Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 August 19 >

[refresh]

2005-08-18[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 Move to Erdini Qoigyijabu. Redwolf24 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erdini Qoigyijabu, 11th Panchen Lama[edit]

Page is mainland Chinese propaganda. Tibet chose someone else as the 11th Panchen Lama, this guy was chosen by communist China.--Biff Dong 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy DeleteAs explained above. Having this guy named the 11th Panchen Lama is incorrect and misleading.--Biff Dong 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After reading DS's comments, I would like to change my vote to Merge into Panchen Lama. I don't think he is deserving of a whole page just because mainland China doesn't like the other Panchen and decided to name their own. --Biff Dong 01:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Biff is referring to my comments on his talk page, where I pointed out that even distasteful topics such as government-imposed false lamas can be quite encyclopedic. DS 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove propaganda. The fact that he is being promoted as the fake lama is notable. We have a page for several pretenders, Lady Jane Grey was a pretender too. The argument for deletion here is based on a controversy that is itself notable and this guy is one of the major figures in it. If I see his name in a newspaper article I want to know he is the fake.--Gorgonzilla 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page title itself is propaganda--Biff Dong 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who is that?--Biff Dong 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DS. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be similar to some antipopes of 12th and 15th century where we will not find out the truth until later. Panchen Lama needs to mention both. --Henrygb 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per DS. --Mairi 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DS. -Splash 02:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DS. Shantavira 11:52, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1226Media[edit]

Non-notable website. Francs2000 | Talk 00:12, 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 00:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moote[edit]

Clearly promotion for the band, no attempt to even make it look like an encyclopaedic entry Ebz 00:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obvious band vanity Soltak 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Soltak. --Lomedae 01:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. “Non-notable”, “unencyclopedic” and “vanity” are just some of the words that have been used to describe this article. -- BD2412 talk 01:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 01:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; van, nn Celcius 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why would they write Scheduled for release on 6th June 2005... in an article created on June 9th? Flowerparty talk 01:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatant band vanity and use of marketing talk. - Mgm|(talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for obvious reasons. HipHopOppotomus 09:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Delete Vanity --Dysepsion 22:43, 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 00:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zinio[edit]

ad page by anon user 61.177.142.226, whose only edit was the creation of this page. Delete Ken 22:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm only seeing two or three valid votes. Relisting for another five days. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It was a big ad before I toned it down. I think what's left is NPOV. Are you also suggesting it's non-notable? Naturenet | Talk 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: it still reads like an ad to me, so I stand by listing it for deletion. Notable? I'm willing to let the folks who vote decide that. Ken 22:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If this "toned-down" article is going to be kept, then the NXTbook Media and Texterity articles should be kept as well, but "toned-down" to match this Zinio article. -69.104.40.172 22:33, August 5, 2005
      • Not necessarily; notability and encyclopedic value need to be established for each article separately, which is why I listed them separately. It's possible that one will be considered notable enough (client count, market penetration, etc.) that it will be kept, while the others are not. Ken 22:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • Understood. I was saying that I believe they are equal in notability and value. So if one is deleted, all should be deleted and if one is kept, all should be kept. -69.104.40.172 23:20, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still essentially an advertisement page ("provides digital solutions"), claim to notability is that it has 200 clients. My local café beats that. Sdedeo 22:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a new product space... There needs to be some way to describe these services/products in a factual way. For Zinio, I would remove "As of 2005, over 200 magazines use Zinio and it has 62% market share of audited digital circulation." as this is a "claim" which cannot be externally verified, and in any case, is subject to change over time. For NXTbook Media and Texterity as long as the descriptions are somewhat factual, its necessary to keep their entries to maintain parity. These are all "vendor generated" descriptions, but unless someone has a better idea, it's better to have some information rather than nothing.
Unsigned vote by Cimarron.buser, a user with 4 edits --Allen3 talk 16:36, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per article creator's comments in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/NXTbook Media. --Allen3 talk 16:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete well, since the other "vendor" profiles are now deleted, delete this one too, I guess. The webpage links in the main definition will have to suffice. Cimarron.buser 21:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it doesn't seem encylopaedic, and still reads like it's selling the company, rather than informing on it. Cursive 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the market leader in its field it seems more notable than some companies we have articles on. Osomec 00:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this. Trollderella 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article still reads somewhat like an advertisement. A little research shows that it's a closely-held VC-funded company with a notable board of directors (Stewart Alsop, for one). The article should be cleaned up, but VfD is not cleanup. Nandesuka 00:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; But clean and add relevant info. Celcius 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still looks like advertising to me. WMMartin 10:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 10:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete—Non-notable company advertising. --Tysto 16:43, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Merge and redirect to Digital magazine along with information on other firms providing digital distribution for balance. -- WCFrancis 16:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --PhilipO 22:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn ad. -Splash 02:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, well-known media company. - choster 19:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn ad. - market leadership is claimed by any company I know of, so I wouldn't trust that :p --Raistlin 12:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand -- Reinyday
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic plot for world domination[edit]

Delete as original research, personal essay, no sources, no potential to become encyclopedic since the topic itself inherently presents a non-neutral point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, lmao. ~~ N (t/c) 00:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete KrisW6 00:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and i have to go shower now. Nandesuka 00:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - would have voted keep, except for its poor use of apostrophes :p --Doc (?) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and commas. Delete. Barno 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I needed a laugh --Dysepsion 00:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay-stub. Flowerparty 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research --Lomedae 01:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not much of a plot. -- BD2412 talk 01:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. same reasons as Dpbsmith. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't know Ian Paisley had become a Wikipedian. :>) Capitalistroadster 02:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Kill it. And delete the article. Celcius 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for conspiracy theorist articles on wikipedia. GregAsche 02:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Nateji77 02:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nickptar. Slac speak up! 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inappropriate use of apostrophes cannot be tolerated Avalon 04:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been listed as a copyvio, but I'd just like to add my delete vote to make sure an article is never written on this title. It's inherently POV and totally unsubstantiated. - Mgm|(talk) 07:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But are copyvios eligible for BJAODN? HipHopOppotomus 09:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's a copyvio and I've removed the notice and reverted the article. The declared source of the copyvio is a set of online lecture notes that makes one brief reference to an "Anti catholic book alleging Catholic plot for domination in US," but does not contain so much as a single sentence matching anything in the article. Due to grammar and general bad writing I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the article is a copy of anything published by a print publisher. If Lacrimosus just wants to make the offensive material less visible he should make some other kind of edit. And a courtesy, major edits made during a VfD really should be noted in the VfD discussion so that people joining the discussion later know that they are discussing something different from what was being discussed earlier. As I write this, the article is back to its original state except the correction of one typo. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJADON - awesome. Proto t c 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless it's all true, in which case I'd like my portion of the world now, please. I suppose we could link this through to the Jack Chick page instead. HopperUK 11:57:37, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Delete, as completely un-encyclopedic and largely ridiculous POV. --Bhadani 13:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've replaced the entire content with the line "See: Anti-Catholicism." Most of the above discussion relates to versions of the article similar to this one. If I'd been thinking more clearly I probably would just have made the article a redirect to Anti-Catholicism instead of dragging it through VfD, but as long as it's on the road to deletion let's continue, as "Catholic plot for world domination" is not anything that anyone is likely to type in and hence not very valuable as a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't do this. We need to be able to evaluate the article more or less as is was when proposed. --Tysto 16:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
      • It's in the history, and you can view it by clicking on the link I provided. Here it is again:
Original text Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Original research. --Tysto 16:49, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Delete — WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine", although it's tempting to redirect to mwahahahahaha... ;) — RJH 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Oh no, we have been discovered! :-) Psy Guy 18:32, 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 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Econopolitik[edit]

Dictionary definition of something which isn't even yet a neologism. Doesn't seem to be in wide use beyond this blog. Angela. 00:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Well, it is a neologism... now. -- BD2412 talk 01:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 01:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trife triviality pretends to be intellectual. Please dispose of it. Celcius 02:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, protoneologistic dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 07:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-notable band vanity. Oh, sorry, bad habit. Neologism. JDoorjam 14:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baleet Illinoisian 03:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A useful neologism, one I might use myself now that I've heard of it, but still a neologism. Caerwine 15:34, 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 00:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Delta[edit]

This is page of a chapter of the Psi Upsilon Fraternity. There are about 2 other chapters of the same fraternity that have individual articles but I'm putting this one up because I'm not sure how the voting will turn out. I'm putting this up for VfD because there's really not much substance to this article. It would be best to link the chapter website from from the Psi Upsilon article instead of having each individual chapter having a seperate article and thus opening the possibilty of having a "personal" websites of chapters from any fraternity within an encyclopedia. Having one article of a national fraternity is enough. We don't need articles of every individual chapter. IMO Dysepsion 00:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Psi Upsilon. This is NN for a separate entry. --Lomedae 01:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Are individual chapters of any encyclopediac interest? Celcius 02:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all individual fraternity chapters with their fraternity. Bear in mind that there are probably lots of fraternities with a "chi delta" chapter. -- BD2412 talk 01:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable, but failing that Merge per BD2412, who hits the nail on the head. If this was to stay a separate article, it would need to be renamed "Chi Delta Chapter of Psi Upsilon" or somesuch. Nandesuka 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nandesuka, which is to say that a Merge/Redirect per BD2412 causes problems with the generic "Chi Delta" title common to chapters of other fraternities. --Alan Au 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do NOT merge (Merging, as I understand it involves a redirect?) as there is a sorority called "Chi Delta," and also numerous chapters of other houses throughout the nation that are the Chi Delta chapter of their house. JDoorjam 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JDoorjam. In general individual chapters of Fraternities or sororities or other social orginazitions are not notable, unless there is specific reason to the copntrary in a particular case. Note this VfD as a precedant for future such cases. DES (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What BD2412 and Nandesuka said. -Splash 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , but only due to lack of content. Some Chapter web pages have quite a bit of information. See Delta chapter of Alpha Phi Omega or Beta Rho chapter of Alpha Phi Omega or Mu Alpha chapter of Alpha Phi Omega. Links from the National Fraternity wikipage to the web pages of all of the individual chapters may not be reasonable. Alpha Phi Omega has 350 active chapters and over 250 have local web pages. Restricting links from the National Fraternity wiki page to only those chapters who have Wikipages seems more reasonable. Naraht 15:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JDoorjam. -choster 19:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Howler[edit]

No assertion of notability for this blog. Alexa does not even have a traffic ranking for them. So, Delete Oops, the URL given in the article has no alexa, but apparently their correct address does. I don't see anything notable about it though. No vote. Friday (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 907,000 google hits [1], alexa rank 42,633 [2] Kappa 01:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Kappa's Google search shows only 278 unique hits. Zoe 04:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • What is unique about them? Kappa 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unique pages. The count you gave is for duplicate mentions on the same page or in the same website. Zoe 06:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable blog as per Kappa. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extremely notable American media commentator. Nandesuka 03:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup. The 'blog seems (barely) notable (though my standards seem stricter than the more cluey WPdians), but the article isn't all that well-written and comes across as POV. Combined with no assertion of notability, I can see why Friday thought it appropriate for VfD. --fuddlemark 05:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem more notable in form or content than most other blogs, and ( unlike some others ) doesn't appear to have "made any political weather". High site traffic is not the same as notability. WMMartin 10:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost all blogs are stupid and non-notable. Every single blog with an article could be covered in one article, titled List of notable blogs, which would have - at most - 20 blogs on it. 99.9999% of blogs are worthless. 278 unique hits != notable. Proto t c 11:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to know the source of the claim that it gets only 278 unique hits despite getting 857,000 hits on Google -- especially since Alexa says that 339 sites link to it. --Calton | Talk 14:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Click on Kappa's link and go to the last page of the search. Zoe 18:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; notable blog. But clean up per fuddlemark. -- JDoorjam 14:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete in agreement with WMMartin and Zoe. No indication of significance. Barno 14:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC) ...Vote changed to keep based on additional evidence of widespread notice beyond that of most political blogs. Barno 17:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn Erwin Walsh
  • Keep; exceptionally notable Web site, it is ranked #237 at the Truth Laid Bear social network analysis site with over 500 unique inbound links, most from major blogs like Kos, Talking Points Memo and Americablog.--Gorgonzilla 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have yet to see more compelling evidence of notability. --Lomedae 17:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; blog passes any standard for notability that does not arbitrarily exclude blogs--Craigkbryant 17:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trollderella 18:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, article could be improved. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:38, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • This one's a keeper. It's Bob Somersby's stuff, guys. BTW, I'm shocked at this 278 figure - something really wrong there — the Howler is huge. The article on WP could use improvement, though.—Encephalon | ζ  21:40:04, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Reply by original author of article[edit]

The Daily Howler is notable because it is one of the most influential political blogs out there. Arguably, it is notable also because it was one of the earliest political blogs (1998).

Evidence of influence (this list could easily be expanded):

  • The Columbia Journalism Review ran an article[3] about The Daily Howler and its author Bob Somerby from which I quote: "Bob Somerby needs no introduction, of course, unless your days are spent solely in the brick-and-mortar world..."
  • Paul Krugman opened one of his op-eds[4] for the New York Times as follows:

A message to my fellow journalists: check out media watch sites like campaigndesk.org, mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com. It's good to see ourselves as others see us. I've been finding The Daily Howler's concept of a media "script," a story line that shapes coverage, often in the teeth of the evidence, particularly helpful in understanding cable news.

