. A serious controversy about cameras at the Talisman Centre would not have escaped Google. --DrTorstenHenning 12:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't verify the surveilance camera claim. More notable than some schools, but still delete. On a side note, it's named after Talisman Energy Co. --Scimitar parley 16:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepor merge somewhere, notable to citizens of calgary. Kappa 17:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The surveillance claim may be a hoax. Dottore So 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a random gym. Pilatus 20:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. According to the website it is the "the second most widely visited multi-sport facility in North America." (Note to self: check facts before voting) Pilatus 17:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn leisure place; the claim about the cameras is written in very hoaxy style. -Splash 21:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lindsay Park Sports complex or Talismen Center as it was renamed (The City of Calgary sold the naming rights for 10 million dollars) is one of Calgary's most noteable attractions and structures. It is more then just a Leisure center. It is on par with the Olympic Oval and one of Canada's and premier swimming and diving facilities. The facility is used for professional and amatuer sports events It is also sorta across the road from the Pengrowth Saddledome and the Stampede Park Race Track Photos of the interior and exterior Exterior --Cloveious 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way The camera thing listed on the page is true, it is in the disclaimer policy on the Taliman Centre website Talisman Centre Disclaimer --Cloveious 06:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, to somthing that we all might find more agreeable. --Cloveious 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems like a notable building. It does need to be renamed to the proper capitalization. - SimonP 21:14, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The CTU Game[edit]

Vanity forumcruft of the worst order. Forum-goers interested in the TV show "24" reenact the episodes. Take inspiration from their subject matter and delete within 24 hrs. Lomn | Talk 04:28:35, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

  • Delete unsourced forum advertising. I play RPG type games too, but summaries of individual games only interesting to the few people that played them are unencyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, utterly nn. the wub "?/!" 10:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 24-cruft. And I am a big fan, I just can't swallow much more forum/rpg-cruft. -Splash 21:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forumcruft. --Etacar11 01:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've played forum games far more notable than this (eg. random word games). Alphax τεχ 03:08, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trukk not munky and FIRRIB[edit]

Nonnotable outside of one forum. Zoe 04:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • I thought it read "trunk monkey." A local auto mall bought a series of these deplorable, prefab TV ads featuring some idiotic thing called a trunk monkey. Open the trunk, out comes a chimp. Makes me want to buy a car there...not. Seen the same ads in other markets. Anyway, delete both as neologisms, nn. - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many forums that utilise this term, many of them are America centric, but are of notation nonetheless.--anon
    • We now go from trunk monkeys to sockpuppets. Next...? - Lucky 6.9 04:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WHat relevance do sock puppets have to this conversation?--anon
    • Since you asked...absolutely none.  :) - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as not notable neologism. A few tips - multiple contributions from very new accounts are sometime received in a hostile manner. However, cited sources that demonstrate notabilty are welcome from any contributor. (And please use ~~~~.) brenneman(t)(c) 05:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • People use this term all the time. I could find over two hundred if I took the time.
  • "Non-notable outside one forum" is false. These are established terms throughout the whole Transformers fandom. "Non-notable outside one fandom" would be correct. Keep or merge with Transformers (toyline) or Transformers fandom. — JIP | Talk 06:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How often do we have to have these "but we use them on this board with 1000 users" discussions before we speedy them all?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not used on one forum, and not by 1000 people. It's used on Allspark.com, and Tfans.com, as well as hundreds of others. Both of the two I mentioned have well over 6000 members. comment by 66.73.158.103 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment It was a general comment regarding several similar concepts we've had on VfD for a few days. 12000 users, disregarding cross-registration, still doesn't make it encyclopedic knowledge.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Both expressions originate on Usenet, on alt.toys.transformers, and predate both Allspark.com and Tfans.com. — JIP | Talk 04:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with a general Transformers Fandom article. FIRRIB's most notable use was in an actual issue of the Transformers comics. TNM, to the best of my knowledge, was used in an issue of Toyfare, but that's the most acclaim it's ever gotten. I'm only even voting to merge it because it was coined by a friend of mine. (SUP KILBY?) -HX
  • Delete. What junk. Dottore So 19:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here to keep. -Splash 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the latter to Transformers article; never heard of the former. -Sean Curtin 04:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • It dates back to the introduction of Beast Wars. It is a parody of the initial negative reactions of people who thought that only Generation 1 (the "classic" Transformers, with the cars and the planes and things) were real Transformers, and could not bear the thought of the characters transforming to realistic-looking animals. "Trukk not munky" refers to Hasbro's initial portrayal of Optimus Primal as a reincarnation of Optimus Prime, which does not explain how he changed from a trailer truck to a gorilla. The phrase was often seen on alt.toys.transformers, but always in a parodical context. — JIP | Talk 15:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...Joona? (Seriously, give it up. Neither of these things are really wikipedia worthy. If Hasbro THEMSELVES made a reference to it at a BotCon or such, things might be different, but as it stands, nobody gives a rat's ass about ATT anymore. Not even people in the fanbase. -HX
        • Yes, you've found me. Perhaps you're right about this. I'm changing my vote. Don't keep them. Merge FIRRIB with a more general Transformers article, do what you want with Trukk not munky. — JIP | Talk 09:58, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Surface Of The Sun[edit]

Personal theory, not encyclopedic. Can't verify information in article. Article is biased or has lots of POV. 68.218.17.9 04:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR, one guy's theory, NOT an interpretation supported by NASA, I believe. --Etacar11 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, violates WP:NOR. I thought I'd see this before... Alphax τεχ 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable pseudoscience. Sdedeo 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original unsubstantiated 'research'. Not notable RoboJesus 07:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possible hoax. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:11, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lee-Ann Crooks[edit]

BJAODN- A mix between nnbio and vandalism Karmafist 04:44, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horizontal Meditation[edit]

Unverifiable original research. Andrew pmk 04:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, original research. --fuddlemark 09:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. feydey 11:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 Delete. Redwolf24 05:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Predicted effects of invading Iraq[edit]

The duplicate article Actual effects of invading Iraq, which is actually better written and more up to date, is up for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Actual effects of invading Iraq. I am going to take the liberty of using Doc's words over there over here because I cannot say them better (except to delete one minor word :) ). If Doc objects, his comments can be removed or expanded. --Noitall 04:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone objects, I know cleanup candidates shouldn't be brought here, but I'm being bold. I think this article is beyond cleanup and we should just put it out of its pathetic miserable existence. As it stands, it isn't an assessment of the effects of invasion; it is a POV scorecard on whether the alleged objectives have been met. The subject is covered elsewhere- whatever your view on Iraq, consider whether this article can ever be anything other than the mess it has been up till now --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
"imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - although I find the censorship of my language a little strange --Doc (?) 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is even worse in "predicting" a laundry list of POV items. There are no sources and no quotes from valid sources.

  • Delete.--Noitall 04:06, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable evidence provided. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crystal ball and POV-fodder. Neurophyre 06:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Having been written during the events themselves make this article both messy and highly interesting and precious. Rama 06:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the way to divide up a subject. Bhoeble 14:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crystal-balling. Needs to be combined with that other article in about 15 years time.-Splash 21:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any real information of note on this page could (and should) be placed somewhere else. Korny O'Near 21:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewite with a lot more nuance. But is anyone up for Predicted effects of invading Iran while we're at it?? --Doc (?) 21:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of these predictions are easily verifiable (some are sourced already, many are not). I'll undertake a cleanup on this article, which is probably the only encyclopedic article bringing together just about all of the predictions made by both advocates and opponents of the invasion prior to the event. In short, this is the kind of thing that would not exist but for Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be right on that. Let's see how the cleanup goes. -Splash 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On second thoughts, I'm willing to go with Tony on this. Predictions were made - thus (sourced) predictions can be recorded. My provision is, it should be nuanced - and not look like - 'here is what the 'pro' (all) predicted and here the 'anti' (all) said' --Doc (?) 23:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary. The relevant points could be (are?) summarized in an intro paragraph in 2003 Iraq War article. There's no real reason for having such a list other than for supporting revisionist finger pointing at a later date. --Paul 20:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs cleaning up, not deletion. The 2003 Iraq War polarised views across the planet (including between friends and families). The article reflects the cross section of views expressed at many dinner tables over the 2003 period. Time will tell who was right and who was wrong. Clean up and reword so it reads from a NPOV and/or list more citings of sources --nirvana2013 16:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dj grothe[edit]

Non-notable vanity. Created by User:Djgrothe, who had his original vanity page userfied, went to the Help Desk to complain, was told to read WP:BIO and then came back and created this again anyway. Zoe 05:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - NN Vanity Page, user should follow guidelines for user pages Digital Thief 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because have followed guidelines at WP:BIO: I write for a magazine that has 30,000 subscribers (the guidelines say the author should write for something over 5,000 subscribers) and I pass what they called the "google test". Agreed that guidelines should be followed, and I think they have been. Djgrothe 9:10, 16 August 2005
    • With respect to 'passing' the Google test, I get only about 160 useful Googles. -Splash 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: the "Google test" - with the name DJ Grothe in quotes, Google returns about 559 hits, but can omit similar pages to get 198. Your search for some reason omits some of the media hits. Google is always changing, too. What's a good number that generally most bios get when passing the google test? I'm curious. Djgrothe 14:08, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete You certainly do exist, but so do hundreds of millions of other people also show up on google. You get about 198 unique google hits, which comes nowhere near to independantly proving your notability. Both of the articles on your alternative sources of notability were created today either by you (Free Inquiry) or by an anon IP address (Center for Inquiry, currently copyvio) that quite helpfully also added the 30,000 reader claim. However, the 5,000 person guideline is being stretched to it's limits here. Someone with an op-ed piece in a free 'zine that made 5000 copies would have a very hard time convincing anyone they were notable for that. Similarily, I don't think you've done enough to prove that you're notable, and as an admitted vanity piece, you need to really make sure you done that. --Icelight 17:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • "The vanity of others offends us only when it offends our own vanity." -- Nietzsche. This is just a followup comment -- I do not think the entry is a vanity piece, unless it is only by definition. Free Inquiry's subscription numbers are 30,000, not 5,000, as is easily discovered by a search. I agree that one op-ed piece isnt notable, but its a regular contribution and column to that and other magazines (do a google search). Moreover, the magazine isnt free, it is subscriber based like the Nation and New Republic. And I clearly pass the google test. Its confusing why if the guidelines are followed people would so fluster. If there is really consensus that the entry should be deleted even after my showing that the guidelines at WP:BIO have been followed, I'll delete the posting and consider the Wikipedia to be more for officious folks and less in the spirit of important knowledge compilation such as the Encylclopedia of Diderot and d'Alembert. But if you have guidelines, and people follow them, you ought abide by the guidelines. Djgrothe 1:28pm, 16 August 2005
  • Delete Speedily? This self-serving vanity rubbish better belongs in a the page author's 'encylclopedia' rather than an encyclopedia. Dottore So 19:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no one has the time or motivation to vote to include this entry, I respectfully suggest it just be taken down. I was merely trying to broaden the Wikipedia to include an entry that clearly followed the guidelines at at WP:BIO. I think it is a shame that not but one of the votes for deletion, which itself seemed based on a misunderstanding, followed the guideline "All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will," as stated in the Guide for Deletion. Again, such tiresome officiousness. Djgrothe 20:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Not quite speedy material. --Carnildo 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. The guidelines are only guidelines, not rules, and the 5000 thing is (imho) a joke. -Splash 21:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the guidelines are followed, why get all officious. It is explanatory to see the comments that others have said about these knee-jerk deleters. Some of them seem to confirm the negative reputation wikipedia has. "This is a work that cannot be completed except by a society of men of letters and skilled workmen, each separately on his own part, but all bound together by their zeal for the best interests of the human race and a feeling of mutual good will." -- Denis Diderot, when writing of the original collaborative Encyclopedia project, which was a crowning achievement of the Enlightenment. Djgrothe 00:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I am sorry you have taken umbrage, but the point is clear that vanity pages are unacceptable; not only are they usually obnoxious in and of themselves, they further reflect poorly on the encyclopedic project as a whole. It is understandable that people who make good faith efforts editing and correcting entries will take issue with such clearly unimportant, self-promoting fluff. Recall Denis Diderot's admonition: fools have been and always will be the majority of mankind Dottore So 02:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I havent taken offense, but have just been puzzled by the sourpuss rejoinders and reasons. And yes, Diderot was the best of examples: an atheist working for the betterment of humankind while at the same time realizing how annoying and unhelpful humanity can be. Djgrothe 02:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • It is also worth reading WP:AUTO. I can't think of a quote to italicise. -Splash 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the nudge to read WP:AUTO. You're right; it was worth reading and helpful and clears up why some people imediately smarted at my submitting the entry. If vanity is my offense, I should begin arguing that I pride myself on my humility. :) Djgrothe 02:51, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dro Itt[edit]

Looks like it's just made up. Google yields no relevant results [14] (which seems to have been taken into account in the article). Mysid (talk) 05:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, is not encyclopedic. feydey 12:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drolitt and annihilate. --Irpen 23:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, unconfirmed. --Etacar11 01:58, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movieoke[edit]

  • Delete. Seems like advertising for this bar/club. Maybe restore the article at a later date if it ever becomes a popular trend. --Howcheng 18:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to add it to the VFD list. --Howcheng 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references in media (even New York media) that I can find - DavidWBrooks 14:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with above two comments. I am unsure of how many votes are needed for deletion so I put my vote in Ciraric 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, made FOX news, USA Today, Times Online and I seem to remember a mention in the paper version of The Times. Haven't heard anything about it since the initial buzz though. the wub "?/!" 11:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sounds like it vanished without making a splash. --Carnildo 21:33, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. Redwolf24 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery Jack[edit]