  • The Daily Howler was included by CNN[5] on a list of about twenty "political must-read" websites.
  • It is currently listed by Alexa as the tenth ranked journalism site.[6]
  • Many of the most prominent political blogs include The Daily Howler on their blog roll or equivalent, despite the fact that Somerby does not reciprocate (he has no such list): e.g. Daily Kos, Instapundit and Brad Delong's site[7] (I only checked these three).

Replies to comments by others:

  • I agree with fuddlemark that this article is not that well-written. Call me crazy, but I created a stub in the hope that the Wikipedia community would improve it.
  • I don't understand why fuddlemark thinks the article is POV. I thought I bent over backwards to make it NPOV with locutions like "according to Bob Somerby".
  • Google rankings: when I search for "daily howler" on Google[8] I get 1.54 million hits (not that it makes a qualitative difference, but I'm not sure why I get a different number than Kappa; perhaps we have different preferences). I think the "unique" number Zoe refers to is the number in the sentence at the end of a Google search (I had to go all the way to page 37 for "daily howler"):

"In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the XXX already displayed." For "daily howler", I get XXX = 367. Perhaps Zoe, Barno and Proto would like to suggest Wikipedia for deletion since it only gets 199 "hits" by this metric.  ;)

  • I agree with Proto that most blogs are not notable, but of course that argument has no force in talking about a particular blog. I strongly disagree with his/her notion that all articles about particular blogs be merged into a single article or list. Should we do the same for newspapers? In fact I think Wikipedia has the opposite problem: the coverage of notable blogs is weaker than I would expect, especially of an online encyclopedia.

Crust 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the Daily Howler is well enough known for inclusion. Part of the problem was that despite the author's attempt to be NPOV, s/he is clearly too close to the material to excise bias from his/her writeup. I have cleaned up the entry, eliminated the POV and I think it should be more palatable. Dottore So 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considered a blogger's blog by those in the know. Highly notable. Bcarlson33 21:32, 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 speedy deleted. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Omega Pulse Volume, Talk:Anti-Omega Rive Mass, Talk:Anti-Omega Rive Volume, Talk:Anti-Percolation, Talk:The Hall Closet Effect[edit]

Crackpot weirdo science people have created some sort of bookmark on this page. It talks about a "Universal Convective Pulse Theory" as a big bang alternative. Try googling that phrase and see what magic appears. Hahnchen 01:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - combining virtually identical vfd's for efficiency. -- BD2412 talk 01:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The pages are all talk pages without an article, identical in content, and said content makes no sense. -- BD2412 talk 01:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very obscure pseudoscience, possibly original research. ManoaChild 01:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 02:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My brain is bleeding now. Celcius 02:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete any and all Talk pages which do not have article pages. Zoe 05:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me be more specific: Speedy delete talk pages that never had articles to begin with or talk pages that had articles which were subsequently speedy deleted. Maybe this would make a nice CSD criterion? - Mgm|(talk) 07:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • We already have one, CSD G3. And what are admins doing here voting for speedy delete? That's what we gave you the button for. I deleted 'em. Dmcdevit·t 09:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looping audio clip stating "Hey Everybody, I'm looking at gay porno![edit]

It should just have been speedied as originally requested. Nothing links here, I can see no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Lomedae 01:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; not encyclopedic. Jaxl | talk 01:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, though I think it would make a great joke. -- BD2412 talk 01:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 3000 Google hits to this query contained within quotations and 1600 hits for the variant "...at gay porn". These are high numbers for a 7 word text string. Why? If you aren't an adolescent, you might have missed this, but the phrase is perhaps the most memorable line generated by web content. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I heard this at a lemonparty. Notable shock audio. Klonimus 01:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic meme.--nixie 01:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with shock site and delete. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slaps Gabriel/Kwekubo with a wet fish. Please check the Guide to VFD. Merge and delete is an incompatible vote. - Mgm|(talk) 07:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Whoops. I'm behind the times. In that case, merge with shock site. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 11:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely anyone will look for this. Capitalistroadster 02:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Wasn't this originally part of goatse? Dottore So 02:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Ban the creator, this type of behavior is delt with far too leniently, unlike other VFDs where the mods seem to have no trouble making up their minds ahead of time - anon
  • Keep but Rename to something less specific. Chances are, nobody would type 'Hey Everybody, I'm looking at gay porno!' in the search bar. Maybe it should be something like Gay Porno audio clip. Acetic Acid 02:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but rofl. Would be a permanent stub, and that huge name is probably worthy of BJAODN. Only thing we could possibly do to make it longer is get it moved to Looping audio clip stating "Hey Everybody, I'm looking at gay porno on wheels!". --Phroziac (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete --> echo Gabriel | Celcius 02:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is more-or-less covered at List of shock sites. Kappa 02:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a link to it in list of shock sites. Slightly amusing, but you don't seriously want an article on it... Denni☯ 02:57, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Delete. No one is going to search this, and besides, the title pretty much explains it all. -R. fiend 03:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porno keep but rename. —RaD Man (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ral315 04:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to shock site or list of shock sites. -Sean Curtin 05:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Denni. JDoorjam 14:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 14:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Denni. Alf 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The version going around my university was "Hey everybody! I'm watching porno over here!" --Carnildo 21:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge w/ shock site. I've had the dubious honor of happening across this one before. I think it's worth mentioning, at least on the list of shock sites. Boxclocke 21:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievable. Obvious delete.—Encephalon | ζ  21:44:25, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Delete, already covered at shock site and related articles. ~~ N (t/c) 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to list of shock sites, which Last Measure redirects to. But it's probably in there already. --SPUI (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see the value in a mention of this elsewhere, but that can be achieved by means better than a merge. Merging says we keep the redirect, and I am currently struggling to think of a less useful redirect. -Splash 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and significant phenomenon. Voyager640 18:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shock site exists, and this clip is covered there. Pilatus 12:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nixie Christy747 12:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Utterly pointless. --Agamemnon2 14:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - UE, as per the above --Mysidia (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - As suggested on WP:AN/I, I suggest not giving Anon Vandal Guy the satisfaction of being reverted. Cyrius's vote will hardly matter when this is closed. ~~ N (t/c) 20:02, 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 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenn[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page, unlinked from anywhere, unwiki'd and Fenn doens't even pick up on Google Gary 01:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity page --Lomedae 01:39, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 01:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then recreate as a redirect to fen, which I've seen spelt with two "n"s in some olde English novel somewhere. -- BD2412 talk 01:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn, van, adv | Celcius 02:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, also the idea of a singing maths teacher is to damaging to have on an open site like wikipedia --Ebz 07:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the vanity from our history and redirect to fen per BD2412. - Mgm|(talk) 07:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per BD2412 and Mgm.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epalaeontology.com[edit]

PHP Nuke site that barely receives visits (no Alexa rank). Written as an advertisement. Delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nn; "a hub for the Italian-speaking paleontological community" <-- Soo... basically a website for 3 people? | Celcius 02:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 04:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 07:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; unencyclopedia advertisement--Craigkbryant 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity/promotion — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/ad. I'm suspicious of any supposed academic site that isn't a .edu or .org, but that's another matter. --Etacar11 22:38, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 let the records state that I freaking hate sockpuppets used to fuck with VfD. Redwolf24 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besttechie[edit]

Promotion of a website. (nominated by User:67.65.4.20)

  • Just a thought. Perhaps users of the forums in question alerted via a post and not knowing the "non-rigourous" format of a vote, just followed the example of the first submission? --Ikester 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of thing is mentioned in WP:SOCK, under Meatpuppets. --Etacar11 05:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which has been taken down and redirected to Besttechie. --Ikester 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote - blim: Keep (User:24.231.229.250)

  • Delete -Eisnel 05:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sock supported article on non-notable website. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ban support hosiery, reset all Wikimedia servers and salt the earth. This is just useless. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote - tg1911: Keep
Above vote is by anon User:66.82.9.32.
  • Delete, Alexa rank is 1,514,746; 700 members is common for forums and page used to link several times to the same domain before I removed those links. Advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 07:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sliggy 10:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Small forum. Punkmorten 11:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Sockpuppet limit has been reached and exceeded". --Scimitar parley 13:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN. And there are enough socks in here to keep wiki's toes warm for a month. JDoorjam 14:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep"Good, helpfull site" Makai (User:139.55.226.118)

  • Delete because "30000" really should have a comma in it (e.g. 30,000). -- BD2412 talk 17:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wow, that's a tough standard BDA, please feel free to never check my edits. Sock puppets where it hurts them. Alf 20:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the sockpuppets are enough reason, not to mention the non-notability. DomRem | Yeah? 22:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn con sock puppets. --Etacar11 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --PhilipO 22:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote - R. fiend: Delete (R. fiend)
  • Delete. Can't resist a sockpuppeted vote. -Splash 02:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brrrrr. Delete, NN --Raistlin 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... unless someone can explain the criteria here. How big must a site be to make it worthy of mention at WikiPedia? Has that been defined? How does one decide it's merely advertizing? I mean, how does a WikiPedia visitor know what's out there to help them if such sites are all considered to be advertizing? --Ikester 03:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Vote flatiron__2: Keep

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Theology[edit]

Delete - This term is rarely used and does not meet the standards of a notable entry. 66.68.156.175 August 17, 2005

  • Comments only: I will come back soon after studying the factual position. --Bhadani 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article says its "within the context of Vaishnava Theology" - have anything about it there until it's more than a stub. Alf 20:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: After my earlier comments, I could not study the matter to form any opinion. In the present form, the stub has perhaps nothing to offer. --Bhadani 13:57, 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 00:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Da-pit[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. I'm closing this one early because there's an obvious and overwhelming consensus. Gamaliel 19:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gropecunt Lane[edit]

Gropecunt Lane should be Deleted immediately. Its sources are dubious, its subject matter prurient and its historical relevance negligible. Totally unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Interesting that the first result on a Google search are the article itself. Very little to support it of academic quality. Also relevant to consider the image of the "Lane" has been proposed for deletion and will be deleted. KarlJetter 01:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bona fides of the main author of the article Coqsportif should also be considered. He has been involved in serial edit wars including over placing the Gropecunt Lane image in an absurd number of articles. KarlJetter 02:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't. This discussion is about the article. android79 03:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - An infamous British street name and one which links through Wiki to topics of language, culture, society and geography. A notable and historical street name dok 10:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Singular = is and Plural = are. Article is one of the most frequently citating of any I've seen on Wikipedia. Every sentence is supported by a source. I assume good faith but it is difficult to assume it in this case. Coqsportif 01:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly valid (if somewhat unusual) historical subject. -- Kirill Lokshin 01:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Historical. The OED cites it, why shouldn't we? Gamaliel 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The London Gropecunt Lane is an undisputed entity found in historical records [9]. The sources listed in the article certainly aren't the best but this can be remedied by research and editing. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting historical footnote. Lullabye Muse 02:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Peter Ackroyd, "London The Biography", Vintage, London, 2001, p371) Surgeonsmate 02:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting, amusing. android79 02:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; My sanity needs this article | Celcius 02:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - as per above. Notable place, interesting history. - Hahnchen 02:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This VfD is merely some old-fashioned type shying at mention of a "rude word". Anthony Appleyard 06:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Historical, factual, notable, interesting. MCB 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I consider the given sources reliable when it concerns something as trivial as a streetname. Anyone in the cities in question could go dig up historical archives and prove whether it's true. Those papers wouldn't put their credibility on the line over such a thing. And if the OED mentions it, it's good enough for me. - Mgm|(talk) 08:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - a famous example of how street names became more PC over the years. The article itself could do with a lot of improvement, though. Bluap 09:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs work (for example, it cites research without giving even a minimal citation, it makes unverificable claims about extant thoroughfares with the name), and is being disruptively edited by Coqsportif, but it's a perfectly reasonable article in itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Important historical aspect of London life. WMMartin 10:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic, just a shame it's not there any more. Proto t c 11:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems factual enough. Could do with source checking. DJ Clayworth 14:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snickering keep, notable topic, though I have to admit until I saw Android79 and Gamaliel, and before reading the article, I thought this had to be an army of sock puppets voting . JDoorjam 14:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. chocolateboy 18:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lane in Oxford is still there Proto, now called "Magpie Lane" and it was called this (but just called Grope Lane in polite company). Alf 20:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two reliable references to it. --Carnildo 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination? - ulayiti (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You might be right ulayiti about bad faith nom.Moriori 23:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • A very obvious keep, I think. jamesgibbon 23:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable. Qwghlm 09:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But it still needs work, and more sensible and reliable sources for some of the claims. Paul B 11:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if it were an urban myth, it's such a pervasive one that it still needs a mention. Hughcharlesparker 13:57:35, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Keep as an interesting footnote to English language and streetnaming. --Agamemnon2 14:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable and noteworthy. PlainSight 01:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Misguided, ill-informed, bad-faith nomination. Bhumiya/Talk 19:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 00:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technocrat.net[edit]

Alexa 100k+ and 0-4 comments per post. This site is not popular enough to justify an article. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:10, 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, particularly since most of the delete voters changed their votes after the rewrite. -Splash 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 00:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

God Forbid, Full Blown Chaos, Heaven Shall Burn[edit]