This article is non-encyclopedic nonsense. There is no context. The author just banged out a few sentences and left us with a mess to clean up obviously.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:18, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZipRealty, Inc.[edit]

  • This article appears to be simply an advertisement for the company. --Howcheng 19:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot to add entry in VFD list. --Howcheng 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a company's publicity page. I'm surprised it wasn't sent to speedy deletion. -- Ritchy 2 August 2005
  • Comment: How does one create a legitimate company profile page? I saw that Intuit had done the same thing, so I used the format they used here. Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- 67.111.191.10 3 August 2005
    • Comment: Intuit, Inc. is a much different case, as they have made a significant impact in the business world. The article also presents a neutral point of view and presents both information and criticism of the company. The ZipRealty article, on the other hand, is nothing more than a brochure. --Howcheng 05:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Thank you for the feedback. I will update the company description accordingly. As for who determines what a "significant impact" on the world is, are there guidelines for this? Or is this just a subjective judgment on the state of Intuit? I'm sure if you ask each and every company (and their respective founders), if they have had an impact on a certain industry, they will all tell you that they have. Are you using specific measures such as: company revenue, # of employees, or something else? Again, I firmly believe that ZipRealty is changing the real estate world - but that is just my opinion. With respect to Wikipedia, I only want to abide by the guidelines setforth. Thanks for the input - this is a learning process for me. Please feel free to let me know if there are any other 'commercial' pieces in the article. I'm open to all suggestions. Thanks. -- 67.111.191.10 5 August 2005.
  • Delete FOR NOW b/c obviously this article is NPOV. Quick google test of "ziprealty criticism" brought up some good criticism of the company which, due to NPOV, should be incorporated into the article in good faith. otherwise, no one will think the article is NOT a brochure. if you do so, i believe people will change their minds since ziprealty does bring in a lot of hits on google.com, though it is not a household name like Intuit yet. By the way, 67.111.191.10, I took the liberty to condense and tag your comments; in the future, you can sign and timestamp your edits with ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces. -- Bubbachuck 00:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think any NASDAQ listed company meets the WP:NOT standard which says "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable." Publicly traded companies file SEC reports and are definitely verifiable. In terms of notability, listed companies are much more notable than the various big-busted models who are garnering resounding keep votes on today's VfD page or the many fictional characters from movies, games and TV shows that have their own articles. -- DS1953 17:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per DS. I have removed the self promo stuff so the article conforms with NPOV. Dottore So 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after Dottore So's changes. --Howcheng 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after changes. Trollderella 01:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason to delete. --Apyule 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: updated the 13 markets to 14 markets. added a link to the ZipRealty blog. 01:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ares (computer game)[edit]

Sounds like some kind of fan project. Weak delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Game is a shareware game from Ambrosia Software, one of the largest Mac-specific game developers still around. I'm ambivalent about the notability of this game (as opposed to Escape Velocity (computer game), which is definitely notable), but it's not a fan project. This article is in dire need of a rewrite by someone who has actually played the game. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as a legitimate game, produced by Ambrosia. Shareware is a bit of a misnomer, as like other Ambrosia games it you didn't even get the fully playable version until you paid. Certainly in need of a cleanup (top online players? not so much). I only played it a little, so I'm not qualified to add much, but it did exist. --Icelight 18:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Icelight. Nifboy 06:02, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 05:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Lecktor[edit]

Not substantive enough to warrant a separate article. Merge at best, if not totally delete. Bad faith addition by someone who just wants to see their name in lights.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:23, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earle Labor[edit]

not notable GangofOne

  • Keep Seems notable, just initially badly written. I expanded it a bit. –Mysid (talk) 07:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be a notable author. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is notable Kewp 10:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trollderella 01:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that you fixed it GangofOne 01:29, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duboce Park[edit]

Advertisement, Non-notable, Non-significant. Wikipedia is not a list of every common area in the world. Nothing happened there.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Al 14:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not advertising or promoting anything. If we have a list of SF parks, why not actually write about SF parks?. BigGuy219 16 August 2005
  • Keep, other SF parks are kept and worthless school articles are kept so this park should be kept.Gateman1997 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mill Ends Park in Portland is notable: it's the smallest park in the world. Riverfront Park in Spokane is notable: it's the former site of Expo '74, one of two flagship parks in the Spokane park system, and a focus of the downtown area. This park appears to be the typical five-acres-of-grass, with nothing more to say about it. --Carnildo 23:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like a real park. Trollderella 01:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent verifiable information that could not be gleaned from a city map. -- Visviva 04:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a small but very well-known park; probably half a million people in the Bay Area know it or know the name. It need not have hosted a World's Fair to be notable enough to keep. Bikeable 05:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable information which is important enough to share. Kappa 23:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --SPUI (talk) 00:37, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

180 DegreeZ[edit]

Non-Notable, See Wikipedia Music Guidelines. Rainbowwarrior1977 06:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 09:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--Digital Thief 11:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn rapper vanity. --Etacar11 02:02, 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 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, or someone else may Merge. The article will stay as is. Redwolf24 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy[edit]

Non-encyclopedic article on a retraction made by the journal Science. The poor opening sentence: "This article concerns problems with a paper, 'Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")' that appeared in the leading journal Science, treated as a case study in scientific method." The article certainly presents a good "case study in scientific method," but its not encyclopedic, and studies an incident of marginal notability.

  • Delete, per my nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article may be in bad shape, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. We can delete it only if the article can't be improved to encyclopedic standards. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think the topic is notable and informational and at the article can at the very least can be fixed. I would encourage more people to mark articles for cleanup that need improving. At least 10 users have taken the time to add to this article since its creation in May 2004. Thane Eichenauer 10:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, a shortend version would add to the ecstasy article.--nixie 10:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Petaholmes/nixie. And as tragically named as it is, no one will ever actually find it here. It'll do better in the ecstasy article. Nandesuka 12:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to E article. Sdedeo 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above. --Several Times 14:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The incident is notorious enough, and this article doesn't fit in that well with Ecstasy (drug). Pilatus 16:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite a lot of the information in this article is already present within the Ecstacy (drug) article here, but the title of the sub-section doesn't emphasise this. Sliggy 20:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Trollderella 01:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ecstasy (drug). Alphax τεχ 03:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The title is unsearchable. The material is worth keeping, but errors and retractions are just a reality of the scientific method - not notable in and of itself. Peter Grey 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment George Ricaurte, the author of the study had come under fire before for questionable research methodology. This entry (it's heading is clunky, anyone come up with a better title) is not merely a study of the scientific method but also a well-referenced article on scientific misconduct. Pilatus 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with George A. Ricaurte: I've done some work on scientific misconduct, and I believe the subject has a lot of potential. We have quite a few articles on scientists that are only notable for their link from scientific misconduct. Rl 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting article about how the scientific method can ferret out incorrect results and it shows that even Science can publish bad research (that shouldn't come as much of a surpirse to anyone who has tried to repeat the experiments in an "old" Science paper (by old, I mean before supplementary materials were made available electronically). However, I do not see how it qualifies as scientific misconduct. Is there an NIH investigation going on? Did Ricaurte intentionally switch vials? Was he working for a pharma that would benefit from his article? It sounds like shoddy book keeping on the part of Ricaurte's lab and/or the MDMA supplier, but is there an accusation of intentionally falsifying results? Where is the misconduct? srlasky 18:28, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Unanimous Keep. Redwolf24 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pawel Korzeniowski[edit]

Non-notable, sub stub and potentially jinjoistic/nationalistic overly POVRainbowwarrior1977 06:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Bizarre nomination. No version of this article contains any text that could be possibly be construed as jingoistic or POV. - Thatdog 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thatdog. No jingoism within sight. A World champion swimmer seems notable enough. Uppland 07:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. --Howcheng 16:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as above.--Apyule 02:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Etacar11 02:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for sure. --Irpen 03:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely a notable guy. Halibutt 07:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not being a sports fan, I think being a sportsman and winning some award makes sb notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 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 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. Howabout1 Talk to me! 02:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC) Please note, I am not an administrator. I close only keep debates.

Yves P. Pelletier[edit]

Definately not notable, not verified, unnaceptable pseudo-english grammar.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • All I can say is that he is kind of notable in quebec, and all info on here is true, I can confirm I am a quebecer. Unsigned vote by 65.92.244.188
  • Keep. Article establishes notability and can be verified by his IMDB page. - Thatdog 07:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. What's wrong with the grammar? I se no reason why this was nominated. Uppland 07:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added the IMDB link that proves notability. --DrTorstenHenning 12:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough, yes. --Etacar11 02:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiably notable. Hall Monitor 17:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Minor grammar problems (and any problems here are very minor) can be cleaned up, and a member of Rock et Belles Oreilles can hardly be said to be non-notable. Bearcat 07:49, 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. Redwolf24 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grogger[edit]

Neologism, not informative, not funny either GangofOne 06:39, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Redwolf24 23:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sensation[edit]

Contains neologisms and dubious reinterpretation of information already presented in Sense Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete - or else rewrite to match article title - Most of this article simply duplicates information presented in the article Sense, except that it provides non-standard interpretations, which are in many cases, just plain wrong. EG: the "cutaneous" sense - "cutaneous" refers to the skin, not to the sense of touch. The vestibule is a bony cavity and not a sense. There are a few useful things in it (such as noting the term kinesthesia is synonymous for proprioception) and these should be cut and transferred. If the article was rewritten to explore the neuropysiological subject of sensation, as opposed to providing an innaccurate overview of sensory physiology, then it should stay. Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you want something merged merge it. Don't come to WP:VFD. If you want something rewritten, rewrite it. Don't come to WP:VFD. Neither of those tasks involve article deletion at any stage. Uncle G 16:01:10, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
      • Cut the self-righteous crowing. A simple - "This belongs somewhere else" would have been sufficient. Geez - you wonder why so many people leave the pedia - it's arrogant and demeaning conduct like yours that causes it. It was totally unnecessary and offensive. Listing this on VFD was the best I could come up with for what I saw was a problem page. Sure I'm sorry it was the wrong thing to do - and you can be damn sure I'll never do it again, as it appears I'll only get jumped on by arrogant jerks like you in future. Manning 04:42, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XSABERX[edit]

Vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I knew this guy, I think he deserves something for his efforts. Even if you are not into the whole online PC gaming lifestyle. vote by anon user 24.179.45.57
    • You may know him, but that doesn't mean he's notable. Wikipedia is not a personal noticeboard. — JIP | Talk 07:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive seen some pretty wild articles on online gaming like online slang, leet talk, etc. This doesn't seem to be out of bounds. Atleast there are linked sources within the article. --Stormblast 07:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To see fit that this article will exsist, it will need a Cleanup and More information (personally images of names online using the "encrypted "X" form). --Stormblast 08:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, doesnt seem too far out there, maybe needs a cleanup. Possibily less "personal noticeboard". comment by stormblast (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, vain. Sdedeo 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. I cleaned up the voting as well.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 13:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Probably vanity, probably non-notable, but definitely unverifyable. Anybody can claim to be the first to do something for which no records are kept. Lomn | Talk 15:58:32, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, and with no other notability. --Icelight 18:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 19:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Etacar11 02:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (sings) You're so vain.... Alphax τεχ 03:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado v Missouri, 1990 football game[edit]

It does not appear this nomination by User:The Killer was ever completed, so I am posting it here. I vote keep myself and it seems this could be closed as a speedy keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:08, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

  • Delete - I just dont think this article is vary encyclopedic. The Time Killer
  • Keep - Apparently this is one of only two times a fifth down has been played in American Football. As such, I think it's worthy of mention. Bollar 15:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - notable game. --Badlydrawnjeff 19:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is pretty much the American football equivalent of the Hand of God goal. The Literate Engineer 21:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A significant historical event, which needs to be documented for future reference User:Goldtimer
  • Keep - Not many individual football games are notable enough to deserve articles, but this is one of them; every college football fan knows about it. But I think it should be renamed to something less clumsy, such as 1990 Colorado-Missouri football game. MysteryDog 19:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ysteryDog's name is much better. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I will move it as soon as I see that the VfD has cleared, Dsmdgold 04:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, agree with MysteryDog. Xaa 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are many instances of memorable sporting events that would make for good articles. --Cholmes75 21:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a rule I think that individual matches are non encyclopedic, but this looks like an exception to that. Nabla 18:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. The 5th down is one of the worst blown calls in sports history. --OntarioQuizzer 05:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a very famous game, still notable. Also redirect items such as "5th down game" here. Sensation002 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - Think about it, it's a Hall of Shame instance that hapened 15 years ago, and it's still creating a controversy....--CrazyTalk 06:49, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Send to cleanup. This page does not explain how this game or a "fifth down" is special. If the page is to be kept, the page needs to undergo some cleanup first. Martg76 15:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that the information has been added. So keep. Martg76 23:21, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bala and User talk:Bala[edit]

Delete as blatant link spam in user space. User pages should have a link to the project and not be used as a hosting service. According to this help desk request the user has no other useful edits. - Mgm|(talk) 08:06, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comments only: I am not sure, but this user page is unusual (?)--Bhadani 13:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Linkspam. I've wrapped the whole thing in nowiki tags to neuter the hyperlinks. I will of course restore the page to its original condition if the article is kept. (*scoff*) Incidentally, could this be speedyable as consisting solely of external links? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering my own question, no it can't be speedied under our current criteria. Articles consisting only of external links can go, user pages still have to come here. Perhaps that should be changed.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd vote to keep. If someone wants to spam their own userpage that's their business. However this user hasn't been on Wikipedia in over a year and has never contributed after the day they created this userpage. So Delete. Gateman1997 21:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a user space page too far. -Splash 21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why is the user talk page also up for deletion? It appears to be fine, only contining a welcome message?Gateman1997 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The User Talk page was originally a list of links as well. Someone removed the links and replaced them with a Welcome template shortly after the VfD started. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah then why don't we remove the talk page from VfD as it has no business being up there now.Gateman1997 23:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't really do any harm deleting it; someone can re-add the welcome template if they're so inclined. This prevents reversion back to the advertising, and adds weight to the community disapproval for such tactics. I don't imagine that the user in question cares much about the page either way—he hasn't edited under that name since April 2004, and his only edits were to create the spam user pages and add a spam link to Google (search engine). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:37, 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 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. The correctly spelled redirect already exists, and points to the same target. I've fixed the double redirect caused by the capitals.-Splash 21:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single Member Consituency[edit]

wrong spelling (should be "constituency"), no pages link here, page with correct spelling exists =Travisyoung= 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need for VfD in cases like this. It's a plausible typo, so just redirect to the correct spelling. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just redirect incorrect spellings. --TheMidnighters 09:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moghouse.net[edit]

1.5 million Alexa. A Final Fantasy forum.

lots of issues | leave me a message 08:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. P.S. Sockpuppet votes are teh sux. Redwolf24 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protectors of the Plot Continuum[edit]

Not notable, internet based group. feydey 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn forumcruft. An internet forum concerning fanfiction. --TheMidnighters 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. - Chairboy 14:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn forum/fanfic cruft. --Etacar11 02:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable example of anti-bad fanfiction sentiment on the internet. Well known in the fanfiction community for their attack on badfic. --Kerowyn 19:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. FFINN.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! There are a lot of people who put in a lot of time and effort to "clean up" after all of the bad fanfiction, which there is a lot of. Why not give the organization, which has active members all around the world, some recognition? --Athena Arion (Vote by 4.241.6.175 (talk · contribs), first edit)
  • Keep As a group that has been going for a long time, meetups have been organised, people have become friends, and a lot of effort has been put in to either mop up after the bad fanfiction or MST it. Puredeadthingy 08:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's second edit, and they removed my vote, which I just restored. --Etacar11 14:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The PPC is well noted among fanfiction writers, including but not limited to both livejournal and fanfiction.net. Immelman 10:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has two edits, both here. --Etacar11 05:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not entirely sure what you mean by "two edits" Immelman 10:13, 20 August 2005
        • Sign in when you make a comment. Your edit shows up as 71.96.220.176 (talk · contribs). And what I meant is you Immelman (talk · contribs) have only contributed to Wikipedia by editing this VFD. Users with few edits are viewed with suspicion on VFDs (nothing personal), see WP:SOCK. --Etacar11 15:19, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor[edit]

Delete seems/reads like nn vanity or self promotion. I'm not sure how exactly to verify the notability of life gurus but a google search of kishor "life guru" only returns 1 result. If notability is established I'll gladly change my vote, but currently the subject's importance seems questionable, especially since the author only has two edits: creating the article and placing a link in guru. TheMidnighters 09:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments only: I failed to verify the notability of this person. Does anyone has any clue? --Bhadani 14:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: User:86.135.88.89 has improperly removed the VfD notice. I have restored it. (This user is the only editor on this article except for TheMidnighters (who added the VfD) and me (when I restored it)) MosheZadka 11:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seeno[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted. Seems an advertinsing page of an unknown artist and his soon to be released debut album. the same appeared quite at the same time on it:, es: and el: Snowdog 09:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete SγωΩηΣ tαlk 10:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With only one album to be released in the future and with the links to some mp3 files of his music embedded in the text, this has all hallmarks of vanity and advertising. He fails WP:MUSIC at the very least. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. Pavel Vozenilek 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/promotion. --Etacar11 02:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page Seeno Merobshoev should also be deleted, as it is soley a clumsy redirect to this page.
  • Comment i have seen him play in Washington DC and think he is amazing. I made the page and follow his tour with other fans when he plays with his band. This is most certainly not a page about vanity or promotion. It is simply acknowledging that there is a singer in the Washington DC area who has just released his album and will be touring Central Asia in September of 2005. How much more to the point without vanity can you be when you have only just relased an album? I don't think it should be deleted. Fernando Junco 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC) (Comment actually by 141.156.190.35 (talk · contribs))[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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 23:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Rosin[edit]

Non-verifiable and highly suspect, reads like a self-promo, looks like a person of no real prominence except a few posts on some far fringe UFO conspiracy sites. GeneralPatton 09:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Considering how notable the articles makes her seem, she should have some mention on some other credible site. I can't find any on Google, although I may have missed something. I can only find one reference to which awards in particular she has won, and they seem to be obscure ones sponsored by UFO societies and the such. Nothing solid on her work at Disney or IBM either. Unless someone can find some way to show that it's verifiable, it needs to be deleted. Fipe 10:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — appears valid, although borderline close to copyvio in places.[15] — RJH 16:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete She clearly is the head of ISIC, as stated by its own website. I also found a few outside mentions of her testifications to Congress on Kucinich's bill. What I couldn't find was verification of much else, or a sign that ISIC is a large enough player in international politics that it's founder should be mentioned. The "support" for it's treaty leads to a dead link, and it hasn't been picked up by any countries. --Icelight 19:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the reasons Icelight mentions. Trollderella 01:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with RJH--Falphin 21:53, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sikh Mother Land[edit]

Wikipedia being used as an advertising forum? Manik Raina 10:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use subst:vfd2 in the future, so section editing will work and to lessen server load. Also vfd tags should be on top of the article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 10:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Mgm. --GraemeL 13:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments only: In my opinion, a book review should not be deleted. But, I think that the present contents of this article do not qualify for an encyclopedic entry. --Bhadani 14:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page is not a book review. It is a concealed attempt at advertising the book. Manik Raina 04:48, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 23:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sikhs[edit]

I came across a debate in wikipedia vfd where the conclusion seemed to be against retaining unmaintainable lists. It is my belief this list is one of them. For example, what is the criterion for someone to be included in this list? Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • As stated , the sikhs are a very clearly defined group, a page like this gives very little information to the reader of this page that a person is a practicing sikh. It is visually quite apparent. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They need to be notable and have the Sikh religion? - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of lists that could be called unmaintainable have been kept, such as List of Roman Catholics. This list should be kept along with all the other religion based lists. NoSeptember 13:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything that goes "List of Buddhists," "List of Japanese," "List of Christians," "List of Hindus" etc should be deleted on sight. It's intrinsically a ridiculous thing to write (especially when there isn't even a "notable" criterion as evidenced by the title), is impossible to maintain with any degree of accuracy, is practically impossible to verify, and serves little purpose that may be thought of as encyclopedic.—Encephalon | ζ  13:45:58, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
    • Comment, this may be a good approach in general if you don't like these lists, but we have already voted to keep List of Catholics and List of Jews. If we pick off just the minor religions (like Sikhs) we are showing a Western bias, and being a member of a minor religion (if you are living in the West) is more noteworthy. NoSeptember 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sikhs are a reasonably well defined group, and it isn't likely to become unmanageable. Bhoeble 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Encephalon, who nails it on the head. Nandesuka 16:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed, we really don't need this kind of thing--I-2-d2 16:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this doesn't serve any useful purpose and either requires constant work or will be out of date. NoSeptember's comment is valid, but I would take the conclusion in the other direction - don't keep List of Sikhs, delete List of Catholics. PeteVerdon 19:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. "List of Jews" was kept; how is this any different? CDThieme 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that list needs to go as well. If a person is a jew and is noteworthy, his page will tell everyone he is jewish. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a user looking for noteworthy jewish people would simply have to hit "random article" until they the right one? Kappa 05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if Catholics and Jews can stay so can Sikhs.Gateman1997 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that list needs to go as well. Manik Raina 05:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too broad to be useful, and the other religion lists too, they're just as useless. -Splash 21:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like the other religion lists. Kappa
  • Keep as per No September. Trollderella 16:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if other religions can have this list, why can't Sikhism? I mean there is even a List of mixed-race people, how is that relevant? Does an Egyptian/Saudi child count as mixed race? What about a Anglo-Bulgarian? I think if you're going to delete this, there should be a larger VfD of the other religious and race lists. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 07:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per NoSeptember and the keeping of "List of Catholics" and "List of Jews". Wikipedia shouldn't discriminate and favor one religion over another. --FuriousFreddy 11:07, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How the Government Gave Itself the Power to Spy on You[edit]

Assuming this isn't a copvio (only one, irrelevant, Google hit for "Edward Keenes" and none for the article title) it looks very much like (badly formatted) original research Loganberry (Talk) 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed formatting. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either original research or copyvio from print source. No sources to verify facts. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it's not original research or a copyvio, it's a political rant, and thus violates NPOV. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Soapbox stuff. Marskell 10:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:NOT -> "Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." — RJH 15:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete personal essay/OR. --Etacar11 02:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personal essay, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic, cannot be made to reflect a neutral point of view because article title itself is not neutral. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De clercq[edit]

I don't see how the manager of a bank in one particular city can be notable enough for an article. Yes, the president of the bank (which is Dutch by the way) would be notable, but he isn't and there's surprisingly little info. I deleted a list of languages, which I assume he speaks, but I couldn't verify. Delete. If kept it should be renamed to follow naming conventions. - 131.211.210.12 10:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got logged out and forgot to sign back in before writing the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Frederik Willem de Klerk --Doc (?) 13:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a good idea. Not only is it a different person, it's also a different spelling for the name and there's no indication it's a common misspelling or valid alternative for the South African president's name. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Babbar Manjeet Singh Jalwehra[edit]

Badly written and non-verifiable article on a supposedly high ranking terrorist in Babbar Khalsa terrorist group in India. I found no hits on google except some similar pages calling him shaheed (martyr). What useful information does this page convey ? His list of friends ? Not encyclopadeic enough. Manik Raina 10:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am sure he is/was never so notable to have an entry here. --Bhadani 14:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Nichalp fully, as the same thing happened in case of another article Vinodini Tarway. In case of the present page, my problem is different - I failed to find out the exact position. So my delete vote, perhaps recorded in haste, may please be treated as withdrawn. I would rather abstain. --Bhadani 14:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Redwolf24 09:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Charms[edit]

Hay everyone! Im new here and new to this deletion stuff. I think this page should be deleted because it is just nasty! I mean, what kind of woman does that to herself? She is SO ugly. Also she is very non-notable, she is just here so sicko-nerds who dont like to surf out of wiki can come here and masturbate I think. Also we shouldnt promote this kinda harm, she probably has back problems, what if some woman comes here and thinks "id like to be like that" and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Wikipedia? Also, what if kids come here, they will be shocked and traumatized by those sick breasts. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Wikipedia (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". Delete her! She is no good! DavidsCrusader 10:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete like I said above, PS. She offends all Americans by calling herself "Americas Huge Boob Sweetheart"! If you are American please fix this offense by deleting her off of here! -DavidsCrusader 10:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; articles shouldn't be deleted just because you personally disagree with the subject. tregoweth 11:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; you don't have to agree with what she does, but she's notable enough Lectonar 11:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with the comment of Lectonar and Tregoweth. Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's protection and if you don't want to see it, simply don't click it and stay away from sex-related article. No reason in deletion policy to delete this. A doubt much other women have breasts that size, so only that would make her notable enough. - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • What about the "random article" feature, which is very prominent on the main page? If people need to avoid it, perhaps it should be taken down. Just because Wikipedia was started by groovy permissives it doesn't have to stay that way. Providing free publicity for porn merchants isn't one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so it is negotiable. I doubt it is a core principal of Britannica or Encarta either. Bhoeble 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue of deletion of a page is notability and she is notable. The picture is an appropriate version of her as a person, not in any sex act. Many of us do believe that Wiki needs standards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, but there is nothing here to cause the deletion of anything on this page. One more important point: nothing in this article or picture was done specifically to get on Wiki--she did it on her own to promote herself and her career. --Noitall 13:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Clueless newbie nomination. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Lectonar. --GraemeL 13:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Encyclopedia Britannica shows some degree of taste and Wikipedia should too. This information is of no use to anyone. Bhoeble 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By your logic we should start deleting anything that we find tasteless, like Child pornography and REO Speedwagon. Sorry, Bhoeble, that makes no sense. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Religious censorship attempt. — RJH 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep definitely notable. --Howcheng 16:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Pirate2000. Delete an article because the subject is "nasty"? Get real, if we delete every unpopular page there would be hardly anything left. Certainly articles shouldn't PROMOTE things like this, but that's the whole point of the NPOV policy.
  • Keep per, for example, Tregoweth Sliggy 19:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. First:she exists. Second: she is notable (more or less). So, the article should stay as far as it is NPOV. And, last: Wikipedia isn't child book. It is not censored. Kneiphof 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and pre-emptive keep for Reo Speedwagon (shame on you Fernando Rizo;p!). Sabine's Sunbird 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Chelsea Charms is a celebrity of some notoriety and deserves a (short) entry. Geoff NoNick 21:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-mutilation makes one notable??? Are some of the keep votes primarily a reaction against what looks suspiciously like a troll VfD? Dlyons493 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously it does; wikipedia doesn't establish criteria as to why you are notable. Think about athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs (I consider this self-mutilation) Lectonar give me your thoughts!
  • Keep. See also the following:
  • Keep per RJH et al --Apyule 02:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons stated above. --Etacar11 02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Inclination to keep on principle (the deletion arguments from "nastiness" or "self-mutilation" should be strongly opposed), but I really wonder about the subject's actual notability. Realistically, will we try to cover every adult entertainer? Everyone with a breast size over N inches/mm? Does breast size (or, conversely, penis size for a male performer) confer notability? (That's a serious question, not rhetoric.) MCB 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact there does seem to be a major push on to accomplish just that - there are literally dozens if not hundreds of porn stars listed on wikipedia already. As for As for size and notability, I say the answer is certainly yes. There *are* porn stars who are famous mostly because of the size of their attributes.-Pirate2000
      • Dozens or hundreds is not unreasonable, considering that there are undoubtedly tens of thousands of adult performers. Separating out the actual "porn stars" from the universe of "porn actors/actresses" is worth doing to some extent. In past decades most people -- well, most people who pay attention to such things -- could name the dozen or so top porn stars. I don't know if that's still the case. MCB 07:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If her breast size were one size bigger it would fall foul of Wikipedia:Maximum breast size allowed in encyclopedia entries, but as it stands, it's a perfectly acceptable article that has no place on VfD. KeithD (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without researching her notability or looking at the article, simply because the nomination is absolutely invalid. CanadianCaesar 23:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable if in a "wow, what some people will do to themselves" sort of way. DreamGuy 00:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - and comments like "Delete her! She is no good!" make me sick - what do you wanna do, little Crusader, shoot her? -- AlexR 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Notable performer in her genre. Nomination expresses POV. 23skidoo 03:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Clueless religious newbie nomination. If this article should be taken down, then someone should start this post correctly, and maintain it correctly.--werty8472
  • Keep. I see nothing wrong with this. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Just because you do not like someone, it doesn't mean that you can just delete her from an encyclopedia!! Just because you don't promote something doesn't mean it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. One of the rules on Wikipedia is to submit neutral, non-biased entries, and as far as I can tell, this entry meets those guidelines. Just because there is an entry here on something, doesn't mean that that is a promotion for it. There are entries on Hitler and Stalin here too! Should we just get rid of those?!?! "what if some woman comes here and thinks 'id like to be like that' and decides to have an augmentation that completely destroys her health because of Wikipedia?" I honestly don't think that seeing an enry about someone or something on Wikipedia will influence someone to do something a drastic as that unless they are already considering it, and besides, if seeing an image of something like that on the internet will influence someone to do that, than they will be influenced to do a lot of things during any single simple search or click on wikipedia, google or any part of the web. I also heard that a lot of libraries and stuff block Wikipedia (which is a great tool!) from there computers because it has porn on it like this "lady". The picture accompanying the entry hardly pornographic. Unless you consider unexposed breasts pornographic, and that would make your views seem slightly paradoxical. Honestly, you come across as a naive, selfish, zealot who thinks that just because they have any sort of power or influence, that they can just take advantage of it for superfluous, selfish and spontanious things. It took a lot of effort not to simply type "YOU'RE STUPID" in all caps and continue a short response with an excessive amount of exclamation points and personal attacks, which I only could resist because i am better than that, which you evidently aren't, judjing by your entry. "She is SO ugly." Please, also, a reccomendation, if I were you, I would keep the amount of spelling and gramatical errors in my entry to a minimum, so that no one will draw conclusions about your level of intelligence. Which I know I did. --the9file
  • Keep: The reason for nomination does not appear to be based on Wikipedia content/deletion policy, and moreover, it has been suggested that these edits have been made merely to make a sock puppet account appear to have some legitimacy. --IByte 23:58, 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 speedied as only a single external link. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Gorillamask[edit]