  • Current text of is God Forbid is: "God Forbid is an American metalcore band from New Brunswick, New Jersey." This fails to assert notability.
  • Full Blown Chaos is similar, both from 24.61.134.62.
  • Heaven Shall Burn also fails to assert notability (specifically, does not mention any records being released). Several other articles that anon IP has contributed to do assert notability, but in my opinion these do not.Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All; nn | Celcius 02:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. God forbid we let this crap into wikipedia. -R. fiend 03:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all as a total waste of time. If you're going to write vanity, write vanity. One lousy sentence? I could scream. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, but I'd prefer if non-related articles were listed on VfD seperately. Zoe 05:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)OK, good job at improving, keep. Zoe 19:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • So noted. However, the first two are related in that they were created by the same anon ip within minutes, and the third one is also about a metalcore band, as are the first two. To me it's just easier to add them into an existing nomination than to create new ones, especially the first two. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all for the reasons mentioned above. - Mgm|(talk) 08:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. No assertion of notability. android79 12:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Change vote to Keep all, given added content. android79 17:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't 'No assertion of notability' now grounds for speedy deletion? DJ Clayworth 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only in the cases of people. The proposal to include that for bands and otherwise failed, so here we are. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and expand for God Forbid, they have several albums out, check out their entry in amg. And most importantly, I, who tries to ignore metalcore, have actually heard of them! (I've seen their name in national magazines) ;) Also marginally keep for Full Blown Chaos and Heaven Shall Burn, they also have entries in amg, although I know nothing about how notable they really are in the metal world. --Etacar11 15:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I'm not going to take responsibility to check AMG for every. single. band. that comes across NewPages, there's tons of them. If you would like the articles to be kept, may I suggest also taking the time to edit the articles to make a reasonable claim of notability? Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I understand where you're coming from, but I think when someone votes a little checking is in order. Like a google test at the very least. But that's just me. (Although many curses should be heaped on those who create such useless substubs, of course) I'll try to add a little something when I can. I wonder if the fact that I hate this kind of music will help or hinder NPOV? ;) --Etacar11 15:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - all three bands have recorded albums, Heaven Shall Burn and God Forbid have entries on AMG, Full Blown Chaos has albums purchasable on Amazon. I'll work on expanding these articles to better stubs, today. -Satori 15:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just did a tiny expansion on God Forbid. You're welcome to take over, since this music is not my cup of tea. ;) --Etacar11 15:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really mine, either... I prefer my heavy metal to be brooding and move at a snail's pace.. but to each their own! Anyway, all three articles have now been expanded to show notability. -Satori 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a fine job at that. Changing vote to an enthusiastic keep for all three. I wish the party responsible for these in the first place would have at least alluded to some notability. - Lucky 6.9 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recent edits have made done them good. Would like more though, I'm a total dinosaur in this field, so it won't be me. Alf 21:05, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 00:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silent pyjamas[edit]

Website cruft --Ryan Delaney talk 02:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; nn, adv, van | Celcius 02:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bad vanity. Fails to assert notability or even provide context. Probably by someone who mistook Wikipedia for a private webspace. - Mgm|(talk) 08:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

do whatever you want with it, but since i am a registered user i will assert AGAIN that i did not put this page up. i don't want someone thinking that i made this entry, i did not. -silentpyjamas (also i don't know how to use all this markup stuff so i can't make nifty links etc)

  • Delete nn. And you sign your posts like this: ~~~~. --Etacar11 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh by crikey, why can't that just be speedied? -Splash 02:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

like what? with those squiggles? silentpyjamas 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC) silentpyjamas[reply]

  • See WP:SIG, it applies to both talk pages and VFDs. --Etacar11 03:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

REDtv.org[edit]

Low traffic site Alexa: ~450k. Unlikely anyone other than site operators can contribute/verify info. delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn website. --TheMidnighters 08:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Shanel 15:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and un-WP:V. -Splash 02:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i will rewrite this article if it does not meet requirements of "website" category, but the organization is notable and reasonably as verifyable as any other activist group. Also: Alexa is WRONG... redtv.org IS NOT erotv.co.kr Not sure why Alexa and Wayback Machine confuse the two, yet.... looking into that now. --._-zro 03:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Reinyday
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryphotos.net[edit]

  • Moderate traffic site ~50,000 Alexa. Devoted to minor details, this entry can only be verified and edited by forum members. For example: "There were a few controversies which plagued the Militaryphotos.net forums, one of which involved the use of extravagant and incredibly large signatures..." delete lots of issues | leave me a message 02:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is a valid description of a real web site, keep. Anthony Appleyard 06:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "message bord was in clinical death state for whole 16 minutes." - such earth shattering events are surely encyclopedic! Seriously though, delete as forumcruft, and how did it survive since July 2004? the wub "?/!" 08:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An Alexa ranking down there is too low to look notable to me, especially if the site has no other major claims to notability. I shudder to think of some of the other sites in that range we'd have to consider notable if that was a criteria. --Icelight 19:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Low alexa rank. 11,000 members/39 currently online, well below my notability threshold of 50,000/300. Article full of trivia. --Carnildo 21:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the original author of the article, I have some insight into why the article should be kept.
  • For one thing, although the site has low ranking in Alexa from total site visits, the photo albums, video content, and original forum posts are linked from other sites directly, or replicated altogether on other military sites.
  • Militaryphotos.net is a major primary source for military information from retired military, active duty army/navy/air force, and private military contractors currently in action in Iraq.
  • The History Channel has used footage which was originally submitted to militaryphotos/militaryvideos.net in its television documentaries.
  • Militaryphotos.net was the originator of the Finnish military abuse scandal, rivalling the Abu Ghraib scandal in the US in its media coverage and impact on military policy.
It it the purpose of Wikipedia to present articles on noteworthy topics. For the four points listed above, I would argue that Militaryphotos.net is a very noteworthy website. I expect those who voted to reconsider their vote. I apologize for the crap that was also added to the article. I removed that stuff to make the article more wikiworthy. Carnildo, it's unfortunate that you checked the forum usage at such a time. The forum averages 300 members online. --G3pro 15:58, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 01:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back Roads[edit]

The date is a giveaway that someone's just having a little fun with us. Denni☯ 02:46, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOT (crystal ball) Page can be recreated if/when movie is released. --Alan Au 03:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article doesn't contain any actual sentences and Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball as stated above. If this movie is going to be made in 2009, the makers are nowhere near making casting decisions, so the entire contents are of dubious accuracy. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dubious info, at best. Nothing on IMDB on this supposed planned movie. There is an old Sally Field movie with this title but I doubt it's worth rewriting it about that. --Etacar11 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Novel still being developed, too far off. Rx StrangeLove 23:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bushnell[edit]

Vanity page for owner of a bunch of low-popularity political websites (150000k max). Delete. Andrew pmk 02:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Skinner[edit]

Non-notable. Delete Andrew pmk 02:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. I think the standard is to have more published than a single poem. --TheMidnighters 08:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies notability as an author, article previously did not state extensive publications. --TheMidnighters 12:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. the wub "?/!" 08:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubbify. He seems per google to have had more than one published (amazon's review of ISBN 1931337241 says this is "his fifth volume"), to have written at least one play that was a finalist in the Eugene O'Neil National Theater Conference, etc. I've never heard of him either, but that makes me ignorant, not him non-notable! Tonywalton  | Talk 10:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly ignorance to not know by heart the name of every single professor in existence, but good research and justification, I've changed my vote and added more information to the article so that he actually seems worthy of an article. --TheMidnighters 12:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I didn't mean "ignorant" in any pejorative sense; merely in the sense of "not knowing" (as in "I'm ignorant of the bloke next door's shoe size") Tonywalton  | Talk
  • Keep per Tonywalton. -- DS1953 15:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above Trollderella 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the four collections of his poetry are not self-published, nor published by his own press, they have very high Amazon sales rank numbers: Amazon sales ranks: Late Stars, 3,390,886; Gender Studies, #613,738; The Company of Heaven, #3,731,512; A Guide to Forgetting, #1,495,844. A sales rank number higher than 750,000 can be estimated to mean sales of less than 50 copies. My personal rule of thumb which guides my VfD voting on individuals whose claim to notability is authorship, is that they must have authored a book with an Amazon sales rank number of less than 200,000 in order to qualify as a notable author. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems a well-credentialled poet. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Published (non-vanity press) poet. Rx StrangeLove 23:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely Amazon sales rank numbers aren't the end-all and be-all of author notablity? --Prosfilaes 07:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Reinyday
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rick (model)[edit]

"Rick." That's all we have. Not even the most basic information any biographical article requires: a last name. Nothing here, and googling Rick along with his all nude workout gets few hits, many of them wikipedia. Pointless. -R. fiend 02:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sheesh.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Unable to verify, but if true, would be suitable to merge into All-Nude Workout. --Alan Au 04:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alan Au. - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's verifiable [10]. There is alas nothing else to say about him except that he wore no clothes in a video twelve years ago and hasn't been heard of, under that name at least, since. Delete, All Nude Workout (which is labelled, puzzlingly, as a sport stub) already refers to his role in the video. In response to Tony Walton's vote I want to emphasize that I do not advocate the deletion of the All Nude Workout article. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, per Tony. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think there's a naked video of me floating around, too. Maybe I'll start calling myself just "Bob" PlainSight 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feegit[edit]

Neologism/dicdef. Take your pick. Denni☯ 03:12, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

  • Deleegit per nom. --Alan Au 03:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologistic dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 08:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But Mgm's been selfish and taken all the options. -Splash 02:30, 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 COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 00:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Darth[edit]

Pure fanfic, no basis in Star Wars canon. Jon Hart 03:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tagged as copyvio. --Alan Au 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without canon source -LtNOWIS 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Star Wars, my God. Erwin Walsh
  • Comment. The Article has been wiped by Alan Au. according to the history. quite likely by accident but i am taking the original article from the history. Olleicua 23:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article was intentially blanked in accordance with the instructions for addressing copyright violations. The original text is available in the edit history. Please see the Wikipedia:Copyright Problems page for more information. --Alan Au 18:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may as well vote while I'm at it: Delete as unverifiable beyond copyvio page. --Alan Au 18:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Maru 02:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serpentis[edit]

Pure fanfic, no basis in Star Wars canon. Jon Hart 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alaeidon[edit]

Pure fanfic, no basis in Star Wars canon. Jon Hart 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tagged as copyvio. --Alan Au 03:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without source-LtNOWIS 03:53, 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 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NFiction.com[edit]

Entirely non-notable site; hasn't been updated since March 2005. Google comes up with one self-referential hit.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 03:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. alternately, we can list it as an external link on Fan Fiction. alexa rank is 1,122,479. Nateji77 03:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. To compare, Fanfiction.net has an Alexa rank of 1,115. (Nfiction's layout is surprisingly similar to that of fanfiction.net by the way... - Mgm|(talk) 08:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, ad/promotion. --Etacar11 22:55, 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 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding rabbits[edit]

Band-vanity. Fails to meet WP:Music notability guidelines -LtNOWIS 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I've been waiting for their website to come up but their drummer has personally told me that it will be up soon. BLEEDING RABBITS ROCK!" My drummer personally told me "Delete."  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete standard nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 08:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and practicing at their frontman (may he remain nameless)'s house" -- Yes. Yes he may remain nameless. nnbv-delete JDoorjam 19:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As yet, NN garage band. Alf 21:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sigh. NN band vanity. --Etacar11 22:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Will your town be next to meet the wrath of the rabbit?" Yes, because I live in the town called Delete. Tempshill 00:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nnandity. But open to good reasons for redirects to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. -Splash 02:32, 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 01:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Gasper[edit]

Terry Gasper is a game commonly played by Worthington,_Ohio and environs teens specifically students at Linworth AP and Thomas Worthington High School

A Google search for "Terry Gasper" Linworth gets 0 hits. Either this is completely made up or too insignificant for Wikipedia. —Snargle 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The game is an underground sensation getting bigger. I understand the criteria for what should be included in an encylopedia but I think the idea that its relevency is directly tied to its google score (or apparent lack thereof) is pure folly. I mean, if you do a search on 'columbus teens whippits' or any phrasing close to that you pull up nothing but porn yet last month no less than four local Columbus establishments were busted for selling 'whippit kits' to youngsters. Now, this is a significant story and issue and yet has no coverage from Google except to the Columbus Dispatch and other subscription only (and thus non-annexable by Google) local newspapers. cgardner 01:24, 18 August 2005 (EST)

All I have is your word. And I see that this is your only edit. And I definately think Terry Gasper is a bunch of bull. —Snargle 15:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This "game" or "activity" or whatever you choose to call it is real, and only getting bigger. As a former resident of Worthington, class of 2003 graduate, and class president I can assure all the unbelievers that this passtime exists. Sure it is still struggling for popularity, and it is doubtful there will ever be tournements, it is still a huge part of youth culture in a small suburban midwestern town.

I can vouch for this game. I'm from Worthington and graduated high school in 2000. Though I don't know who this Terry Gasper guy is, I can tell you that the game has reached Miami University of Oxford, Ohio where I first learned about it at a party. It's not as big as beer pong by any stretch, but I'd go as far as to say that most people around campus would have heard of it. I don't know if this helps or not. -D.G.