Content is a single link to another website - no other text.

  • Delete as advertising.--Ryanl 11:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though wouldn't this be speedyable? tregoweth 11:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is, I speedied it as an external link and didn't count David's confused newbie comment which should've been on the talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 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 No consensus. Redwolf24 23:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bone[edit]

It was nonsense, I tried to improve it, but its still basicly worthless. It seems to be about a non-remarkable canadian(?) wrestler anyway. Jack Cain 11:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copied from the miscapitalized Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/T-bone. Move function isn't working, no votes to speak off. Will merge histories as soon as server is working friendly with me again. - Mgm|(talk) 11:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment oughtn't this be about the steak rather than the wrestler? Dunc|☺ 12:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--tag team champion pro wrestlers are notable. Add a disambiguation header to the top that points to the steak. Meelar (talk) 14:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to T-Bone (wrestler) and have T-bone redirect to steak, with a dab at the top of the steak article. Proto t c 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect per Proto. --Howcheng 16:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE. What the hell federation is the TWA? Unless there's a link to an official site or some other info, I say delete it. This could be someone's backyard fed, hell, it could be an e-fed. Without further info, I say scratch it. -HX
COMMENT: Google search for "TWA" with "T-Bone" and "Hardcore Champion" comes back blank. A search on the three names who "created" the TWA comes back blank. Unfortunately, the t-bone suplex is a fairly common move, so that skews the results a little, but I can't find anything on Google to imply that the TWA is a notable fed or that T-Bone is a notable wrestler. (IMHO, the criteria for "notability" in professional wrestling is at least two television appearances with a major federation (In the USA, that'd be WWE, WCW, NWA, ECW) for pretty much anyone after 1975. Before that, it's a bit harder to hash out...) -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. Redwolf24 00:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Torby[edit]

Apparent hoax, see talk page at Talk:Brian Torby. Evercat 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MaKe sure you get all the spin off fake articles. Like the organizations he created and any pages that link to this article.--Gary123 13:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. " In March of 1999.. Torby was able to enter Egypt and conquer Alexandria. Using captured Egyptian naval ships he launched an amphibious assualt on Tripoli defeating Libyan militia." ...riiiiight. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Applies to all spinoffs as well. Dottore So 19:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 02:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern however is all the spinofff pages on the interent that use wikipedia as a source. A simple google search is flooded with wikipedia articles on this guy at hundreds of sites. Does anyone know whether or not they'll go down. I hate to see wikipedia responcibble for spreading false info throughout the interent. On a side note I just wanted to point out that the Egypt/Libya example was added by the same guy who started saying this guy was fake. Also I think this might be a reason to beef up our security. I mean look how many people edited a completely ridiculous article and with all those edits look how long it lasted. And the only reason it ever got deleted was because some rogue pointed it out, if not for that it probaly still wouldnt have been deleted. --Gary123 13:25, 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. Redwolf24 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organization for African Democracy[edit]

Apparent hoax, insufficient Google hits. See the discussion at Talk:Brian Torby. Evercat 11:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would normally advocate moderation in using the Google test for articles about Africa, but this one's connection to the obvious Brian Torby hoax cuts down its credibility. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 02:35, 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. Redwolf24 00:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

League of Nigerian Liberation[edit]

Apparent hoax, see Talk:Brian Torby. Insufficient Google hits. Evercat 11:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I would normally advocate moderation in using the Google test for articles about Africa, but this one's connection to the obvious Brian Torby hoax cuts down its credibility. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 02:37, 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. Redwolf24 09:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora Peaks[edit]

If you want to know my reasons, they are the same as the ones I gave in the Chelsea Charms VfD. I mean, this is just lunacy. Plus one more very important additional reason is that she is even LESS notable than Chelsea Charms because she is not as big as her and is not the biggest in the world or whatever, which is a horrible title to have anyway. Who here finds her attractive? I just cant believe it. She looks like shes 30 and shes had a kid and shes just fat and people find this stuff sexy? Well, like I said, she is not notable, also look a her page, it says NOTHING about her, just advertisements and stuff about sex dolls and I dont know what else. I really wanna hear from women here because I think some men who have deviated from a godly path might be attracted to this kinda junk so we need some less-biased voices around here to show their opinions, I think theyll agree with me. Thanks and let the Wiki keep rocking! DavidsCrusader 11:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; wiki is not censorship; keep in mind that there are people who might find your comment about a godly path offensive; and I would add that you obviously had a good look at the appropriate pages :) Lectonar 12:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Clueless newbie nomination. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Your definition of what is offensive may not be the same as others. --GraemeL 13:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Co-incidently, her name cropped up in a newspaper article I was reading a fortnight ago. I had never heard of her so googled. Needless to say, this entry on Wikepdia told me more than any of the 1000s of other web sites. Markb 13:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See comments above. Providing free publicity for porn merchants is not one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, so it is legitimate to object to it. I am not religious by the way. Bhoeble 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, Bhoeble, then we should delete the Ku Klux Klan article because I object to giving them free publicity. Pretending that things don't exist does not make them go away. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. tregoweth 15:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Lack of attractiveness as a VfD nomination criteria? Keep per above. — RJH 15:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, same as Chelsea Charms. --Howcheng 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "I think some men who have deviated from a godly path might be attracted"; David, this is not Christian Wikipedia. Sorry, but the topic is notable, regardless of how it personally makes you feel. If you don't like it, I would suggest that you stop going to articles about pornographic film actors. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sliggy 17:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Pirate2000. There are literally dozens of articles about models, actresses and porn stars on wikipedia. Why delete this and keep Brianna Banks, or Julia Roberts for that matter?
  • Speedy keep per Howcheng. --Several Times 19:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's no oil painting, for sure (and I must stop checking these pages at work!), but not looking like Natalie Portman or offending people is no reason for deletion. 69.12.131.148 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Not logged in, D'oh! Sabine's Sunbird 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. No offense, DavidsCrusader, but your POV means nothing to anyone but yourself. Please refer to the Guide to Votes for deletion. More importantly, the phrase where "The most important thing to remember about Votes for Deletion, especially for newcomers who are unfamiliar with it, is that it is about the article, not about you." -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See also:
  • Keep - quite notable. --Noitall 00:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I like masturbating to Wikipedia. ...Erm, I mean it's an encyclopaedic entry. There's nothing about it that should warrant deletion. KeithD (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Pavel Vozenilek 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and crossing my fingers hoping the charming WikiDecency project gets deleted. CanadianCaesar 23:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say speedy but I want this around for a while. Any VfD that uses deviation from a godly path as a supposed argument for decisions in an encyclopedia must be soundly rebuked and mocked as anti-intellectual hokum. DreamGuy 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - And another one deviated from a godly path. Wait, I'm gay - oh well, same difference, still keep, still deviated. BTW, how about deviating those "Decency" fellows from the WP? -- AlexR 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Ridiculous grounds for nomination. 23skidoo 03:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep. Everyking 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see nothing wrong with this. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia has a huge number of entries for actors and actresses, both pornographic and otherwise. I don't see any particular reason why 'Pandora Peaks' is much different than all the others. Nortonew 13:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. *fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap*fap* Project2501a 13:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) I love you Project2501a 2) I hate to suggest bad faith but David keeps putting porn stars on VfD. Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of minors! This is annoying as hell and I'm close to filing an RfC, sorry. Redwolf24 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we dont need whores like this Fuck Hole cluttering up Wikipedia! The time and effort should be spent on makin some CA$HOLA. -Wiffle0rz 06:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Superm401 | Talk 05:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course we should keep this page - next thing you know DC will want to cover up the Spirit_of_Justice. -Karmafan
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I.c.stars.org[edit]

Advertising, non-notable, Non-NPOV Al 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio. Lomn | Talk 16:01:50, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • If the copyvio is fixed, I vote keep. This is a very well known organization in the Chicago area with a top quality Board and a lot of publicity, particularly within the technology community. -- DS1953 16:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • If kept, the copyvio should be purged from the history of the article. - Mgm|(talk) 07:50, 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 that there is nothing to see here, move along now. The nomination was made in error. No-one wants an administrator to delete the article. Uncle G 16:20:07, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

Knees Up Mother Earth[edit]

The talk page says to VfD this but I dont think the man who wrote that knew how, so I am doing it for him -DavidsCrusader 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC) DavidsCrusader 12:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rant(blurb) has been removed and the page is short, but should remain. I was too hasty - how to I remove the VfD ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamford spiney (talk • contribs) 2005-08-16 14:25:27 UTC
  • By striking it through with <s> and </s> tags. Like this. I've done this one for you. Nice admins, please close this VfD. Proto t c 15:20, 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 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. Redwolf24 09:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casey James[edit]

GOOD GRACIOUS, look at that, that is hideous. What has become of modesty? Since when did breasts become these sick things? Do these women find that showing themselves like this is good? What of the children in their community? This is not even notable at all, not notable at all to be on here, less than the other two harlots DavidsCrusader 12:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Clueless newbie nomination. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DavidsCrusader seems to be going through List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers and putting up VfDs for all of them. --GraemeL
  • Keep; if it wasn't a newbie, I would say WP:Point Lectonar 13:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with the above. Bhoeble 15:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. tregoweth 15:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — invalid VfD criteria. — RJH 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep har, har.. you so funny--I-2-d2 15:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as above. --Howcheng 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am seriously starting to wonder if DavidsCrusader isn't a clever parody of a fundamentalist Christian. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sliggy 17:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, despite her being tasteless, she's also notable.Gateman1997 21:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See also:
  • Keep Urgh... extremely disturbing, but notable just the same... Cyclone49 00:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable -- she had to change her name because Jesse Jane had it already? Jess is a relatively new porn actress. --Noitall 00:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Cyclone49. --Apyule 02:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We all make mistakes. Hall Monitor 17:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It's an encyclopaedic entry. There's nothing about it that should warrant deletion. KeithD (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without researching her notability, simply because the nomination is absolutely invalid. CanadianCaesar 23:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's religious trolling which is hideous. DreamGuy 00:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and kick that sick crusader who seems to spend an awfull lot of time looking for such pics. -- AlexR 00:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ban the nominator. This is ridiculous. 23skidoo 03:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see nothing wrong with this. — JIP | Talk 05:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination reminds me of Helen Lovejoy. Will somebody please think of the children!!!. And also, keep. Radiant_>|< 10:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This user nominated this for VfD not because he thinks shes unnotable but because he said 'he wouldn't want his kids to see it' That falls under the vast umbrella of WP:NOT. Redwolf24 00:29, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SaRenna Lee[edit]

SaRenna Lee was nominated for dleetion on 2005-08-16. The result of the prior discussion was "nomination withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SaRenna Lee/2006-08-16.

Article lacks ANY verifiable information. Not ONE citation. Subject is a completely unnotable pornographic star with very internet presence other than her own pornographic website (with a completely low Alexa rating), and mirror sites. Only notability seems to be 1. Her extremely large breasts 2. Being one of the few neo-fascist big breast stars 3. Her heroin addiction, none of which qualifies her whatsoever under current AfD rules. Should be speedy deleted but I knew some would complain KingCobra666 07:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC) — KingCobra666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • delete, non-notable. yandman 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable within her genre and also is part of an ongoing WikiProject. Lack of sources is not a criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable personality. Fact that you've come across this page means that she is valid for wiki. thebaumer 14:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak< Keep. She seems to be notable in her genre, meeting WP:PORNBIO. Meanwhile, it's not true that she does not have much of an internet presence, Google returns almost 300000 hits for her name (even though she is retired, per http://www.amontillado.it/sarenna.htm]). This in itself would not be sufficient, but does cast doubt on the nomination itself. So does the nominator's contribution record, which is limited to 10 contributions, all nominating articles for deletion. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, which criteria in WP:PORNBIO (not a policy, BTW) does she satisfy? Also, Keep, per 23skidoo. Vectro 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant #6, "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche," extremely large enhancements being a very specific genre. She seems to have a very large number of appearances and covers listed in IMDb; "seems" because I'm not an expert in the genre. But if she does have an AVN award, that would be another, and I would strike the "weak" part of my keep. AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AnonEMouse and 23skidoo, I trust that any remaining verifiability issues will be resolved shortly. RFerreira 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep numerous appearances in print media. Winner of an AVN award... she passes the majority of the WP:PORNBIO criteria.  ALKIVAR™ 03:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which AVN Award would that be, please? Could we have a reference or link? AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this article already passed a nomination for deletions, why again is nominated?.Kamui99 07:01, 13 October 2006 (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. And for the record, I hate socks. Redwolf24 00:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IT'em[edit]

  • Delete. Non-notable vanity page for a secondary school's computer team. Created three days ago perhaps during summer vacation. All contribs [16] come from vandalizing range of ip's from the Singapore Ministry of Education 166.121.37.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),166.121.36.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well as 166* and 165* ip rages. Most likely all from the Ministry of Education. Hope you're enjoying the exposure boys. --Muchosucko 06:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not from the MOE but I am an insider. I made the last major edit and before that I would have voted delete, but other than that I think this page will have a fair bit of value in the not-so-distant future as the club is gaining prominence on the school and national level and working hard to make its web presence felt (although its web exploits are on hiatus at the moment, will most likely resume by the end of the year). Not during summer vacation either, summer vacation ended three and a half weeks ago. -P
  • Keep. The page should stay because the club has a very unique culture. Coupled with its rise in recent yeaes, it warrants a mention at least at the national level. --In Green 11:55, 20 July 2005 (SGT)
    • Nota Bene -- Above three votes possibly made by one person. The three contribs to the vote page come from the 165* ip range and from sockpuppet-ish accounts. Suggest merge to Computer club article or delete completely. Most recent outbound link to the club's web-page is now dead.--Muchosucko 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The webpage isn't dead, it was linked incorrectly. Remove the pipelink: DHS link --Tokek 16:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. We are from the same ISP, not the same person.* - Xeon
    • All three IPs are contributing to the same articles, including articles on football, IT'em, homosexuality in Singapore, and Kirby. What are the chances that three different people who have very similar interests are in the same IP range casting 2 keep votes? —Tokek 17:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat, we are not the same person. Anyway, you might want to check out Singapore's population and how many users does SingNet, our ISP, serves. Or I might as well tell you. The amount of users is high. AFAIK, i have not visited any of those 3 other topics you claimed my friends and I, (or according to you, I only) have contributed to. One last thing, if you are looking at our IP, stop it. Cause we are using dynamic ones. And for the IP range, have fun accusing.

One last thing, if you are looking at 165.21.154.114, give it up. P helped edited my english. Did i answer any question of yours regarding why IPs happen to be the same? -Xeon

  • Delete Vanity (reason changed) Frankchn 15:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity, 200% nn. Sdedeo 12:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Yosri 12:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without even looking at the article, because of the sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 13:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - no claim to notability. Dunc|☺ 13:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and nn. --GraemeL 13:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for group vanity...oh, and the sockpuppets. --Several Times 14:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, non-notabile Sliggy 14:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Howcheng 16:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local schools clubs are nn. -- DS1953 18:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Puppets pretty much condemn themselves above. Dottore So 20:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. CDThieme 20:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: interesting and informative. Voyager640 01:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn club. --Etacar11 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An Interesting Story. Ducheng 00:56, 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. Redwolf24 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1984 (number)[edit]

Contains nothing that couldn't be said about ANY other number. Either needs something notable adding about this number (as a number), or a bot to create a couple of thousand other pages... 62.173.111.114 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers want articles on all integers up to and including 256. This number is not particularily interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Every integer up to 256? That's ridiculous. And why 256? Just because it's 2^8? I fear the 257 fans will be most upset. Oh, delete this. 1984 is notable as a year, and as the title of a book, but not in itself as a number. Proto t c 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect anything of interest back to 1000 (number), where this number is mentioned. — RJH 15:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be easy, since there's nothing of interest there to merge back. Delete, and fix 1984 (disambiguation) to point to 1000 (number) (or unlink). Hv 16:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vaguely remember a story about Erdos (or was it someone else), who would never describe a number as uninteresting. Given any number he would immediately rattle off some bizarre (and unique) propery of the number. Unfortunately, I have nowhere near the powers of Erdos, and this number is utterly uninteresting, Delete. --stochata 16:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the article has to relate about 1984 is not written in the Book. Pilatus 16:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not interesting enough. We have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with the sentiments expressed in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite, mentioned above. — Paul August ☎ 16:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete I'm certain that most people who type "1984" are either looking for the book or the year. The Bearded One 17:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Uncle G. Oleg Alexandrov 17:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikiproject numbers has a pretty good, though not perfect, system, and this doesn't fall into it. I think the idea about no uninteresting numbers is "proved" false because some number would be interesting for being the smallest uninteresting number, making it interesting, and so on up the scale to infinity. Obviously wikipedia is going to cut off consecutive integers at some point and 256, as a power of 2, is as good as any, I guess. -R. fiend 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would vote "keep" for anything up to about 1980, but 1984 is just taking things too far. Dmharvey File:User dmharvey sig.png Talk 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing interesting is said about 1984. Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unadulterated silliness. linas 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's all been said above. (1969 (film) should probably be removed from 1000 (number), as well, but that's a separate issue.) -- Arthur Rubin 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not interesting at all and doesn't contain info unique to the number. - Mgm|(talk) 07:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. I invited it over for tea and all it wanted to do was watch television and eat Ding Dongs. It's a really boring number. --Kooky | Talk 19:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, who needs to know this obvious information?  Thorpe talk 11:28, 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. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Rooms[edit]

Google search: "Omega Rooms" forum; gives 4 hits, looks like another web forum, not notable. feydey 13:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snom[edit]

Advertising Al 14:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per submitter. --GraemeL 14:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad, and didnt even take time to make an active link...Nelgallan 16:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT.—Encephalon | ζ  17:33:24, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sour Grapes (band)[edit]

Doesn't meet any points at WP:MUSIC, not notable local group. Releases are self-releases to cassette [17]. feydey 14:24, 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 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, the nomination was withdrawn because the band passes WP:MUSIC with top 10 hits and a top 1o album in the UK. - Mgm|(talk) 07:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Rooster (band)[edit]

non-notable Al 14:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, notable in UK at least. Fuilfils WP:MUSIC. Top 10 hits in the UK, and top 10 album. Proto t c 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Needs to be expanded, though. It's barely a stub. Al 14:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Better now?  ;) Proto t c 14:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, yes. Much. Al 15:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, numerous television appearances and top 10 hits. They're notable. Since the nomination has been withdrawn, I'll close the debate. If anyone objects and still think they should be deleted, please contact me. - Mgm|(talk) 07:36, 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 Redirect. Redwolf24 00:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bootay[edit]

We already have a page on "Booty" :)

  • I say we keep it. This is BOO-TAY. Not booty.(Preceding unsigned comment by 69.250.247.238.
  • Waste of pixels nomination, should just be a redirect (but can't make it one as VfD has been started). Speedy redirect to booty and close vote. Proto t c 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Proto. Al 15:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Proto.—Encephalon | ζ  17:36:32, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Comment - 69.250.247.238 removed the three comments above. I have restored these. Rob Church Talk | Desk 04:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sent the anon a warning not to do it again. - Mgm|(talk) 08:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no reason to keep, unless it's standard practice to redirect misspellings. Paul 23:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's common practice to redirect plausible misspellings or variants, yes. Meelar (talk) 16:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Technically it's a slang interpretation, not a misspelling. Like "partay" when it's usually "party".
  • Redirect to booty. It's redundant by itself.Bjones
  • Redirect to booty per me. Seeing as "bootay" is practically a synonym, I don't think we'd miss much redirecting.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business Continuity Institute[edit]

Advertising from nn 'standards' company (actually a for profit group), whose impressive at a glance website doesn't actually assert their claims of being important, or of being responsible for any kind of real, recognised standard, at all. Anon IP currently pimping his company all over the Business continuity planning page and associated articles. Delete. Proto t c 14:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an amazingly jaundiced comment. I assume that I am the 'Anon IP' to which you refer. My apologies for not having registered: I thought this was not a requirement to comment, and I can only say that my IP was withheld by employers firewall. I am now at home, have registered and I am very happy to defend myself against your flaming. I am not an employee of, nor am I currently even a member of the BCI - to allege that because I mentioned the BCI once, this amounts to me 'pimping' all over the Business continuity planning page and associated articles is ludicrous. The entry itself is not a good description of the BCI - describing it as a 'for profit' group selling business continuity plans is completely wrong. It is a member-owned professional body. Sneakysnaga t c 20:36, 16 August 2005

  • Keep 20,000+ google hits, plenty of outside references - clearly passes the notability test. The initial nomination seems to have been made on the assumption that this was an exercise in self-promotion. This doesn't seem to be the case, as the above aggrieved response indicates. The article should be considered a stub. Dottore So 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seem to be legit. They are listed on an Australian government website [18], and don't appear to do any of the things that Proto suggests. --Apyule 04:10, 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, under criteria #A7: It does not assert the importance or significance of this person. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Mound[edit]

Fixing format, no vote from me at this time. --Etacar11 15:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? (Unsigned vote and nomination by Phoenix orb (talk · contribs))

  • Delete — pure vanity. — RJH 15:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now that I look, this is nonsense. Speedy if possible. --Etacar11 15:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. --GraemeL 16:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ezra Pound. Hey, you never know. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 17:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and make it Speedy. No redirect, it would just serve to confuse people who might think "Mound" was a legit form of his last name, which it clearly is not. -R. fiend 17:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 as a zero-content article requested for deletion by its sole editor (other than the speedy deletion taggers). Uncle G 16:47:29, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

compilateur2compilateur[edit]

I wanted to make this page for french users, but it seems I'm on the bad part of the Wikipedia. I'll try create it on fr.wikipedia.org

  • I don't quite understand this. The only history that Compilateur2compilateur has is its creation – it was created as a blank article with a VfD tag. I've tagged it for speedy as a no-content page. Yes, if you want to write articles in French, you're better off at the French Wikipedia, but I'm thoroughly puzzled as to what this was supposed to be in the first place... android79 16:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts About Nuts[edit]

While there are vendors of hot nuts in Manhattan, I think the rest of this entry may be nonsense.