  • Delete Give me a break, I don't buy this, it's a hoax. And if it isn't it's NN. --Lomedae 18:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an attack page. -- BD2412 talk 18:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As yet NN. Alf 21:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn nonsense. --Etacar11 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While high schools may be notable, games played there generally aren't unless they become widely notable such as rugby or are well-established traditions namely Eton Wall Game or Eton Field Game. There is no verifiable evidence that Terry Gasper is currently as notable.Capitalistroadster 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... interesting and notable. Voyager640 19:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete If not a hoax, definately NN. PlainSight 02:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sure it's of interest to some. -- Reinyday
  • Keep. This game is HUGE in Worthington, and even has Spin-off games such as "Drunken Terry" and "Terry or Carry" It is not a hoax.
  • Delete. Probable hoax, possible attack page, definitely non-notable. MysteryDog 19:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Extreme[edit]

Seems a non-notable TV character. Google for "Johnny Extreme" only gets 471 hits, "Johnny Extreme" G4 gets 97. ral315 04:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race to GPhoria[edit]

Non-notable television show; Google for "Race to GPhoria" receives 115 Google hits. ral315 04:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to G4 (television). --Alan Au 04:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The freaking Super Bowl pregame show doesn't get mentioned at all, why should the pregame for an under-the-radar look-we-can-do-an-award-show-OOH-COMPUTER-BOOBIES get coverage? — Lomn | Talk 06:48:45, 2005-08-19 (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 01:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Road to nowhere[edit]

Non-notable band cruft, does not meet WP:MUSIC, non-verifiable, need I go on? ral315 04:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no allmusic.com, no sign of meeting notability guidelines.
  • Delete - another new band trying to promote themselves — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleté MessedRocker 22:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not WP:MUSIC compatible. I had expected an article on the Talking Heads song. Tempshill 00:42, 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 01:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Star, Krad[edit]

User:64.58.0.142 created these two pages, spammed links in various areas. Aside from that, there's no evidence of notability. (I think this is the proper way to nom two articles...) Nifboy 04:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Epoch Star entry is largely copyvio, while the Krad entry appears to be non-notable original fiction. --Alan Au 04:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both are about the same (as yet) NN game. Alf 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above.--Mitsukai 14:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BeachSide[edit]

Non-notable soccer club in Australia. Google for BeachSide soccer Hobart reveals 551 Google hits. ral315 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. GregAsche 05:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to my wiki. Wikinerd 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Wikinerd if you want this at your wiki you have to do it yourself. In VFD, transwiki means moving the article to another Wikimedia project, such as Wiktionary, not copying the information to someone else's website. --TheMidnighters 08:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and if Wikinerd would please stop using VFD for advertising purposes? Radiant_>|< 09:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Jumpers for goals posts - ah, takes you back) Alf 21:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, all the way to this afternoon. -Splash 02:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, clearly. -Splash 02:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a particularly notable football (soccer) club. --Daveb 06:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 01:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

9560 BC[edit]

Just because Atlantis sunk in 9560 BC doesn't mean that the date deserves its own article. Nothing else happened of note in this year. ral315 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • 9560 was also the year that Isildur seized the One Ring from Sauron, but uh, I can't really verify that. As for the Atlantis stuff, the year 9560 is already mentioned in the Atlantis article. Delete --Alan Au 04:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contents are unverifiable. --Carnildo 05:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a year, and all years have their own article in Wikipedia. Wikinerd 06:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Unofficial English wikipedia policy is to have pages for individual years as far back as 499 BC; earlier "year" pages redirect to the corresponding decade. For example 753 BC redirects to 750s BC. Likewise, there are pages for individual decades as far back as 1690s BC; earlier "decade" pages redirect to the corresponding century, and there are century pages as far back as 40th century BC. Perhaps the information could be moved to 10th millennium BC... Bluap 09:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See User:Carnildo above. brozen 07:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, how can this event be verifiable if the location and even the existence of Atlantis is disputed? - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carnildo and Mgm. The article itself states that it's making assumptions about the accuracy of what looks like a suspiciously-round number stated by Plato. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking Plato literally? Presumably if Plato had made the same estimate a year later this page would be at 9559 BC? That's not very useful. Delete. Flowerparty talk 18:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 20th century BC, even if event is fictional it still corresponds with a date in history Guerberj 20:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into Timeline of fictional historical events. Then redirect title to 40th century BC. DES (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but I'm unclear why this isn't going into 96th century BC instead of 40th (4100s BC?)or 20th (2100s BC?). JDoorjam 22:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC) per Bluap. JDoorjam 22:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per DES, merge content into Timeline of fictional historical events, then redirect title to 40th century BC. Jonathunder 01:57, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with Jonathunder, merge and redirect. --Agamemnon2 15:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 9560BC is not in the 40th century BC. It is actually in the 96th century BC. Bluap 09:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the year once something verifiable has been found in it or somebody shows verifiable proof of Atlantis. Until then, Delete. Karmafist 15:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to MADtv, already done (at least, all the merger wanted to merge). I'll move it, too. -Splash 00:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Eracsists[edit]

Even when the title is SPELLED CORRECTLY, a Google for the term 'Eracists' receives 114 hits, some of which belong to an unrelated, non-notable band. ral315 04:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to the correct title and then merge and redirect into MADtv. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move n' merge per MacgyverMagic. JDoorjam 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge done, tho' it could use a good copyedit. Niteowlneils 00:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 08:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Block system[edit]

No google hits for the major player in this article, and the assetion seems a little problematic anyway. Denni☯ 04:29, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

  • Speedy via vanity provision. Otherwise, delete. ral315 04:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Olmsted High School[edit]

(moved from North olmsted high school). Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

  • No notability proven. Slac speak up! 04:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See Wikipedia:Schools for the history of the "schools" debate. --Alan Au 04:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid stub. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a school and it's encyclopedic. If you delete it, please contribute the article to my wiki. Wikinerd 06:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) not now because radiant blanked your page Yuckfoo 17:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikinerd, stop asking for other people to do your work. It's public domain, if you want it, take it --Outlander 19:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia should give people access to this kind of important information. Kappa 07:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this debate always about American schools? - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Because most African schools don't have websites? Kappa 08:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why doesn't Wikiproject:Schools do something about this systemic bias? Radiant_>|< 09:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I looked at the first seven or eight school deletion nominations of this month, and only about half of them seem to be of US schools. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring to the creating (or expanding) of articles on schools; surely you're not suggesting that the WikiProject Schools is responsible for the school deletion nominations? Radiant_>|< 14:16, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • No, actually I wrongly thought that this is what you were suggesting. Nor does that WikiProject govern the creating and expanding of school articles. They seem to be largely spontaneously occurring wikifauna. Their may be a fairly strong sieve effect favoring the deletion of schools outside the developed world, even taking into account the geographical concentrations of Wikipedians; less verifiable information is available. Ideas on how that might be counteracted would be welcome. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, that is precisely the problem. I'm talking about expanding or creating articles on schools outside of the US/UK area, and you are talking about countering the deletion of them. I've asked the very same question at WikiProject schools, but it seems that project is mostly inactive these days. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with North Olmsted, Ohio. Does not appear to have any significance separate from its geographical locale (and no, Ohio state champions at soccer doesn't signify notability requiring a separate article to me - how many people show up to watch the Ohio state school soccer championships who aren't related to the players?). Average Earthman 11:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as four walls and a roof are not notable. Schoolcruft. Failing that, merge any info as per Average Earthman. Proto t c 11:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per WP:Schools Delete arguments - brenneman(t)(c) 13:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I am sure the stub shall grow over a period of time.--Bhadani 13:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it doesn't grow, Wikiproject:Schools could probably expand it.--Shanel 15:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gosh, it has after school clubs. Dunc|☺ 15:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- DS1953 15:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this is not deletable because it is encyclopedic Yuckfoo 16:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — as always. — RJH 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schools are encyclopedic Guerberj 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why would anyone want to delete this? Trollderella 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my reasoning at User:Gateman1997/Schools for Deletion. Gateman1997 20:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I grow weary of this constant argument. . . they won't get deleted, so although it's your right to list them, please don't.--Scimitar parley 20:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Schools are inherently of little notability and have no encyclopedic value. An exceptionally small number, around 20, may have notability owing to age and quality of alumni. The rest are simply entirely insignificant. Worse, 99% of these articles exist merely to burden WP servers, because they contain only non-encyclopedic information you're supposed to get from the directory. See also Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete.—Encephalon | ζ  21:58:25, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Delete Some high schools are noteworthy, not all. I don't see how this is notable. What's it's claim to fame if any? --Dysepsion 22:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether the article can grow is largely irrelevant; otherwise JDoorjam's cat's dietary journal would qualify in no time. Merge per Earthman. JDoorjam 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As valid as all the others. Nominating schools disrupts Wikipedia and achieves nothing. Osomec 02:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nomimating them until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a notable high school, and the only people who would look this up are the people that live in the area and went to the school. Their only claim to fame is that they won a soccer championship and was attended by a semi-notable historian. My high school was visited by a president and won dozens of state titles, but that doesn't mean it deserves an article, because nobody cares about a little ol' school in the suburbs of a big city. If at all, it should just be merged with North Olmsted, Ohio. There's not enough room on Wikipedia to mention every school that has had a chess club and a no-name principal. (Notorious4life 04:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I think this is very interesting. I haven’t been here in over six months when there was a pretty even chance of this breaking even for keep/delete. Back then i was a deletionist and i am not going to say that the big shift in community opinion comes as a pleasant discovery. However, if our space ever outgrows our resources and something such as downsizing is necessary, i think you can rest assured that non-notable schools will be at least looked at as a target. if nothing else other people who arnt in support of these articles will jump at the chance. After this in time iv found that i dont really care and just wish this amount of energy could be focused don bringing our species description articles as up to date because were sorely lacking support in that area. Since species are more important than a simple human institution, the vigor of the support for the articles somewhat mystifys me. Fledgeling 04:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlike schools, species articles are not "endangered" (as it were) on wikipedia, and therefore do not need so much support. Since storage space is essentially free, the online version of wikipedia will never run out. Cut-down versions of wikipedia would however be useful for distribution, and for providing random page users with a more educational experience. These versions can be provided in a non-destructive way by rating or tagging existing pages, e.g. the recent validation proposal. Kappa 13:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep railway stations. We keep bridges. We keep highways. We keep radio masts. We keep minutiae concerning fictional characters in forgettable science fiction and fantasy literature that no more than an utterly minisclue proportion of people are ever likely to be interested in. We do these things because we are building the biggest and most comprehensive encyclopedia in history. Thus it is logical that we keep schools. --Gene_poole 06:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are we still debating whether to have articles on schools? We sure must have boring lives. --Zero 12:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop nomimating them until consensus is reached.--Nicodemus75 13:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bicycle, for the usual reasons. —RaD Man (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why are so many suggesting that they stop being nominated "until consensus is reached"? I suggested not nominating them because they won't be deleted; in other words for practical, not philosophical reasons. There is no current discussion on consensus. Wikipedia Schools is dead. There is no ongoing effort to reach consensus, since the pro-school faction seem to resent any effort to put a bar on notability, as is their right, since they view all schools as notable. If the discussion is taking place somewhere and I just don't know about it, please correct me.--Scimitar parley 15:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. There's no ongoing effort; all talks have broken down. Until and unless the strongly inclusionist trend of the past four months either declines significantly, or solidifies into a consensus to keep schools, we'll have an impasse and VfD will be the appropriate forum for resolving the matter.
    • I'd observe that those supporting the existence of school articles have become better at concentrating their energy on nominated school articles, using the five-day lag time to research and clean up articles. Those opposing school articles have only one realistic response to this: to concentrate on preschools and other more controversial entries. This could be a realistic way of building support for the case that there should be some kind of boundary (which I would support--unverifiable entries, which preschools tend to be, shouldn't be on Wikipedia). --Tony SidawayTalk 16:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only real hope for those opposing school entries will be a serious decline of 'inclusionism'. Supporters will eventually turn to preschools and other institutions which may be less notable and research and clean up the articles in the same way now being undertaken for other schools. The view that schools are inherently notable includes private schools of all shape, preschools and other forms of schools. All VfD does at present, is force the cleaning up and researching of school stubs within the five-day lag time. In the meantime, the only sensible thing is continue VfD and for the 'inclusionists' to continue suggesting "stop nominating". This will be my vote on all schools I vote to keep from now on (or Bicycle).--Nicodemus75 20:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you're saying that all schools are important and deserve articles. Nobody's going to be writing a paper about school in metro Cleveland, where this information would be needed. The school has no importance, like many schools, and the article is useless. Should I make an article about my preschool, because our restroom had only one toilet and many kids, or how we couldn't go outside for our picnic because it was raining... no. It's pointless information, and nobody cares. The line has to be drawn somewhere. (Notorious4life 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • It's a matter of principle. You are right that nobody cares - I know several people who spend more energy (sometimes a lot more) on voting "keep" on school nominations, than on improving school articles. Radiant_>|< 08:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete just one of a million schools. Go start a school wiki or something. --TimPope 07:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain - It's a fundamental question of whether Wiki should list every school on the planet. PlainSight 02:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I say we stop if we get to Neptune and there are no schools there. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boisemedia 22:06, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that this is a short article, I suggest merge with North Olmsted City Schools which is a fairly small school district. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Persons[edit]

non-notable. here is the first hit google gave me for "David Persons". I see nothing of note on it. "David E. Persons" and "David Eric Persons" give one hit each. that said, Delete -- Bubbachuck 05:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity and/or promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. And his book is out of print, from a university press. --Etacar11 23:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article stands presently. Hall Monitor 18:13, 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 01:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrotum Nightmare[edit]

Gave this one the benefit of the doubt...but 'tis another Zero Google Orphan! - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This alone is why there should be a speedy criterion for bands. ral315 06:19, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless some form of notability, other than appearing in a magazine I've never heard of, is apparent. Alf 21:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, my vote also has a "screaming grind-core breakdown, which segues into a clean, trip-hop inspired segment": DeleleleleleeeeleeleleleeeeLEELELEELELEELEELEELEEDELEELEELEELEELELEELEEEEEEteeteeteeteeteeteettteteteteteteteteeee........ band vanity. Thank you! Goodnight everybody! JDoorjam 22:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL!! The Scrotum Nightmare has LEFT THE BUILDING! - Lucky 6.9 23:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • <rushes off to write the JDoorjam's Band article in anticipation of a future release/>-Splash 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletelll nnandity. -Splash 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 15:05, 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 speedy delete. – Alphax τεχ 05:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderdome (communal)[edit]

Probably the same person is back with the Thunderdome (communal).Vanity.