  • Keep, but isn't it Nuts4Nuts? [19] -- Plutor 16:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • May well be nuts4nuts. Google returns lots of hits on "Nuts about nuts", but none of the first 4 pages seems to be for a nut vendor franchise of that name operating in Manhattan. --GraemeL 16:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to be bold and move this article. I feel that Nuts4Nuts is extremely notable in New York City (they're freaking everywhere) and the article should stay. -- Plutor 16:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I put up the original VfD and I think that the changes that have been made in the last day adequately address my concerns. The entry still seems a little pointless, but it is no longer nonsense and perhaps it will be useful to somebody. Uucp 21:45, 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 by another administrator. Redwolf24 00:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLDT HK 1528[edit]

seems to be a personal entry, and confusing. the closest i can get on a yahoo search is phillipines long distance company Nelgallan 16:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. The article seems to be intensely personal, has no references, nor any internal links. One the other hand, as of this comment, it has only existed on Wiki for about 30 minutes. The Bearded One 16:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable, ad, vanishingly little context so would not object to speedy. -Splash 21:58, 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 delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bekah_Miller[edit]

Vanity. Nn --GraemeL 16:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muscle Activation Technique[edit]

It is an advertisement, and is unformatted to boot -- jiyTalk 16:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete It isn't even that good of an ad... -Daedalus-Prime 17:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My new copyvio activation technique is unstoppable! — mendel ☎ 17:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I was just about to suggest probable copyvio. You beat me to it. --GraemeL 17:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See? Unstoppable! — mendel ☎ 20:00, 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. Redwolf24 01:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student Revolution[edit]

Article created to describe a non-existent revolution Average Earthman 12:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as non-notable and non-existent Sliggy 15:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Average Earthman posted the original VfD as above, but I didn't see it on the main VfD page (Seve Juncal did appear, and now has been deleted). Therefore I am manually adding it to the main page today so its deletion can be considered. Apologies if I have done this all wrong. Sliggy 16:57, 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. Redwolf24 01:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Branin[edit]

Unverifiable Telsa 17:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (My first VfD, be gentle.) Delete as unverifiable. See Talk:Branin for a very long list of queries I had about the article and its sources. It has been two months and not one has been addressed. I can't find the Austrian city mentioned in the article and I remain unconvinced that you can take three languages and four etymologies to come up with multiple spellings and call them variant spellings of the same surname. I spent a morning in the local reference library with some very large dictionaries indeed and was unable to confirm a single assertion of the article except that brenin means king in modern Welsh and that brân means crow. Which is not really a lot. Telsa 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Brennan is a common Irish name, and the text about it relating to the Irish word "braon" is verified elsewhere, but that's about it. The idea that a single name would have Irish and Welsh and Anglo-Saxon roots doesn't make sense, and the name "Branin" I have never encountered. Ben-w 17:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Hello Telsa. I heartily commend your exceptional diligence and patience in researching this, and maintaining an interest in it for 1 month and 17 days. If I understand correctly, Branin is claimed by the article to be a variant of the name Brennan. Various etymological attributions and associations are also claimed. You have researched this and been able to verify just two facts in the whole article. My first instinct was to vote delete, per WP:V, but I wonder if your obvious knowledge of this subject may benefit WP more in another way. Would you be able to write an article on what in your opinion is the correct rendition of the name, perhaps Brennan? You could include all relevant, verifiable etymological and historical details in that article. Then, we might get the Branin page (blanked of everything save the title) to redirect to Brennan. However, if you feel "Branin" is completely unremarkable as a name or version worthy of encyclopedic record (ie., if you think Branin is essentially bogus as a historical name), then we can delete the Branin page. For the purposes of this VfD, I vote delete, unless you specifically confirm that Branin may find use as a legitimate redirect.—Encephalon | ζ  19:36:40, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  • Delete. Telsa's points are well-made. In fact, her queries are for more educated than the article itself, which looks like nonsense to me. Dottore So 20:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite this being my last name, this article is an ill-informed grab bag of words. Lunar Jesters 14:22, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. mikkalai and Russ Blau have collaborated to perform mergers and to create disambiguations. Good work! No-one now wants an administrator to delete anything. Uncle G 11:55:59, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Dials[edit]

"Dials are device in the manga and anime series One Piece" – my vote is Merge into One Piece and Delete. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC) In light of the comments below, I withdraw this nomination. Russ Blau (talk) 11:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I take it you mean a line on Dial (disambiguation) not a dab notice on Dial, this is hardly a big enough subject to require it's own dab on the common usage page. --zippedmartin 20:29, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- Longhair | Talk 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian fatwah[edit]

Neologism. Additionally, WP:NOT a crystal ball or a discussion forum. Delete. Lomn | Talk 17:30:02, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

  • delete UkPaolo 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we really sure we can't speedy this? Delete DJ Clayworth 17:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borders on correspondence. Gazpacho 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete, delete!!! absurd--I-2-d2 19:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 20:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify & retain for the lexiconic value of an often, and increasingly, used phrase of potential good meaning and value. Indeed, progressive linguistic evolution is helped, not harmed, by new "neologisms" with a firm foundation in philosophical fact, logic, or wisdom. Surely, an encyclopedia should not eschew such entries just because they are transcendental to mathematical and scientific facts and speak well to the philosophical, theological, religious, moral, ethical, and spiritual concerns of mankind... User:Richard s 8-16-05
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albaran[edit]

I have no idea what this is. It seems it's an effort to expalin that big cities are bigger than small cities and the like, but I have no idea why it's called "Albaran". Pretty useless under any title, really. "Thank you for reading this page." -R. fiend 17:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Seems like nonsense to me, whether that was the intention or not. --Several Times 18:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A brief essay on settlements under strange title, probably student's name. mikka (t) 18:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Schoolwork, probably a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. PeteVerdon 19:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that talk page, with a comment by the article's creator. All I can say is "WTF?" -R. fiend 19:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like homework. I wonder if the kid passed? Dottore So 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete homework/no context. --Etacar11 02:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced (even has unsourced statements about how small towns have good sports teams), mistitled and probably already better covered elsewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Earthen mound[edit]

The picture is very nice, but unnecessary as an article. Anything non-trivial that can be said about earthen mounds should be said in Tell. UnHoly 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deserving of an article as Earthen mound is an actual physical formation. [20] --Randy 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Mound (which is a bad redirect to tumulus, which is a special kind of mound ) and expand. mikka (t) 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move per mikka, Tells do not appear to be identical with these. Kappa 22:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though an expert needs to do some nomenclature cleanup here. --zippedmartin 00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could become a nice article. Trollderella 01:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel bad now. I must admit that with the work mikkalai and Trollderella did on the article, it is now worth keeping. Good work! UnHoly 18:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Witchwood[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Andrew pmk 18:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If all schools are notable then most certainly all pubs are ;-). --Lomedae 19:21, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it really does date back to 1780, why not? But the content is copied from the pub's site. Gazpacho 19:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [21]. I don't have time, but someone should list it as such. Best to put it there than having it clog VfD. Sdedeo 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if a new article is written. I don't see the slightest similarity between pubs and schools. -Splash 22:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allow me to clarify Splash, as a group of people are making a point in trying to have every school in the telephone directory included in Wikipedia, I see no valid way anyone could object to having an entry for all bars/pubs in the world. A bar is just as notable to a small social group of people as a school is. So, it's a bar and ergo I vote keep. --Lomedae 22:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • That only works if you agree that we should keep every school in the telephone directory, and I do not. -Splash 22:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • People trying to include schools are not doing to make a point, we are doing it to make wikipedia a more valuable and comprehensive encyclopedia. Kappa 23:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone has a problem with some schools being added, then vote Delete on those schools articles. Maybe if enough editors feel the same way and vote, fewer school articles will be kept and using schools to lower the bar for all articles would not be up for discussion. Vegaswikian 07:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable brewery, have pubs across the UK. If an article reads like an advert or contains copyvio, {{sofixit}} rather than wasting VfD space. --zippedmartin 00:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ehehe, that'd be Wychwood. Suggest redirect to that, if we had an article on them. --zippedmartin 00:19, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slavianophile[edit]

  • del. Attempt of neologism, 11 google. hits, original research. mikka (t) 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slavophile -Satori 20:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect would be an endorsement of this strange and illiterate proposal. mikka (t) 21:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Mikkalai, which means no disrespect to an article's author who made several good contributions for now. --Irpen 22:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect - no harm of the redirect, might help some unfortunate russian-speaking soul to find the article abakharev 02:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this logic we may want redirects for unfortunate speakers of all foreign languages. Not to mention their typos and non-unique translitrerations: slavyanophile, slavianofile, slavyanofil, slavjanofil, slavianophil, slawianophyl,..... Redirect articles follow the same common sense rules as regular articles: notability and commonality. 17:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Do not see any harm in all tese spellings, just too lazy to do it myself, certainly would not delete if somebody would bother to create them abakharev 11:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or redirect. --Ghirlandajo 07:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Doesn't harm. --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 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 Recess (TV series). I count 5r-2k. The "merge or redirect" vote implies a redirect either way. As for Maoririder's vote, well, he added the VfD tag in the first edit, and then voted keep. That seems pointless to me; I'm not of the opinion that the nominator gets to cast a straight keep vote in the absence of extenuating or procedural circumstances. -Splash 00:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Weems[edit]

Keep. --Maoririder 18:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh...redirect to the article about the TV show "Recess" unless this can be substantially improved. - Lucky 6.9 18:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Lucky. -Satori 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Keep rewritten stub -Satori 19:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (by the way, this article was VfD'ed by the article's creator, even from the very first version of the article. This is misuse of the VfD system and disruptive). ike9898 18:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've cleaned it up a bit. There seems to be more info on a junior golfer of the same name, but I think we have a useable stub. I expanded it in hopes Maoririder will learn by example. - Lucky 6.9 19:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Recess (TV series) (most of the content of even the expanded stub is already there) or just redirect. This is listed as a "secondary character" on the show page, and in general I don't think we need articles on secondary characters on TV shows unless the show is very famous indeed or the character has become notable outside the context of the show. DES (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more convenient for users than if it's merged. Kappa 22:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Recess (TV series) as per Lucky and DES. As stated above, most of the content is already there anyway. --Metropolitan90 02:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Recess (TV series). This will be more convenient for users than if it has its own article. Nandesuka 23:17, 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. Redwolf24 01:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xcart[edit]

Non-notable advertising Gblaz 18:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per submitter. Al 18:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advercruft. --Lomedae 19:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Jaxl | talk 20:07, 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. -Splash 00:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's ladder (nautical)[edit]

The page is currently a single-sentence stub, and in my opinion there's not much more to say about it. The current Jacob's ladder disambiguation page deals with the subject as fully as necessary, and actually includes more information than this article (and two pictures). PeteVerdon 18:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then speedy redirect and we'll never have to have this discussion again. Septentrionalis 21:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable form of ladder. Move the content from the disambiguation page, where it doesn't belong. Kappa 22:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Trollderella 01:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with info from the Jacob's Ladder disambiguation page which should be shortened according to dab guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 08:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added the info and images from the disambiguation page. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks to whoever tidied up the Jacob's ladder disambiguation page. I now think this article should be kept. PeteVerdon 15:22, 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. Redwolf24 01:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss My *** Club[edit]

I really don't think I need to say anything more than delete. I would, however, remind the author that Wikipedia isn't kindergarten, we can say ass. Soltak 19:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my friend and kindergarten kids say ***. --Maoririder 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why can't you? Soltak 20:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's apparent that the *** stands for "pie." I don't know why anyone would want to kiss pies so please Delete.. --Several Times 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D***te, pointless. Jaxl | talk 20:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Mairi 20:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borders on patent nonsense. ESkog 20:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uh yeah delete this stupid a$$--I-2-d2 20:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a waste of electrons. - Lucky 6.9 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. CanadianCaesar 00:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense or an attack on the people involved. Delete either way. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, 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 speedy deleted --cesarb 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is your chance to dictate what actually goes into our show.[edit]

Nonsense; probably a fork of User:Attackoftheshow --BaronLarf 19:20, 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 No conensus. Redwolf24 01:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuality[edit]

Poorly written, unformatted article on a dicdef topic. -Satori 19:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --BradBeattie 20:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV essay. Not even a dicdef. ManoaChild 21:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary, but even a dictionary wouldn't take this.-Splash 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, notable topic in school discipline, military organization, labor relations, and life management. Vfd is not cleanup. Kappa 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once cleaned, and by god it needs more than just the spaces at the start removing, it will, I'll hazard be noting more than a dicdef and WP:NOT a dictionary. -Splash 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid cultral topic, VfD isn't for bad articles on noteworthy subjects. --zippedmartin 23:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Trollderella 01:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VFD can be for bad articles on notable subjects, but I think this can be cleaned up. Let's give it a chance it's barely a day old. If it's cleaned after a considerable amount of time I may vote delete, but not now. It is indeed a valid subject. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 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. Redwolf24 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marc R. Sherland[edit]

Vanity, as is made quite clear by its extremely close similarity to biographical information Sherland has posted elsewhere on the internet about himself [22] [23]. --Michael Snow 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity. --Wtshymanski 22:50, 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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Bed with Medinner (series 4)[edit]

This page is simply an episode listing for a TV programme made up of video clips linked by a presenter in a studio. Any given episode is therefore essentially the same as any other, just with different clips. Silverhelm 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Best to split into separate pages for each episode. Kappa 22:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ITo my mind, itemising episodes for this type of programme is not too disimilar to giving episode guides for news programmes. However, I'm new around here, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about... (Silverhelm 23:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • No, Silverhelm, you're exactly right. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for contributing. I agree with you: Delete. Nandesuka 23:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I completely agree with you Silverhelm. Peeper 11:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The point of this (and any) episode guide is to differentiate between episodes of the show, which is why the clips are listed. The shows entertainment value comes not from the clips but from the material built around the clips. (I am the "primary author" for this guide) --RedboXen 09:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Volume One)[edit]

It seems that we already have articles on the subject: see Greatest Hits (Queen, Elektra), Greatest Hits (Queen, Hollywood) and Greatest Hits (Queen, Parlophone). Also, this shouldn't be changed into a redirect as the name of the group isn't mentioned in the title. The sales information (the primary content of this article) could be included in the proper articles if it proves to be accurate. -KFP 19:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. ManoaChild 21:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greatest Hits (there's a couple "Volume Ones" there), which needs serious work. There must be thousands of "Greatest Hits" albums, I'm not sure they can be contained in one page. -R. fiend 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, not that it matters for this VfD, but I thought I'd mention that I combined all those Queen albums into one article at Greatest Hits (Queen), which surprisingly didn't exist. Actually it was a move and 2 redirects, as one article covered all three. -R. fiend 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you notice the articles Greatest Hits III (Queen), Greatest Hits, Vol. II (Queen) and Greatest Hits: We Will Rock You Edition? --KFP 04:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh, this is getting too confusing. Maybe some of them could use separate articles, if they are completely distinct albums. I mainly objected to two separate articles when the second was identical to the first, but with a couple bonus tracks. I have no real interest in Queen, but if I feel like it I'll take a stab sometime at sorting them all out. I think there could be some cleanup due all around. -R. fiend 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig Kappa 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig as per Kappa. Alf 15:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brannon Bates[edit]