To quote User:HorsePunchKid: I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted.

Also, move Thunderdome (arena) back to Thunderdome and I suggest verbally warning User:Rc251, this is the second time that someone has tried this. In addition, the arena is way mroe famous then a communal. --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I believe that I can vote, and vote I am. Vanity, and not notable --fpo 05:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not terribly well-versed with the policies here, but I think that resurrecting a deleted article with the same content it had after the decision was made to delete it is grounds for speedy deletion. As such, I'm going to add the {{db}} tag. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 23:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderdome (communal)[edit]

I can't find anything notable about this commune whatsoever, and I've lived in Champaign for 25 years. There are dozens of houses like this all over campus, and this one doesn't seem to be any more noteworthy than any other. This looks like vanity, and I suggest this article be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but keep the disambig page as it will have three completely diff. articles when i write the thunderdome (arena) one. --fpo 05:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. This is an article about a bunch of guys who lived in a share-house. This is nowhere near encyclopaedic. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total vanity page — Linnwood (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obin.org[edit]

Promotional one-liner of a barely any traffic site (5 million Alexa). delete lots of issues | leave me a message 06:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising, but I'd like to make a note, that Alexa results are likely skewed to the English speaking population which would make a 5 million Alexa rank for a Polish site quite understandable. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - seems non-notable. Halibutt 06:46, August 22, 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 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy And Transmutation[edit]

Personal essay. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:25, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vesa Ahonen[edit]

This article is in Finnish, which is my native language. It's about some school child born in 1990, who apparently plays the guitar in a band. The article goes to great lengths to advertise how well Vesa Ahonen can play, and it practically reads like a review from a rock'n'roll magazine. This is obvious vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. Martg76 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from the vanity, this is the English language Wikipedia. --Lomedae 16:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Belongs in Finnish wikipedia, if anywhere. — RJH 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, vanity written by a 15-year-old (born 1990) in very broken Finnish, and claiming for instance that his record has sold a million copies. Total and utter BS. - ulayiti (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, based on assessment on Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English#Vesa_Ahonen, which gives the same basic reasoning as ulayiti Mamawrites 12:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular delete as vanity, does not meet speedy deletion criteria. Sietse 13:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as above, it's utter screed with no basis in fact. --Agamemnon2 15:07, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Redirected by someone else. Redwolf24 01:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meng[edit]

WP:ISNOT a webhost. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, blatant vanity and no assertions of notability. It's just a group of friends. Don't forget to delete the image as well. - Mgm|(talk) 08:35, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Uliuli Fafita, Meng was his name when competing in WCW. I am ashamed to know that. Proto t c 12:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, redirect to Uliuli Fifita to avoid double redirect. Don't look at me like that, I didn't know who he was until i clicked on your link above. :) --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going to go ahead and make the redirect. Page creator deleted content. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proto & Dark Mark, ROFL! Alf 21:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I wish people wouldn't do that during a Vfd. It says not to on the tag for a good reason. In this case, it is because it should be a redirect to Master of Engineering which goes by the abbreviation MEng. -Splash 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well the content probably should have just been userfied, but since he said that he didn't want it up anymore, and blanked it himself, I felt there was no need to see this whole VfD out. Aren't we trying to slim the VfD process? What is wrong with making a valid redirect if the current page is useless? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are lots of discussions on trying to slim the VfD process, but they are not taking place here. Making the redirect suggestion here would be fine, simply making the redirect circumvents any disucussion. In some cases, people also merge during a VfD and that means that, even if a debtae concludes the page should be deleted it can't be because of the GFDL. So drastic action on the page should wait until the conclusion of the VfD, as it says on the tag. -Splash 16:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand that, but there was nothing on the page. The creator of the page himself says he doesn't want it anymore. No one else was supporting the content, so there was no harm in just creating the redirect. Oh well, I'm done with this page. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it should go to Uliuli Fafita, with a line on there stating 'This article is about the wrestler, Meng. For information about the MEng degree qualification, go to Master of Engineering'. Meng != MEng. And I have an MEng, so I should know, nyah. Proto t c 09:46, 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 COPYVIO, with no offer of a rewrite. -Splash 01:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectWeb consortium[edit]

Compadres! It is imperative that we crush blatant advertising in Wikipedia before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of the ObjectWeb consortium article. CanadianCaesar 06:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, señores. If SourceForge and OpenOffice.org are notable, so's this one. It could do with cleanup to make it look less like advertising copy though, I agree. And I already have a donkey. Tonywalton  | Talk 10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a copyvio of [11] - I'll put it through the right channels. ESkog 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jive.exe[edit]

Non-notable piece of software. Speedy deleted already, restored by Tony Sidaway, I am now listing it here. Zoe 07:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC) * Delete, if already speedied, tag it {{deleteagain}} to make it stand. -- < drini | ∂drini > 07:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the new version is much better. -- < drini | ∂drini > 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in my opinion "Jive.exe is a DOS program that converts plain english to jive." does not provide enough context. it doesn't tell what jive is alhtough I'm assuming it's some non-notable conlang. Might change my mind if someone provided sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Write an article about Jive speak and merge this there. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Jive is jive talk, like in Airplane! Zoe 08:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly it's not a speedy deletion candidate (User:JYolkowski also made a comment to this effect in an edit summary which is in the history), and secondly it correctly describes the subject matter. I'll expand. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Done. It's quite difficult to find original sources on this because the idea is a simple one and it's been duplicated many times. The phenomenon is quite well known, however, so I provided some external links--including quite a number from Swedish Chef. I'll have to work on the categorization--if we have a cat for novelty software I haven't yet found it. There was apparently no existing cat for novelty software so I created one. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Radiant_>|< 10:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Query whether a category for 'novelty software' is necessary also. Proto t c 12:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - EurekaLott 12:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is one of those fun things people distribute by email. It's bad enough we have conlangs let along search-and-replace-style language-altering tools. GarrettTalk 13:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'. It's been the occasion of some interesting legal questions. Borkified and Jived documents were submitted as evidence in the case Scientology versus Panoussis, 1998 in Stockholm, as reported by freelance journalist Karin Spaink. The defendants claimed that this was legitimate parody; the plaintiffs, violation of copyright. I've started a small section on this and will complete it when I found out whether the issue of parody through automatic filters was ever decided. This alone would make the software notable, in my opinion. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote on keep vs deletion but Rename to "Jive (computer software)" if we keep it. It's multiplatform. I've added some information to the article about the earliest implementations of this that I know of, which were distributed for Unix in the late '80s. Nandesuka 16:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm with Nandesuka on this. It should have a decent name. If someone wanted my opinion, I'd suggest that dialect filter might be most suitable, but I'd accept any other name that doesn't contain parentheses or punctuation--words should be enough and are more likely to be correctly remembered. But it's not that important to me. If this article survives VfD then is the time to talk about a move. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. GregAsche 16:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this spawned a whole genre of programs. Kappa 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interesting footnote to software history. Trollderella 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs better name though. Alf 22:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It be some very notable honky code. ElBenevolente 02:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Nandesuka. Not sure why this was speedied and I'd support Tony's action in rescuing this article, and commend him highly for his work in improving it. Clair de Lune 08:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. whether notable or not doesn't matter. Rename if it is not only about a exe. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written, this is the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia depth and its breadth. Well formatted and complete it does no harm and sets Wikipedia apart from other encyclopedias. Rx StrangeLove 00:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rx StrangeLove -PlainSight 02:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Original speedy was valid. So is this article (though it definitely needs a move). No contradiction here. JRM · Talk 13:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to appear too argumentative (as if!) but what CSD would you have put the original under? --Tony SidawayTalk 14:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      First one: "very short articles providing little or no context". Mind you, I'm not disputing the context could be extended based on what was in the article and/or personal knowledge (you obviously did so). Further disagreements are tantamount to asking what context is needed before it moves away from "little or no context". A useful question, but one the CSD policy does not answer, and is left to personal opinion (with common sense applied, of course). JRM · Talk 15:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, while I understand your reasoning, well I don't think there should be anything special in a stub. If my son said "what's jive.exe" and I replied "it's one of those programs that translate ordinary speech into a weird dialect", he'd probably have learned pretty much what the program was about. If that can happen in speech I don't see that it needs any more in the way of words to convey the same idea in a stub article. I think we should be permissive of stubs like this that obviously make sense. I've no idea what extra context would be required than the correct juxtaposition of the concept: program, conversion and jive, which were all there: "Jive.exe is a DOS program that converts plain english to jive." User:JYolkowski had earlier removed a speedy tag because, he said, he didn't think it lacked context. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      I note that at the time jive contained nothing useful, and JYolkowski only removed the speedy tag without a clarification beyond "I think the context is sufficient" (making it a he-said-she-said-but-I-think case for any admin clearing it out). But I'm not arguing the point here: we agree that a reasonable difference of opinion is possible in this case, even if we may disagree on the most productive course of action, and we also obviously agree on the outcome of this VfD. JRM · Talk 00:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Past VFD archived here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosphere2

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blogosphere[edit]

  • Keep I'm ignorant and came across this term only recently. I didn't know what it this was 'til i looked it up on wikipedia. So useful to all us trolls out there. --moreanon 20:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, should be merged with blog at the very least. Skrewler 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without merging, neologism in wide circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Widely used term. Grutness...wha? 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 17.7 million Google results for blogosphere see [12] and this is a well-referenced explanation of the concept. Capitalistroadster 08:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least transwiki --Swamp Ig
  • Keep. Past AfD nomination should've given you a hint. --Andylkl (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously notable neologism. I want a button on my keyboard that violently murders people who actually use this word, though. - Randwicked 10:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a widely used and understood phenomenon. Jtmichcock 12:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quickly moving beyond neologism. Dottore So 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki. Depressingly—very depressingly—this neologism is here to stay. Please vigorously fustigate me if you ever catch me using the word non-sarcastically. —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used term, so deletion rationale "Not notable" is wrong. Survived AfD before if I'm not mistaken. Punkmorten 21:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because a few dozen people participate in mental masturbation on the subject, doesn't mean everyone else has to. --Timecop 01:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in use in mainstream media. Jessamyn 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if this is the stupidest neologism since "metrosexual." Andrew Levine 04:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be an attack on blogosphere entries at Wikipedia. There's also a vfd on the Canadian Blogosphere--Simon.Pole 04:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quantity is not quality nor notability. 65.34.232.136 05:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one, as it describes a notable phenomenon. I would say we should merge all articles on national blogospheres into it (including Canadian blogosphere and Belgian Blogosphere) if they had anything worth merging, but they don't. — Haeleth Talk 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Femmina 22:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term. --J. Nguyen 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some might not like the term, but it doesn't change that it's in use and people want to understand it.
  • Delete. Crappy term to denote a series of shit pages of worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's a widely used term. Do not transwiki to Wiktionary since the article goes beyond being a simple definition of a word. Angela. 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's places for stuff like this. --Depakote 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only going to get more important. Carina22 12:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this term is heavily used actualy. --Mateusc 13:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Blog. Reyk 01:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep used heavily by news outlets. Jacqui? 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Stirling Newberry 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Blog. There doesn't seem to be enough here to merit a separate article. Slartoff 02:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tend to agree with foo. Rhobite 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep word with widespread mainstream currency and considerable potential for encyclopedic explanation. - squibix 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Moccia[edit]

Alright, I know, nominating an article three minutes after its creation is a little harsh, but the claim to notability, founding the "New Age Goomba" movement, looks very dubious. That movement is awfully secret, google for example didn't know that it existed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this real???? Very POV (Moccia was on his way to becoming President of the United States???), about a not known group of racists (that is, if the group rexists for real) Also, no disrespect to "numbers" but it was written by a number, so that makes it double suspicious. Immediate Delete. Antonio Cooler than Goomba Martin 10:51 15 August (UTC)
  • Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 10:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ay-yo!  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 11:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I became less notable just by reading that. Nandesuka 12:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is more about the supposed movement than about the person. But since Google and myself and several other people haven't heard of this New Age Goomba Movement and because it can't be independantly verified, I vote for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I still can't understand how anyone can think something only they've ever heard of and can't be verified is notable. NO Google hits at all, and if it was as notable as the article writer seems to think it is there'd be something out there to verify this against. Nezu Chiza 20:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as claims cannot be verified. Hall Monitor 21:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But note that redirects for deletion should go to WP:RfD. Doens't seem any point relisting it there given the manner of voting and the discussion here. -Splash 01:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De Vermiis Mysteriis[edit]