Non-notable, vanity jengod 19:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • The article suggests we look him up at IMDb. Two roles as slightly-more-than-an-extra does not a notable actor make. The accompanying image tells us that it was uploaded by Bates himself. Userfy or Delete. Vanity, self-promotion. Userfication may not be necessary, as Rivianprods' contribution history suggests he is only interested in editing articles about himself. android79 20:14, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-promoting vanity page. Dottore So 20:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Android79. --BradBeattie 20:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl | talk 20:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nnanity as above. -Splash 22:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn actor vanity. --Etacar11 02:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator (including the images). - Mgm|(talk) 09:22, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic Poetry Society[edit]

According to the article, it's a small community website. Alexa rank of 1.5 million +

lots of issues | leave me a message 20:12, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bodybalance[edit]

Advertising. Al 20:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. is indeed advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AudioBooksForFree.com[edit]

Low/moderate traffic site (Alexa 50k) Article states the product they offer for free. Advertising. Delete lots of issues | leave me a message 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not-Notable and commerical vanity. While the AK-47 thingy is unique, we aren't a directing service for websites and commercial enterprises. --ExplorerCDT 21:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as per ExplorerCDT. --BradBeattie 20:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, vanity. Jaxl | talk 20:39, 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 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 MERGE to Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka). Already done. -Splash 00:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godlovesfags.com[edit]

Low traffic (Alexa 1 million plus) site that exists to counter Godhatesfags.com Merge into godhatesfags.com lots of issues | leave me a message 20:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright taken care of. lots of issues | leave me a message 21:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delisting - this should have just been done, or be taken to Category:Articles_to_be_merged. I'll do it myself, as soon as the page is delisted. JesseW 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done the merging; all that's needed now is to delist the VfD and redirect the article. Be bold... JesseW 21:37, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helene Davies[edit]

Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even individual MPs do little on their own; people who pull 1.5% of the vote in an effort to reach that position hardly approach the bar of notability. We really need guidelines for politicans like we have for music and fiction. Who's up for getting the ball rolling here? -R. fiend 21:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have guidelines. They are the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. They've existed since 2003 and have been listed alongside the other notability guidelines in the Guide to Votes for deletion for over half a year. The criteria are clear on the subject of living politicians, who are in fact the very first group of people addressed by the criteria. Uncle G 15:53:25, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
      • It appears they are not specific enough, as there is considerable disagreement over what constitutes a "Major local political figure", as well as "significant press coverage". We have articles on people who got less than 1% of the vote in an Ohio primary for Congress. Some people seem to think the very act of being a politician is notable in itself. "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events", can be used to justify anyone involved in an election, certainly a newspwrthy event. More than these brief sentences are needed, I fear. -R. fiend 16:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's one way of looking at it: Coverage in newspapers is primary source material, as long as it isn't simple repetition of material provided by the subject itself (i.e. clandestine autobiography) and as long as the newspaper is a reliable source. From primary and secondary source material, a tertiary source encyclopaedia article can be written, if there is enough useful primary source material. The question thus reduces to "How useful is the source material, and how much source material is enough?". The answer to that varies from case to case, according to what is actually written in the sources, and according to what the sources themselves are. Press coverage saying "He ate a whole bowl of nuts at the Republican national convention." is less useful source material than press coverage saying "He gave the opening address at the Republican national convention." Similarly, press coverage in the The Independent of East Hampton doesn't augment human knowledge as much as press coverage in The Independent does. For the politicians that do get into the newspapers (unlike the subject at hand here) this is where the discussion lies.

          Addressing your example about "anyone involved in an election" with this as a basis, it can be seen that though the newspapers may write about the election, if they don't write about the specific candidate then there's no source material for a biography. Mere involvement in something that newspapers cover is not enough. People generally don't get encyclopaedia biography articles for passing out leaflets, because newspapers generally don't cover the individual people that pass out the leaflets, and there are thus no sources to be cited.

          Taking another example: Ross Perot didn't win the election to national office, but there was extensive news coverage of him and thus extensive source material for an encyclopaedia biography article. "renown or notoriety" equates to lots of humans knowing stuff about him, those humans in fact having obtained that knowledge from the very news media sources as are cited by the encyclopaedia biography article.

          In essence, our criteria for the inclusion of biographies try to approximate and to codify the notion that human knowledge about politicians is augmented through news media (the only source for unelected politicians) and through (for politicians that hold office) public records of their activities (such as voting records, official journals of legislatures, and the like). It is knowledge that we are here to collect and to summarize. Addressing the issue by asserting that "all candidates are notable" is to be building a directory of people (indeed a directory of people's autobiographies), not an encyclopaedia of knowledge.

          Does that help? If not, start with Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Archive 0 and work forwards. ☺ Uncle G 18:29:24, 2005-08-17 (UTC)

  • Comment while individual losing candidates may not pass the test, consideration could be given to creating omnibus articles for defeated candidates. This approach has been adopted for Canadian losing candidates. In this case, one might create an article called "UKIP candidates in the UK general election, 2005" that would gather together the stories of various unsuccessful candidates. See, for example, Freedom Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election. (What's a PPC?) Ground Zero 21:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor losing candidates --TimPope 21:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete losing doesn't make you notable. -Splash 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps merging into a 'minor candidates in' page. Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Losing minor party candidate with no other indication of notability. Capitalistroadster 01:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 02:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all PPCs who have done nothing else of note. Secretlondon 04:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn politicians.  Grue  19:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Losing Parliamentary candidates are not normally notable. David | Talk 13:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Speedied by User:Brian0918, closed by me. AlbertR 03:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SharkWrestling[edit]

  • Appears to be just an ad. Reference 'Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine' part 3.
  • Delete It's just a publicity --Ritchy 16 August 2005
  • Delete. No idea what this is, but it's a total waste of space at #2 on the longpages list. AlbertR 21:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. Just a list of videos for sale. ManoaChild 21:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete advertising and it's just a text dump of their entire catalog. SchmuckyTheCat 22:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tarrant[edit]

Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor losing candidates --TimPope 21:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete losing doesn't make you notable. -Splash 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps merging into a 'minor candidates in' page. Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The UKIP has elected MEPs so it clearly is a notable party, unless you can point me to some Wikipedia policy guidelines over what constitutes political notability, I would say keep it as being the MP candidate of a notable party seems notable enough to warrant mention. Caerwine 13:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Won't be notable in ten years. --Scimitar parley 14:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all PPCs who have done nothing else of note. Secretlondon 04:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like the other PPCs. -R. fiend 14:41, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Killock[edit]

Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete thousand's of 'em lost, doesn't make this one special. -Splash 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps merging into a 'minor candidates in' page. Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 02:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Green Party has elected MEPs so it clearly is a notable party, unless you can point me to some Wikipedia policy guidelines over what constitutes political notability, I would say keep it as being the MP candidate of a notable party seems notable enough to warrant mention. Caerwine 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all PPCs who have done nothing else of note. Secretlondon 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons. -R. fiend 14:39, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lines[edit]

Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor losing candidates --TimPope 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thousands of 'em lost, this one's nothing special. -Splash 22:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps merging into a 'minor candidates in' page. Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we had a minor candidates page, wouldn't that just be a long list of non-notables? -Splash 01:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 02:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Green Party has elected MEPs so it clearly is a notable party, unless you can point me to some Wikipedia policy guidelines over what constitutes political notability, I would say keep it as being the MP candidate of a notable party seems notable enough to warrant mention. Caerwine 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as losing candidates aren't notable.--Scimitar parley 14:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all PPCs who have done nothing else of note. Secretlondon 04:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oxford West and Abingdon and add very small summary about him there. (if there is no consensus to redirect, delete) -- Joolz 10:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like the others. -R. fiend 14:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Woodcock[edit]

Only claim to fame is as one of thousands of candidates in the last UK general election. Wikipedia is not a directory of PPCs. Timrollpickering 20:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete minor losing candidates --TimPope 21:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1.1% of the vote. Created three days before the election too. Flowerparty talk 21:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete losing is easy. Done it myself. -Splash 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps merging into a 'minor candidates in' page. Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsuccessful minor party candidate for office and not apparently notable for other reasons. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 02:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RESPECT unfortunately elected an MP in the last election, so it clearly is a notable party, unless you can point me to some Wikipedia policy guidelines over what constitutes political notability, I would say keep it as being the MP candidate of a notable party seems notable enough to warrant mention. Caerwine 13:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were we discussing RESPECT The Unity Coalition, our article on that political party, your argument about the party being notable would apply. However, we are not. We are discussing a candidate for office who is simply a member of that party, and moreover a candidate that both didn't win (by a massive margin) and that is not infamous for losing spectacularly (as some candidates are). Notability is not inheritable from a political party by all of its individual members; and your argument about the party being notable is thus inapplicable. A person who has done nothing else to satisfy the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies (as this person has not) has to have won the election to national/state/provincial office that xe has stood for. Delete. Uncle G 14:27:56, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
      • I disagree with Uncle G--the notability of the party is clearly an issue. Both Caerwine and I believe that major party candidates should be kept; therefore, the notability of RESPECT is clearly a factor, at least in our votes. I, however, come down on the opposite side of Caerwine. Electing one member of Parliament does not make you a notable party. If they achieve more significant success over a longer period, then their candidates can get articles--until then, they remain (in my eyes) a minor party. Delete. Meelar (talk) 14:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • The notability of the party is irrelevant. Candidates (that don't satisfy the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies in any other ways) don't get articles unless they actually win the elections. This is long established here, and is also clearly laid out in the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies themselves. There are millions of candidates for office around the world, and neither winning nor having any other criterion whatsoever going for you, is where by consensus we have consistently drawn the line. Uncle G 15:41:04, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
          • Then by that reasoning, would you support reopening the VFD on Antonia Bance? Except for the fact the she stood for the Labour Party and Mr. Woodcock stood for RESPECT, I see no difference between the two cases. Caerwine 16:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That should have been deleted - the only people who voted keep knew her personally. Secretlondon 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia generally, and VFD specifically, does not have to be strictly consistent. There is no such thing as a precedent. David | Talk 19:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally and utterly NN. David | Talk 14:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all losing candidates, if they have done nothing else, regardless of party. Secretlondon 04:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cambridge and add small summary about him, if neccessary. (if there is no consensus to redirect, delete) -- Joolz 10:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the other listed PPCs. -R. fiend 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn loser.  Grue  19:51, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Informationsphere.com[edit]

Low traffic site. ~750k Alexa. Content thin - just publishes Wordnet, CIA factbook, etc content. delete lots of issues | leave me a message 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an article (if it exists) on these sorts of leech sites that take PD content available on ad-free sites and serve it up with ads of their own. Otherwise, delete. Caerwine 13:49, 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 Speedily deleted by another administrator. Redwolf24 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Audree tonomura[edit]

17 year old Sk8ter Grrrl. This page is the only evidence of Audree on the web that I can find. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. Noooo indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 21:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy material, really. Flowerparty talk 21:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. -- DS1953 22:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. feederfish as pets??? Nelgallan 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn teen vanity. And feeder fish are cheaper than others. :) --Etacar11 02:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 17:17, 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. Redwolf24 01:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annunziata Rees-Mogg[edit]

She was an unsuccessful candidate at the 2005 UK general election. According to the European Foundation website she isn't the editor of the European Journal. That leaves her only claim to notability the fact she is the daughter of her father. Sliggy 21:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Neglected to be explicit: delete. Sliggy 21:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to her father? If she's mentioned on his article it can't hurt... Shimgray 00:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per above. Dottore So 02:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major party nominee for national legislature, as well as editor of a magazine. Meelar (talk) 14:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete she's not actually the editor according to the web site. I don't think we should have a page on every PPC of every party. Secretlondon 04:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another PPC. Timrollpickering 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failed candidates unless something else makes them notable, which I don't think it does in this case. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, like the other PPCs. -R. fiend 14:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only notable because of her father, scribbling for a right wing political publication not very notable unless the publication is very notable.--Gorgonzilla 17:40, 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. Redwolf24 01:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibero-American[edit]

Dictdef. --Howcheng 21:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable class of countries. Kappa 22:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 438K hits on a yahoo search (2,180K for iberoamerican which appears to be the sp translation). looks like an interesting topic but in need serious expansion. Nelgallan 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Hispanic] exists. Pilatus 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MSN Group Index[edit]

Wikipedia does not need an "unofficial index to MSN Groups". Inviting users to "add your own site" this will be little more than a collection of external links, serving as a web directory. Not at all encyclopedic. UkPaolo 21:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. MSN do a perfectly good job of listing their own groups. WP:NOT a repository of links. Flowerparty talk 22:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Loganberry (Talk) 23:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Delete the page if needed. ---ACL- 05:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Fora-related deletions and Lists-related deletions. Please see those lists for related debates. -- Visviva 07:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, empty list. Would be list of external links (which are speedyable) if populated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 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. Redwolf24 01:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JJOR64's Hang Out[edit]

Non-notable. Number of topics only in triple digits. Number of users only in double digits. Destroy plz. (that means Delete.) A Link to the Past 21:34, 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. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Master i computer-mediated communication[edit]

Does not seem notable. I don't think we should have an article for every Master's program ever. Also, unless "i" is a Danish preposition, the title itself is misspelled. Delete. Joel7687 21:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vrtv[edit]

Non-notable. Advertising. Ben-w 21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Harkenflipper[edit]

Delete: Hoax, both Google and Amazon turn up no references for this ridiculously-named author. --IByte 21:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — bogus or hopelessly obscure. — RJH 22:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a hoax. ManoaChild 22:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probable hoax. --Etacar11 03:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Google and Amazon don't know the book, I'm confident in saying this is a hoax. delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verifiable and likely hoax. Hall Monitor 17:20, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Doesn't Notice[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable band. Merge the article contents to the band page. SchmuckyTheCat 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, albums all have pages. If the band is non-notable, Vfd it. Kappa 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa; no sense in creating double standards. Flowerparty talk 22:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Alf 13:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but really, if people can't write more than a single sentence and a list of songs why do they even bother? Do people put any effort into things they write any more? -R. fiend 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of any notability or significance. Even bands which clearly meet WP:MUSIC guidelines don't automatically get articles for every album they ever released. Otherwise we would need literally tens of thousands of disambiguation pages for the many many albums whose titles match each other or match titles of much-more-famous books or movies. Barno 18:16, 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. I will redirect to Daddy (poem). Redwolf24 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Daddy' by Sylvia Plath[edit]

"original research, POV" Ben-w 22:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOR -Satori 22:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Redirect per Doc. -Satori 23:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain article presents facts, but is crowded with POV, etc. I'll cast a neutral vote for this one. D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Satori and Doc D. J. Bracey (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect as below --Raistlin 22:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Merge and) Redirect to Daddy (poem) - we've already got this covered --Doc (?) 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daddy (poem). This material does not appear to be the editor's "original research" as that term applies to Wikipedia but rather a synopsis adopted from Her Husband: Hughes and Plath, a Marriage by Diane Middlebrook (Viking Penguin 2003). Unlike the vast majority of editors, this editor even cited her source. This article is also much more detailed than the other article, though the name of the other article is much better. -- DS1953 18:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Daddy (poem). Reads like a college essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Kerowyn 19:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Daddy (poem), of course. Sean Black 20:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and Redirect. Redwolf24 02:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Land of rohan[edit]

~200 member forums about LotR aren't noteable or encyclopedic. Delete and consider a redirect to Rohan. --Lomn | Talk 22:12:03, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsplat[edit]

Delete: non-notable neologism --IByte 22:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dictionary definition at best. --Wtshymanski 22:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Agony Aunt[edit]

Anyone want to send a message to Aunty? - nn d --Doc (?) 22:28, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 02:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Nitrogen Economy[edit]

  • Delete. Not encyclopediac, original concept unknown outside Wikipedia Wtshymanski 22:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is by no means complete and hence a circular reference is not requirement. Reference to a research is required and supplied in this case.--Pete 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Cleanup and Rename. Searching for CryoCar, LN2000, or "Liquid Nitrogen" engine shows that this is a known concept and research topic. However, this article includes too much speculation about the economic effects of the engine. ManoaChild 23:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two universities have built working cryogenic cars. Funding for one project was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Continue to improve all aspects of the article, the visionary as well as the practical objections. Perhaps need to rename something like Cryogenic energy storage. Lumos3 23:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cryogenic energy storage is a bit too general, unless the article is expanded significantly. What about Cryogenic engine or Cryogenic vehicle? ManoaChild 23:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trollderella 01:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept seems to have some following, at least as far as vehicles driven by cryogens goes. The term itself–'liquid nitrogen economy'–does not. It draws very few Google hits. There are several reasonable renaming suggestions above; I'd be happy if the closing admin went with any of them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a possible rename. --Apyule 04:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The title was based on: Kleppe J.A., Schneider R.N., “A Nitrogen Economy”, Winter Meeting ASEE, Honolulu, HI, December, 1974. --Pete 13:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus/Keep. Redwolf24 02:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fuzz[edit]

Tagged for CSD, but it's a band, no vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Relisting, five days more discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see why it being a band rescues it from being Potential Vanity. The article does not establish notability, therefore in my interpretation I believe it fits CSD. I re-tagged for CSD. EvilPhoenix talk 07:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • It specifically does not fit the CSD. It is not a person, and the criterion to allow speedying of band vanity did not pass. Please don't try to get around that. --Dmcdevit·t 07:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that. Keep up the good work.EvilPhoenix talk 07:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to police. Or, failing that, delete. -R. fiend 12:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep they have an allmusic entry. --Etacar11 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Allmusic entry and two albums, though not with major labels. Kappa 23:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Etacar and Kappa. Meelar (talk) 14:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambig per R.Fiend. Two albums is good enough for me to keep it. Radiant_>|< 15:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability under WP:MUSIC. --Carnildo 22:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. Redwolf24 02:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2018 world cup[edit]

Speedied but doesn't seem to fit any CSD. No vote as yet. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • After further investigation, I have found that an article on this event already exists and England's interest in tendering is mentioned. Redirect --Tony SidawayTalk 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Football World Cup 2018 as above. Kappa 23:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support any admin who wanted to close this discussion and make the article a speedy redirect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn. I was going by the "no crystal ball" edict. Who knew we had an article about an event thirteen years into the future? Redirect. Sheesh. - Lucky 6.9 02:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Football World Cup only takes place every four years, the next one being in 2006, so the 2018 competition is only four competitions away – three, not counting the one already in progress (qualification matches are played for some 18 months previously). The bid process is lengthy in itself, so it's not remarkable that the 2018 competition is starting to get mentions already. Speedy redirect. Tonywalton | Talk 19:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE unless the FIFA 2018 World Cup is the only one that year, which it won't be, becuase World Cup skiing occurs every year. 132.205.44.43 20:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that's covered by the redirect to Football World Cup 2018. There won't be a Rugby Union World Cup or a Cricket World Cup that year either Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Comment. The same sysop who deleted Warren Benbow has also deleted this article. To remove his excuse I have undeleted only the indisputable non-speediable versions that I created myself. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ra-Tet. Information appears already to be there. -Splash 01:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashet[edit]

Please can we delete this? Minor buffycruft --Doc (?) 22:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, why would you want to delete this? Could be merged somewhere. Kappa 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, loads of reasons. I couldn't find a suitable merge - but now see I didn't look hard enough (sheepishliy -although proud not to be a buffy-buff) merge with Ra-Tet --Doc (?) 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above.--Scimitar parley 14:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Doc. Nandesuka 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Ra-Tet (which itself should be merged into a higher level Buffy article). No reason per WP:FICT to keep such trivia on its own. Barno 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Johnson[edit]

Seems totally fictitious. I'm unable to verify any of the information in the entry through Google or IMDB. Bad spelling on the name or just vandalism? GraemeL 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. hoax in need of a spell-check. oscar for best teenage female actress???? Nelgallan 23:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, not even a particularly funny one. Sabine's Sunbird 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 03:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. Not a single assertion from the article is verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly. Hall Monitor 17:22, 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. Redwolf24 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

303f[edit]

Band vanity - no allmusic entry - big pics --Doc (?) 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The username of the page's creator, User:Jay303f, strongly suggests that this is vanity. Martg76 23:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 02:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highlights of 2004 include a "live gig at a church." Rock on with your bad self. --Tysto 05:42, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigcity County, Germanton[edit]

Tempted to submit this for speedy, but it's too big to be a solid candidate. Still, no context, no sign of notability, no indication that it's even real, i.e. a google search for Germanton Kyricks returns no hits at all. Delete. Ken talk|contribs 23:05, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavillion Center Pool[edit]

Non-notable jengod 23:17, 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 speedily deleted as a nonsense hoax that shouldn't be on Wikipedia one second longer. FCYTravis 19:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Easthope[edit]

Speedied but doesn't fit any CSD. No vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is not for you to conclude against a unanimous vote in VfU Tony, like it or not. That vote upholds the original speedy, it's one of the things that VfU is for. -Splash 23:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And apart from that, I get zero Google hits (alright, 1, but its a mirror), so she is non-notable, the article is non-verifiable and "she's concentrating on her friends at the moment". Please. WP:NOT a bureaucracy.-Splash 23:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total crap. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy re-delete as blatent vanity. Original speedy should have been allowed to stand. --Carnildo 23:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't. There is no CSD for vanity where notability is asserted. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here." Wikipedia:Five pillars. CSD is not an algorithm, it's a guideline to aid in consistent judgement. VfU is the correction mechanism. One sysop's interpretation of the letter of the law should not override group consensus judgements. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Couldn't, or wouldn't? There's a difference. -R. fiend 15:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good luck to her in the future but non-notable for now. Sabine's Sunbird 23:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, unverifiable bio. Ken talk|contribs 01:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been speedied and kept deleted. android79 01:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as nonsesne, you only have to look at the list of appearances which span several continents and a few decades of television to see that this 7 year old isn't real.--nixie 02:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 03:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again. This is not TonySidawaypedia. Zoe 04:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Indeed it is not, nor anyone else's private playpen. This is why, there being no valid CSD for this class of article, it was resurrected and listed on VfD. I think it's a hoax, and so do you, but we could both be wrong. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Not a speedy candidate, admins should not break the rules and then rely on other admins to back them up at VFU. Kappa 06:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent vanity nonsense --Cje 07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Check the other contributions by 86.129.55.188. Includes a claim that Francesca has been the drummer for Red Hot Chili Peppers. I think not. --Cje 07:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, valid speedy per VFU consensus, and censure Tony for WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 08:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If Kappa says so... Unverifiable at any rate, but "hoax" is in fact not a speedy criterion, because it is difficult to make a speedy verification. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not verifiable and above evidence makes it being a hoax very likely. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dear God, dissension in the inclusionist ranks. Proto t c 09:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete a few moments research shows this is patent nonsense. --TimPope 17:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- DS1953 18:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this is a hoax. Yes, admins should speedy things that are this blatantly bad. Seems like there's too much fighting between editors here and not enough common seense. Friday (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and it seems to me that Tony Sidaway confused matters on this greatly by intervening before the VfU had reached a consensus. How do you expect non-admins to participate meaningfully in the process if the place where consensus forms moves around arbitrarily and capriciously? Nandesuka 23:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for wasting everyone's time with this crap. Gamaliel 01:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's not a hoax, someone can always re-create the article with verifiable references. People who create articles should be held to some minimal standard of responsibility. Articles are not humans, deletion is not capital punishment, and the standard is not "true unless proven false beyond reasonable doubt." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. -Splash 01:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata Guide[edit]

"Space = Fire!" How about -- Wikipedia is not a game playing guide. Wikipedia is not a hint book. Wikipedia is not a replacement for RTFM. SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. - Thatdog 23:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grin(!), a cat and a dog voting on the same subject;). Anyway, transwiki per Thatdog. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 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. -Splash 01:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I Do (I Do It for You)[edit]

Ugh SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Brian Adams SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song was no 1 in the UK for 16 weeks. I believe it was some sort of record. Flowerparty talk 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Indeed it was and was #1 in Australia for three months. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep #18 List of best-selling singles (UK) and most importantly UK Singles Chart records#Longest run at number one - what ever value judgement you make about the music itself, that's a freakin' notable single. --zippedmartin 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you thought it should be merged, why are you nominating it for deletion? A merge does not require a deletion. Anyone can do it. But anyway, Keep, notable song. CanadianCaesar 23:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've tidied it up a bit. Old version. Flowerparty talk 00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Poor faith nomination. --Madchester 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This wretched song was number one in the UK charts for longer than just about any ever. For that fact alone it should be kept, as testemant to the general poor musical taste of of a great many brits and the suffering of the rest of us. Sabine's Sunbird 01:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not worth dying for. Keep. -The Tom 02:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not personally a fan of articles on individual songs, and would much prefer to see all song articles merged into the albums from whence they came, but as long as general consensus continues to favour distinct articles for songs, this one, while undeniably ugh-inducing, is as legitimately notable as a song can get. Keep. (Oh, and by the way, nobody named "Brian" Adams was involved with this song in any way.) Bearcat 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please bear in mind that not all songs are pop songs. There aren't necessarily "albums from whence they came" in the first place. The idea that the only form of music is pop music is a widely-brought accusation of systemic bias that is levelled at Wikipedia. Please fight it. Also please note that even in the specific case of pop songs, not all songs "came from" albums, or have been released on albums. The pop music industry hasn't always worked, and still doesn't work, to the simple scheme of producing an album and then releasing songs off it. To see famous examples of how this neat and tidy idea is not actually followed in practice in the real world, read the histories of some of the individual songs listed on The Beatles discography. Uncle G 14:53:25, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
  • Keep per all points above - Jord 05:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to the Allmusic.com article on Bryan Adams, this song sold eight million copies worldwide, was at #1 in the US for 7 weeks and won a Grammy as best song from a movie or TV program. [24] Capitalistroadster 06:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as I recall, it was a hit for ever and a day in the States, as well, and continued to torture me for years as an Adult Contemporary DJ. Bad taste is not exclusive to either side of the Atlantic. -Satori 21:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article expanded with sections on Making of the song and Chart success. More on awards to come. Capitalistroadster 10:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article now finished. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. I will redirect.. Redwolf24 02:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epistle to augusta[edit]

this is a POV/OR essay about a poem, not anything like an encyclopedia article Ben-w 00:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Lord Byron - Augusta (Poem) is a duplicate of this page, delete it too if the VfD says so. --IByte 00:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the entry for Augusta Leigh. I have made mention of the two poems at the bottom of that page for now. A separate entry could be created for them, but this effort ain't cutting it. Dottore So 03:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is highly biased, is written in the first person, and cites no sources. It's actually more about the poet, than about the poem. We already have the ground that this article attempts to cover extensively covered, with far less bias, with no first person, and with cited sources, in both George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron and Augusta Leigh. There's no content in this article worth retaining. Plus, the title of the poem is actually Epistle to Augusta. Delete Lord Byron - Augusta (Poem) as a title not worth redirecting and Redirect Epistle to augusta as per Dottoreso. Uncle G 15:25:51, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor (song)[edit]

band notable, but individual song not notable, and article, brief as it is, is very much imbued with personal bias 68.161.44.106 03:33, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_16&oldid=1081091596"