I have come to believe that this article was inappropriately titled from the start (a typo?). All my sources indicate that the correct spelling is "De Vermis Mysteriis" – hence, the redirect I placed in the article. However, I don't believe that the improper spelling should appear in Wikipedia because it may mislead readers into believing that this is an alternate spelling. It is not! I can provide a list of sources with the correct spelling if necessary. Gate2ValusiaOh?..(contribs) 08:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote. This is a title of a fictional book. I'm not familiar with Lovecraft's work any more, but the de in the title would be correct. It means "about", and mysteriis is ablative plural case of mysterium, making the title "On (or about) the mysteries of the worm". "Vermis mysteriis" might also make sense, but would be an unusual title for a book. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, the problem is the double "i" in "Vermiis" – that's why the title is incorrect. What probably happened was that the original editor clicked on a red link with a typo in the title. The request here is to delete this particular redirect.
      To further clarify: the spelling used in Cthulhu mythos fiction is "De Vermis Mysteriis"; thus, "De Vermiis Mysteriis" constitutes an invalid redirect. "De Vermis Mysteriis" is the spelling that appears in the Robert Bloch short story that introduces the book, "The Shambler from the Stars" (written in 1935).
      Gate2ValusiaOh?..(contribs) 09:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Duh! You're right, I completely misread. On googling, I find that this erroneous spelling occurs some 800 times. So Keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I remember that this (evidently false) title might have crept into at least the german translations (and maybe the french ones, too), especially regarding the Ctulhu-RPG...I'll have a look at it tonight, and tell you more tomorrow..for now I would opt for a keep for the redirect, as per Tony Sidaway Lectonar 11:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm positive now...the german version uses the double 'i' (at least the translation I own)..so it's a definite keep for the redirect from me Lectonar 08:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep redirect to Arcane literature (Cthulhu mythos). Redirects are always appropriate for common misspellings or variants, especially in foreign language words. Speedy keep because VfD prevents redirect from operating. Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect - misspellings are often used for redirects, and this rule should apply doubly in the case of the Cthulhu mythos. Having typed a whole list of namde of Lovecraftian articles recently, I can tell you that it is very easy to get the spellings wrong! Grutness...wha? 01:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the easy way to deal with these is just redirect to the right spelling/main article whatever - does no harm and is a lot easier than a VfD. A good portion of stuff on VfD should just have been turned into redirects when originally found. --zippedmartin 11:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood the nominator, he explicitly objected for the different spelling to be used at all (although you're obviously right in general), and this VfD prevents the redirect from workong, as quoted above. Cheers :) Lectonar 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"should just have been turned into redirects", as in, rather than VfD. Stuff that gets a lot of keep/delete wrangling based on notability, is often really a 10 second redirect job if handled sensibly by the nominator. --zippedmartin 15:09, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hoffman[edit]

Labelled incorrectly as a "United States Congressman from New York". There is nobody called Hoffman on the list on the house.gov website. The Nita Lowey article mentions Rich Hoffman, saying he was her opponent in 2004; describes him as "a self-funded candidate". This information was added a few hours ago by a user who also edited this article. Lowey is the incumbent for New York 18th District. I have verified that somebody called Richard Hoffman did run against Lowey last year. She trounced him.

Probably not notable (no vote either way). If article is kept obviously it needs cleanup. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not elected = not notable. Radiant_>|< 10:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep my rewritten version. Disclaimer: he's an unsuccessful Republican U.S. House candidate. I don't know if this meets your bar for notability, but it does meet mine. Meelar (talk) 14:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. See also Richard A. Hoffman, which is just a duplicate of the older page. Sdedeo 15:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but keep it short. On many occasions over the years I have looked up past opponents of current Congressmen. The ones who are not notable for any other reason (other than their campaign) become very difficult to find. In my view, a short article in Wikiepdia on losing Congressional and Senatorial candidates in general elections is a good thing. But don't overdo a good thing by extending the concept to losing State Representative candidates or non-notable primary opponents. -- DS1953 16:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Interesting. Trollderella 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems reasonable enough. Punkmorten 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into a new article List of losing 2004 U.S. House candidates. Then merge with other information on other persons whose only notable achievement was that they ran in a single U.S. House race and lost. I did a quick gander at other blue links for losing candidates on 2004 U.S. House election. The majority of them just regurgiated the obvious from that article with maybe a link to their campaign website. A few were for Texas representatives wo lost seats thanks to DeLay's gerrymander. There were a number of incorrect links to people who happened to have the same name. (The most amusing was from a losing Texas Democratic candidate for the House of Representatibves to a winning Nevada Republican candidate for the House of Representatives with the same name Jon Porter. This isn't even counting the vast majority of red links for losing candidates in that article. Caerwine 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepr : There is enough info in the article to consider this subject as interesting--Revas 23:27, 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 Transwiki/Delete. Redwolf24 01:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shabo lexicon[edit]

Oops, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki and delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:01, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki and delete per nominator. Sam Vimes 08:30, 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.
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 Keep. The nominator performed a copy&paste move and then nominated the original for deletion. This of course violates the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License. I've undone the copy&paste move, done a proper move, and informed the nominator of the existence of the "move" button. If you want the redirect deleted (It should be kept as per our policy on useful redirects, note.), please go to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Uncle G 11:14:29, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Tara mountain[edit]

This page used mistaken capitalization that wasn't up to the capitalizing standards of Wikipedia. A new page with correct capitalization has been created and all links have been corrected as such, therefore, making this redirect page redundant. Ghidra99 09:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, valid redirect. Zoe 09:54, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bajina basta[edit]

For the exact same reason that Tara mountain is marked for. Page should be "Bajina Basta" Ghidra99 09:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, valid redirect. Zoe 09:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep no need to list things that could be turned into redirects. Trollderella 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems I've made a mistake. This page is definitely a valid redirect. I'm still new to this thing. :\ Ghidra99 06:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artspace Gallery[edit]

Vanity/Advertisement. Does not seem to be notable. Kushboy 16:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This article was as shown above, nominated for deletion on August 9, but has received no further votes. I am therefore bringing this back to VFD in the hope of getting some attention to this debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable adcruft Tonywalton  | Talk 10:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletespace. Sdedeo 12:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless it starts exhibiting major artists, I noticed their website lists "Artist Members" and checked a few, as yet NN Alf 22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/ad. --Etacar11 23:14, 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 REDIRECT to Blondie (album). It's already mentioned there, so no need for merging. -Splash 01:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Girl Lies[edit]

Non-notable song - unlikely to ever be anything more than a stub. Kurt Shaped Box 10:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well it's a classic of three-minute pop, but I can't think of much else to say (except that I'm humming it now) so merge and redirect to Blondie (album). --Tony SidawayTalk 10:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the value of keeping it, TBH - a full tracklisting and list of singles is available at the main Blondie (album) article already. --Kurt Shaped Box 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My rationale for redirect in this case is to enable someone to type in the song name and find the name of the group and the album. This is a catchy song, I'm surprised it never made a single (actually the whole album is a pop classic, just about everything could have been released as a single). --Tony SidawayTalk 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point - the redirect may prove useful, though the information in the article is already present on the Blondie (album) page. What's the normal procedure in cases like this? --Kurt Shaped Box 23:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tony. Radiant_>|< 10:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as above Lectonar 11:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • M&R as above. the wub "?/!" 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • M&R as above, artcile admits it wasn't even released as a single. Alf 22:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should have been, though. Everytime I come back to this discussion I start humming. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:31, 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 KEEP. -Splash 01:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InVitro[edit]

This appears to be fiction, but it doesn't say so, and even using Google I can't figure out where it comes from. So delete. Gdr 10:39:29, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

  • Comment. Numerous google references suggest that that this comes from Space: Above and Beyond. I don't know the show, so I don't know how important or crufty this is. ManoaChild 10:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but Cleanup. Seems to be a major element of Space: Above and Beyond. I've added a little bit to the introduction of the article, to give it a bit of context, but someone who knows the show needs to do more. ManoaChild 11:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cruft. Merge anything not already duplicated on Space: Above and Beyond, redirect to in vitro as a viable typo, and put a dab on that page explaining "InVitro is also the name of tank-bred humans in Space: Above and Beyond". Proto t c 12:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's good now that it's mentioned to be about a fictional subject. There are many articles about fictional races on wikipedia, so it's legitimacy should not be in question. -- Judson 12:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I retract my "delete" vote. Gdr 15:16:02, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously. Trollderella 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And I strongly disagree with "merge" by classifying this as "crufty", both within the series and in general context. Importance within the series is evident by considering the article Chigs, and numerous references in Space: Above and Beyond, and also the series itself (e.g. episodes 1.01, 1.04, 1.05, 1.07, 1.13, 1.18). Categories/listing also show clearly that the asserted classification as "crufty" in the general Wikipedia context is inappropriate and poses a double standard: Fictional character, Category:Fictional species, Category:Fictional alien species, Category:Fictional clones, and many others --Ylai 05:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Currently a well-fleshed out article, that's no more cruft then many other articles in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 07:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEGA boards[edit]

While Sega is obviously notable, their webpage might be, but the forums on that webpage is getting a bit too trivial. (See also WP:WEB) Radiant_>|< 10:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per Radiant. --Scimitar parley 20:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above Dottore So 20:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Radiant. K1Bond007 21:02, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Radiant!. -Splash 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sega and redirect. Don't see any point in removing verifiable information from an encyclopedia, don't think there's enough to merit an article on its own. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and direct, as per TS. Alai 21:30, 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 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fun @ Dave's World[edit]

Vanity page. Non-notable. Links to a web page that is free hosting. Don't think it's a speedy candidate as it claims to be one of the longest running personal website still online. GraemeL 10:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. The page was started in 1997, six years after the beginning of the web. I believe that it's a candidate for speedy in as much as the claim to notability is trivially false. Sdedeo 13:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fell asleep halfway through, woke up and re-read it and it's still a load of boring, nn, vanity crap. --Outlander 17:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before you dismiss my website as a vanity site, please understand its not always about me and there are many times, I am the brunt of the joke. Its not a site about how wonderful I am. We've had a cult following for 8 years and the site has published 444 consecutive weeks. I am not sitting here saying it is a hugely notable site, but it has been a consistent, conscientious effort to providing somewhat clean and decent entertainment to the web. I can understand the Wikipedia entry needs editing, but not dismissed on the grounds my site is a "vanity" site.-DL(UTC) (Unsigned comment by 172.137.131.128 (talk · contribs), first edi)

  • No one is calling your site vanity. The Wiki article is what we call vanity (see WP:VAIN). It has nothing to do with your character or site itself. --Etacar11 05:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad wording on my part. As Etacar11 pointed out, I wasn't calling your page a vanity page. The vfd should probably have started with "Vanity entry". See WP:WEB for current proposals on what constitutes web site notability. --GraemeL 15:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the entry.(UTC) (Unsigned comment by 172.157.232.13 (talk · contribs))

  • Sorry, I know you're trying, but the non-notability of the website still warrants deletion of the article. --Etacar11 13:58, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vern Reid[edit]

Doesn't assert sufficient notability KeithD (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harry Potter related websites[edit]

Mere list of links to websites, cfr. What Wikipedia is not Cnyborg 12:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.or maybe merge --Gearspring 00:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree with the Wikipedia policy quoted by the nominator, I think we have to consider the big picture. While we could merge the list with Harry Potter fandom, that article is already very long. Given the depth of coverage of Harry Potter in Wikipedia – there are literally hundreds of articles – a centralized list of external links which is incorporated into the structure of the series articles is the most efficient and comprehendible solution. Anything else will be worse for Wikipedia. -- DS1953 16:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as explained by DS1953 Kappa 17:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and move to List of Harry Potter-related websites. --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 17:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why this can't be merged back into Harry Potter fandom. If the explanations about the sites are kept short and put on the same line as the link this could take very little space. If merging isn't performed, I vote keep and rename and like to see a note at the top explaining why this list of links has been seperated from the article. - Mgm|(talk) 18:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with force. Are we writing an encyclopedia or a web directory? --Pjacobi 18:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gateman1997 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or change WP:NOT to say that we are trying to duplicate Google. Zoe 20:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, regardless of Potter's popularity Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Merge some of the more popular with Harry Potter fandom and delete. K1Bond007 21:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is neither Google nor the Open Directory Project. --Carnildo 22:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above --PhilipO 22:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems perfectly clear. As noted by nominator, a) Wikipedia articles are not mere collections of external links or Internet directories. That's been in WP:NOT in various forms for at least two years. b) This page is a mere list of links. Ergo, this page is not a Wikipedia article. Which form of syllogism is that? Celarent? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you don't like people splitting articles, challenge the policy that a size warning comes up when they hit a few thousand words. Osomec 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ISNOT a webdirectory, doesn't matter how popular the topic. If there were that many links in another article, the list should have been kept where it was an mercilessly pruned. -Splash 02:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not etc. -Sean Curtin 02:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. All these links should just be listed under external links in the main Harry Potter page. (Notorious4life 04:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. were not a web directory Fledgeling 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge elsewhere. -- Norvy (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Just a list of external links. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per WP:NOT. Proto t c 09:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We are not a web directory. Tempshill 17:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete , a selection should already be on the main articles. --TimPope 07:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we're not a fansite --fpo 18:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. This has somehow become nearly unanimous! Perhaps the processes and consensus building do work, after all. -Splash 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by Jews[edit]

A previous version of this article was nominated for deletion on 19 July. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews. Despite a majority of opinions to delete, the closing admin determined that it failed to meet the necessary standard of "rough concensus". The first VfD was closed as a "no concensus" decision. The decision to close the first debate was reversed by another administrator. The reversal was deemed to be out-of-process and was itself reverted. It was discussed several places including here, here and here. In the meantime, a Vote for Undeletion was formally opened. See here. Given the circumstances, the vote for undeletion was also considered by some to be out-of-process. Again, there was a majority opinion to delete (or redelete) the article but this time, the vote-count was even closer than in the VfD decision. I am returning this to VfD for a second discussion.

I note that the article has been moved to a different title and that it has been extensively edited since the first VfD began. I encourage everyone to carefully re-read the article and decide again based on the merits and weaknesses of the current version.

This is a procedural nomination. Do not interpret this nomination as a "delete" vote. Rossami (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote. But by having "participated" in this debate, I will most definitely not be closing this debate. (I wouldn't have done so in any case, anyway). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Errr. We have Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Christians. Echoing previous commenters, this article is not great, but the topic is valid -- even if the finally NPOV'd entry is something akin to "not much." Sdedeo 13:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've no strong feeling here -except all three should be treated in the same way. I'm not sure that generic 'persecution by' articles can be NPOV. They assume an historic contunuity between persecutors that is debatable - and that persection was done 'as Jews' or ' as Muslims'. The Islamic article has been moved to Religious conflict and Islam. That's not great either, but if it's allowed to stand then the same treatment should be given to the other articles. Indeed, I'm tempted to add both of them to this Vfd so that all are kept, deleted or renamed alike. Anyone second that? --Doc (?) 13:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't. Then there'd be questions about the validity of the VfD, and the "rough consensus" would be harder impossible to determine. If each had its own VfD, that would be a good thing in the long run, but would generate more heat than light in the very short term. Also, it's usually seen as bad when a single editor nominates an entire group of article. Wiki is all about teamwork, you know. ^_^ - brenneman(t)(c) 14:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK - because of teamwork, I suggested it but didn't do it (unilateral is v. bad :{) - your response makes sense --Doc (?) 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three. Legitimate topics, although a close eye will have to be kept on them to keep (particularly the Jewish and Muslim ones) from descending into racism. --Scimitar parley 13:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three, again. ElBenevolente 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three, just like last time. Shem(talk) 16:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but if good reasons are given for delete, you may change my vote to delete, I'm going on vacation. Just because other topics have a "persecution by" doesn't mean all groups have to. Right now this article feels like a token attempt to keep things "fair". My sense though is the article doesn't need deletion yet but does require serious cleanup. The article is verging very close to origional research, I'm almost tempted to say it might be worth wiping out the article and starting from scratch. Opening your religious text of choice and finding what you want is origional research. I'd be much more comfortable with this article if it was using academic sources which are explicitly mentioned.
  • Keep — let's all stand in a big circle and flog each other until somebody says, "Uncle". :) — RJH 17:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly valid. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:31, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Keep but the title should be made consistent with the others. Why should Christians and Muslims have religious and Jews historical persecution? Can we revert to the orig. title? 20:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • unsigned comment by user:Dottoreso who, I suspect, added 5 tildes instead of 4
    • They don't. All three have been called "historical persecution by..." for some while now. Paul B 10:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I wonder if 'historical' might be better for all three. Religious is ambigious - does it imply persecution of other religions (and thus exclude ethnic or cultural groups who were persecuted) or does it imply persecution for solely religious reasons (and thus exclude political or economic motivations)? --Doc (?) 20:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As of now, while miles better than the old article it remains a low-quality article with too much original research. In the alternative, VfD all of them per Doc's comments above for purposes of renaming under a broader, possibly more accurate, and surely a less inflammatory Religious conflict and XXXX moniker. --Flawiki 22:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'd like to see where this one is headed. --Dysepsion 22:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The request to carefully evaluate the article is invalid, we are not here hand out grades. This is clearly a legitmate topic. Osomec 02:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no sense in deleting one and leaving the others.Heraclius 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article barely contains any "meat". --Michaelk 06:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I voted to delete last time because the article was called Religious persecution by Jews but contained no examples of religious persecution! The current article contains sufficient examples to justify its existence. The subject is of real historical interest. Also, to delete just this one of the three articles would fuel complaints of "bias". Anyone who looks at the three together can judge for themselves just how "persecutory" Jews have been in comparison to Christians and Muslims. It's better to give people all the facts than suppress material and fuel resentments. Paul B 10:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Closing one eye and keeping two open would not show an objective face. A triclopean face, yes, but not an objective one. --Agamemnon2 15:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suppose its possible to merge with Christianity, having Historical persecution by Judeo-Christians, but this has undoubtably existed just maybe no on the same level as Islam, Christianity, or Hinduism.Falphin 23:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArtPlz[edit]

This is encyclopedic? The site in question only currently has a single Flash animation. (Crystal ball anyone?) WP:ISNOT a web directory. Doesn't look notable to me. Al 12:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable under-construction website. Wiki is not a web directory. And I hate cats who cry. Pussy cats. JDoorjam 14:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Tonywalton  | Talk 15:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if for no other reason than to play devil's advocate. It may be currently under construction, but the community it spun off from had over 10K members, so I'd argue it has some notability. Boxclocke 22:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I believe it's notable if only for it's notoriety on many circles of the internet. Apogee 01:19, 19 August 2005 (GMT+1)
  • Delete NN. Re-submit if site <10K Alexa rating. -PlainSight 02:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ANL System and Launch Magazine and Wiener's and T. Fox and ANL system[edit]

Probable hoax- near nonsense --Doc (?) 12:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Secret systems are too secret. Lomn | Talk 12:51:29, 2005-08-18 (UTC) (nb - this first vote added before 3 additions to this Vfd --Doc (?) 13:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Double-secret nb: All related to secret society ("Launch Planner" society gets zero relevant Google hits), too secret applies to all. Lomn | Talk 14:07:41, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Delete. Goodbye, wierd vandalism. PubLife 13:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps this is an attempt to get into the BJAODN, but it's not funny enough --Outlander 13:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one goes up to eleven. Sliggy 14:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like nonsense. Alf 22:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax/WTF territory. --Etacar11 23:25, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seanus Pedrosa McGuinley IV[edit]

not noteworthy, if not a prank. Google, yahoo, altavista - no hits whatsoever. Outlander 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly speedily - it looks, walks, and quacks like a hoax. -Satori 15:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It sounds like nonsense. Alf 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax/unverified. --Etacar11 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The history of junk gathering[edit]

Pretty close to patent nonsense, centers around a neologism dicdef...I don't think there is any way to salvage this article -- Ferkelparade π 13:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Tempted to say BJAODN. Oh, what the hell. BJAODN because this is quampha. -- BD2412 talk 13:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ferkelparade. Though I wouldn't oppose the BJAODN. --Lomedae 14:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research if not a joke. (It did at least make me smile) Alf 22:50, 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 02:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turn to Fall[edit]

Non-notable band. POV Al 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. nn Sdedeo 15:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nnbv. -- BD2412 talk 18:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. And doesn't the fact that most of it is a review make it a copyvio? --Etacar11 23:30, 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 02:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El Bastard Comes To Town[edit]

A well crafted hoax, it seems. No Google hits for it. ral315 14:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Sdedeo 15:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like an attempt to get into BJAODN--Outlander 15:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Written by someone who has heard of humour and wants to try his or her hand at it, with awful results. --Lomedae 17:56, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because... hey, wait a minute, there was no such thing as a "degree in nuclear physics" in the 1920s. Also, any article mentioning rabid hamsters must be a joke. -- BD2412 talk 18:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 23:32, 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 02:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adsnads[edit]

Blatant advertising. Nobody LINKS to them according to Google, no Alexa rank. ral315 15:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

They're new, so how can you expect an Alexa rank.Previous unsigned comment was by 66.32.71.124, who created Adsnads)


  • 'Delete. As of yet, nn. Sdedeo 15:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask your reason ?--A73 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ISNOT a Web directory. And do these chaps know what "nads" are in British English? Tonywalton  | Talk 15:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Of course, it is about an online community which offers users a means of advertising. In the interest of consistency, it is no different than Craigslist - the only difference is one has existed longer. Not to offend British users... read it as Ads 'n ads.
  • Delete - when it gets as popular as Craigslist, let them re-submit. --Outlander 15:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting it has to be popular to exist here --A73 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Martg76 15:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a collection of information organized by topic and much of it is about the internet. --A73 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it is not advertising and not intended to be advertising, but describes something that deals in free advertising.--A73 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising for a (currently) non-notable web site -- Sliggy 16:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Are you suggesting advertising is OK if you deem it to be about a notable site ? --A73 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Dottore So 18:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, For those that think its advertising - take a look at any link that is about a commercial enterprise. They could all be called advertising. Do you think that anything commercial should not be on the web. Commerce and business on the web have made it successful. The power of the web and of sites like Wikipedia are rooted around inclusion, not exclusion.(Previous unsigned comment was by 66.32.71.124)
You're missing the point of what an encyclopaedia is. If your site was a sandwich bar that was being considered for deletion from the local directory of sandwich bars, you'd be absolutely correct in what you say. However Wikipedia is not a local (or international) directory; it is an encyclopaedia. Are you likely to find an entry for your site in Encyclopædia Britannica? No, because that's not a directory either. Might you find an entry for Xerox? Very probably; it's notable in a way in which with the best will in the world you cannot say your site is.
Note that an unwillingness to include your article in WP does not imply any unwillingness to see it succeed - best wishes for the success of your enterprise. Tonywalton  | Talk 11:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia introduction "help make Wikipedia the best source of information on the Internet", and the current content, I can understand the difficulty in defining what it is. Certainly some are willing to assert what it isn't. Looking at Wikipedia as just an encyclopedia would eliminate much of what makes it special and unique. Inclusion is what makes Wikipedia special.--A73 14:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! The site provides community links that benefit a wide cross-section of the population. It isn't advertising but rather it fits the meaning/intent of an encyclopedia. -Julio


KEEP IT - Since when did wikipedia become such an elitist bunch of users? I think the website is a great portal for people to use.

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

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

The result of the debate was Been transwiki'd now I shall delete. Redwolf24 02:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Quilty[edit]

This is a memorial page. I have checked several sources and have found no notable activity other than that he died at the WTC site Outlander 15:43, 27 July 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war

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

The result of the debate was Will be transwiki'd. Redwolf24 02:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stadtteil[edit]

Delete: First, this is the English language wikipedia. Second, this is a dictionary definition. See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. --Durin 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently this was created to provide an explanation for Category:Stadtteile of Frankfurt and all of the articles therein. In certain cases it can be justified to create a definitional article in order to explain a particular local meaning. However, in this case, I see no reason why the term Stadtteil cannot simply be translated. Thus, delete. Martg76 03:27, 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 02:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

247G[edit]

Was listed as a speedy delete with a reason of non-notable, I agree with the non-notable part, but it should be a vfd, hence this posting. Gblaz 16:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I marked it for speedy. Absolutely non notable. Delete. --Raistlin 16:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. KeithD (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neroon reverted to a version without the VfD tag put on by Gblaz. I've reverted back Gblaz' version Tonywalton  | Talk 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now reverted back Neroon's edit (which has a minimal amount of extra content plus a screenshot), plus the VfD tag. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else so far Tonywalton  | Talk 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Alf 22:58, 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 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black flames[edit]

Highly original theory with no source cited. 202.156.2.74 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article terrifies me. Sdedeo 17:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Black flames" + "creation of the universe" get 13 google hits, none of which describes this concept. -- BD2412 talk 18:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unscholarly unverifiable nonsense. DreamGuy 20:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; OR that just looks like a re-wording of the Big Bang theory and Dark Matter Tonywalton  | Talk 22:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Khaosinfire, the author, has placed a rather plaintive query as to why it's been VfDed on the article's talk page; I've pointed to WP:NOT, explained what OR means and encouraged them to discuss further here if they wish to defend it, so can we go easy on the article-bashing? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I didn't mean to make fun of the article... I just mean... imagine if it were true... doesn't the phrase "black flame" freak you out? I can imagine some horrible monster sneaking up behind you chanting "black flame... black flame..." Now I've gone and freaked myself out again. Sdedeo 04:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are much scarier cosmologies than that. 192.18.1.5 Tonywalton (not logged in)
  • Delete. OR. Boxclocke 22:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Could also be speedy-deleted as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. --Etacar11 23:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

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

List of wikis[edit]

This is nothing but a list of articles on wiki websites. Wikipedia is not a Web directory. Virtually none of these sites are notable and this list and virtually all the articles on it should be deleted as advertising and/or vanity. Tysto 16:30, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

  • Keep, I believe there are at least two notable wikis in existence. Kappa 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Except for a very few red links, this is a list of wikis covered by Wikipedia. It is not a directory of external links. If the external links in the context of the list are bad, delete the links – you would still have a viable article. If some of the wikis listed are not notable, VfD them, not the list, and edit them from the list. -- DS1953 17:12, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • If this is a list only of those wikis that have individual articles, shouldn't it be a category instead? —Cryptic (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think that almost all list articles should be categories instead, since they accomplish the same task with no maintenance, but apparently there are people just love making lists. --Tysto 17:50, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. Where else? Trollderella 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list, and create Category:Wikis. Barno 18:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate with wiki, especially the tour bus section. Burn the rest. JDoorjam 19:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. It's a list of wikis that have Wikipedia articles, with a brief summary of each. --Carnildo 22:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean. It could be useful if it was fixed up a bit. Joizashmo 00:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful list. Not only of external links, but also of links to articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It's very useful for people who want to spread. It's completely ascenine to remove this as there are many other pages with URLs.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 the article clearly fits CSD A7. FCYTravis 20:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Anne Ruthven[edit]

Bio, no other hits on google, etc, etc. Asparagus 16:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and research further. Trollderella 18:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable, Tollderella is living up to his/her name. Zoe 20:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Oh come on, who on earth would vote to keep this nn vanity page. Is this a candidate for speedy removal? There is no real assertion of notability. Asparagus is awesome for this Dottore So 18:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Grace Note commented on my talk page, "I think those cases would be a lot easier to approach though if you did not say 'you must be notable' but said instead 'you must only write what is notable about you', be it ever so little. Make the policy 'no shit' rather than 'be notable'." I think that's very well said. If User:Bagelundercouch is watching, I'd like to suggest that this user try boiling the article down to what seems to be notable and see what it looks like then. No vote for now. I'd like to know more about "her writing" (any published? where?) and more about her being "a future Larry King interviewee." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC) P. S. Not very germane to a decision, but It reads to me as if it might have been written by a gallant admirer, rather than by Ms. Ruthven herself.[reply]
  • Give me a break -- this is speedyable -- obvious deletion. Ruthvencruft. Non-notable. Wasting 10K of some harddrive in Florida. Absolutely no reason whatsoever to research further. Period. JDoorjam 19:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article doesn't establish notability. Martg76 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles that refer to Larry King hurt Wikipedia. ;) --Scimitar parley 20:38, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gir Goes Crazy and Stuff[edit]

Love the show, but no other episodes have meritted individual articles, and poorly written to boot. -The Tom 16:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep episode guides per Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 16:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "X is poorly written" is not a reason for deletion. Neither is "Y hasn't been written yet". Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I really question whether WP should have standalone episode summary articles for Star Trek, let alone for every forgettable TV show. The article mentions another article, "Invasion of the Idiot Dog Brain", and for a second I thought it was a plot summary for VfD (not this nomination but several lately). Barno 18:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Keepa. Er, Kappa. JDoorjam 18:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barno
  • Delete also per Barno -PlainSight 02:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Henrygb for no assertion of significance. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanda[edit]

Notability not shown. WCFrancis 16:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability not shown to be part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Failure to show notability most assuredly is a valid CDS criterion. Stop trolling VfD. Zoe 20:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD-A7. If a non-noteable bio is grounds for a speedy, then it is a de facto VfD criterion. The latter half might be interesting at Wiktionary, but not here. Lomn | Talk 18:56:06, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Doesn't even provide a full name. ManoaChild 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete under A7, and I have so tagged it. DES (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teothuauci[edit]

This one had me thinking "cute coincidence" for a second. Then it had me thinking - wait, no. It's a blatant hoax - TEOTWAWKI, pronounced pretty much "teothuauci", is a popular shorthand for "the end of the world as we know it" in some circles. Part of a set with Cateclixmicli and X'acti. No sign of actually being valid. Delete Shimgray 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNo other reference to these three gods anywhere I can find. Stlemur 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke. Cute, but it must go. -- BD2412 talk 19:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN the set. --Carnildo 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ho ho in the bin. Alf 23:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax. Nothing in Encyclopedia Mythica. --Etacar11 23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Teotihuacan. Proto t c 10:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 15:21, 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 02:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cateclixmicli[edit]

Oh, how I laughed. A highly obscure Aztec goddess of cataclysms with such an appropriate name. And weird Olmec stuff, too! Part of a set with Teothuauci and X'acti. No sign of actually being historically valid. Delete Shimgray 16:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a chance this is real. Delete. Stlemur 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Joke. -- BD2412 talk 19:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN all three. --Carnildo 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ho ho in the bin. Alf 23:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 23:47, 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 02:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

X'acti[edit]

An obscure Aztec goddess, wife of a god which is almost certainly a hoax, apparently named to sound like one in India. Part of a set with Teothuauci and Cateclixmicli. No sign of actually being historically valid. Delete Shimgray 16:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the name even fits into Nahuatl spelling rules. Delete Stlemur 17:14, 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 speedy - vandalism/hox. Dunc|☺ 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

R.R.J.TOLKHEIM[edit]

Prank, and not a very funny one Outlander 17:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfunny drivel. --Lomedae 17:36, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 02:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cockblock[edit]

Unencyclopedic neologism. not even for wiktionary -- < drini | ∂drini > 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's already in wiktionary.
  • Delete. Has been deleted twice already. [13] - Thatdog 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if it has been twice deleted, then it falls under a speedy delete according to criteria in WP:CSD, perhaps protecting from recreate would help too. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, the previous deletions were speedy and this has not been through VfD before. Therefore it does not qualify for speedy. My bad. - Thatdog 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. - Thatdog 19:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable activity. Kappa 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Activity (or lack of it) may be notable, especially at the time, but the neologism is a dickdef which is already in Wiktionary. WP:ISNOT Wiktionary. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential songs[edit]

Delete: unmaintainable list; not valuable information. JDoorjam 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I guess it has been maintained very well the past 2 years(!). And value is in the eye of the beholder. I say it's encyclopedic. As do the countless past editors. --Lomedae 17:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason to delete actively maintained pages. Trollderella 18:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good list.  Grue  20:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:51, 2005 August 18 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change the rules a little bit to clean it up. --Charron 22:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CanadianCaesar 11:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obscure, yes, but comprehensive and maintianed. -PlainSight 02:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Boy racer. Redwolf24 02:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Boy[edit]

Delete: Wiki is not a dictionary, nor is it urban dictionary.com . (Keep an eye out for the slang red links this page has in it, too, in case they come back for those. JDoorjam 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete wikipedia isn't a slang guide. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. (changed voted from delete) merge to boy racer - good spot Liftarn.Alf 16:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into boy racer. // Liftarn 07:14, 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 02:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rock band Legacy[edit]

Non-notable, probably vanity page. Apparently no Google hits at all. Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If they are real keep but if not delete. --Riverofdreams 17:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Wikify[reply]
  • Allmusic turns up a few bands named "Legacy", though I can't tell which, if any, this is supposed to be. There is almost no information on any of them. I'll go with delete, because the title is all wrong, and the content is basically crap too, making nothing really salvageable. It's also impossible to google, as far as I can tell, as "legacy" is way too common of a word mentioned when discussing any sort of band. If someone wants to write an article about this or another "Legacy" band at Legacy (band), they should go ahead, though they should give some indication if why it would meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. -R. fiend 18:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the article doesn't measure up to your standards. I guess if it is a "vanity page" it doesn't measure up to yours Beecham/kwekubo.

Wha?

  • Delete. Even if real, still no indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 19:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No google record of the band members either. Dottore So 20:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:54, 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. Socktastic. Redwolf24 02:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Potterish[edit]

Delete. Non-notable website spam. JDoorjam 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a HUGE fan of this website, and it is really important here in Brasil, It is the most notable website in that area, and they do diserve - as the other important websites of this subejct- a link in winkipedia, How can it be Spam when it does not have any related links about this site on the page???? (anonymously posted by 201.1.98.99) <-- first vote by this user

Keep. Potterish is a very good website about Harry Potter. Updated daily with relevant news about everything related to Harry Potter books and movies. It is not a spam website! (anonymously posted by 201.21.18.239) <-- second vote

Keep. It is not fair these votes for deletion since there are similar websites in Wikipedia. (anonymously posted by 200.17.114.40) <-- third vote

  • Delete as sockpuppet-supported spam, although this is certainly better formatted than most. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable website spam. POV. Highly suspect anonymous votes for. --Lomedae 18:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. Alexa rank about 330,000. I would prefer articles about Mugglenet.com and The Leaky Cauldron.org first, because those have much higher traffic rankings and have received fansite awards from Harry Potter author J.K Rowling. (BTW, I did some formatting right at the moment you were reading it :))- Mgm|(talk) 18:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

KeepMugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron alread have articles... (posted anonymously by 201.1.98.99, again.) <-- fourth vote

Keep. Potterish is the best brazilian website about Harry Potter. There is no spam on the website and I think the brazilian fans deserve a website on their language...not everyone speak english (anonymously posted by 201.12.190.37, first and only edit) <-- fifth vote

  • Keep. Trollderella 18:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: so far this is all delete or abstain votes, some Brazilian sockpuppets, and Trollderella who votes Keep for EVERYTHING. Just so we're keeping track here.JDoorjam 19:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another fansite. -R. fiend 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Fancruft. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft, probably vanity. Martg76 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam, vanity, supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Damn puppets - always a bad sign. --PhilipO 23:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It! if Mugglenet can, why they can't? <-- 6th vote. Quite a sock drawer. JDoorjam 22:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sock puppets where it hurts them most. Alf 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft, not surprisingly supported by sockpuppets. --Etacar11 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: part, and then the entire page just deleted by anon who has voted six times. (Restored by JDoorjam 00:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • And just partly and entirely deleted again, bringing the score for this anon to Votes:6, Vandalism:4. JDoorjam 02:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who knew that sockpuppets were Harry Potter fans too. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you get for letting in HP book articles in before release.Alf 16:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's something about socks that make me reach for my "vote - d" button. Oh, and the website is just one of the 8 billion or so, so is nn as it stands. -Splash 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Splash. Punkmorten 21:07, 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. And note that I am from Washington and I've never heard of this. Also I fear this page may be recreated wih this many socks. Redwolf24 03:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coug it[edit]

  • "Delete It" Considering how shitty the UDub has played the last few years...up to and including last year's "almost defeated season"...I think this reference is innapropriate. It should be "Muttin' it" or something...especially considering how much talent they waste on such mediocre records. And until this thing gets fixed, I'll delete every thing I can on the "Coug It" page until morons from Seattle stop trying to post their idiocy there. PS: You're welcome!
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JDoorjam 18:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article reads more than just a definition. If entry is removed, then all the entries in the Slang category should be removed as well. Jamsong 21:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine by me: please round up any other non-notable slang terms you see and nominate them for deletion. JDoorjam 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See [14]. Initially, your argument was the article was a dictionary term (which it obviously is not), now it's non-notable which is not a reason for deletion. 134.134.136.5 (talk · contribs) 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they should go away as official policy in WP:NOT states:
Wikipedia is not: A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.
Not that they will go away, anyway-- < drini | ∂drini > 02:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Brock badger. Lullabye Muse 23:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is used quite often in the Pacific Northwest and Wikipedia is one of the few free sources of information on the internet where one can research terms such as "Coug It". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.76.91 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Individual articles about each slang term: Out." and "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine." AdroitE 17:06, 18 August 2005 (PST)
    • Vote is user's fourth contribution to Wikipedia.
  • Keep I also agree with Brock badger. duckbutter 18:15, 18 August 2005 (PST)
    • Vote is user's only contribution to Wikipedia to date.
  • Delete nn invented neologism. -Splash 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, neologism is not a valid reason for deletion. Second, this is not a neologism, this term has been in use for many years.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.136.5 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is used more often than it rains in the Pacific Northwest and its usage has a rich hitory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.5.25 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wiktionary....and clean it up.
Let's be honest here: much of the objection is apparenty from WSU alumni and supporters who object to seeing the term publicized. This is not a legitimate reason for striking it from Wiki - you can't wish the term out of existence. Having said that, the entry is more appropriate for Wiktionary; references to "coug it" in Wikipedia should be limited to specific mentions in entries pertaining to Pacific Northwest culture, Pac-10 football, the Apple Cup, the Mike Price/Alabama episode, etc.
Equally importantly (and I say this as a Husky who had Cougs in my wedding party) - it needs to be cleaned up and presented less subjectively; the current definition is clever, but its clear anti-Coug slant is a violation of Wiki's neutrality policy (You might say " Always be a good sport - be a good sport all ways").
Cougs, on Wiki you can edit anything you wish. Some Husky went to a lot of work to create the entry's structure, saving you a lot of work. All you have to do is change it. While you're at it you're welcome to edit Husky-related entries to reflect our own scandals: Don James' oversight of the Tyees, the Rick Neuheisel era, Dr. Feelgood, etc. --Daniel Luechtefeld 12:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is this user's sixth contribution to Wikipedia to date, though they have been contributing since June.
  • I agree with Daniel Luechtefeld's suggestions-- move to Wiktionary, clean up the obvious subjective tilt, and remove several examples which really don't match the description (i.e. Ryan Leaf's failed NFL career does not fit the proposed definition). AdroitE 12:46, 19 August 2005 (PST)
  • I've only ever seen this term used with regard to the Cougs. Merge/Redirect a short paragraph to the Washington State University#Spirit & Traditions section. The Wazzu page probably deserves the same fate... — RJH 15:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm Coug alum and love the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.200.30 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.50.66 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!!!! -- Phrase is used throughout the northwest by both Cougs and Huskies, as well as by a good portion of the general population without an allegiance to either academic institution 21:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Beach
    The preceding comment was actually entered by anon 69.167.26.61 (talk · contribs), see [15] and [16]
  • Keep -- The article has room for improvement, but the term is definitely notable. I've actually heard it much more from Washington State fans than Washington fans. Definitely should be cleaned up, but definitely kept. And I say this as a rabid Cougar. --Matt Yeager 00:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Please review the page history carefully. This Vfd appears to have been subject to blanking vandalism in at least one case along with possible or suspected signature modification, notes, and removal of notes other users added to a vote in at least 2 cases. --Mysidia (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried where possible to point out who is actually voting in each case. The notes are correct at this moment in time. -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could use more of a NPOV on both sides, but it certainly does not deserve deletion. 5:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 192.55.52.1
  • Delete, ignore the sockpuppets, nn term possibly used by Washington State fans, but that doesn't make it even worth moving to Wiktionary. Zoe 09:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - The term is elegant in its simplicity....and truth. It is embraced by by both friends and foes alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.74.134 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This word has been used by many people to define a successfull attempt and moment of triumph. I believe that this entry is an attempt to play a joke on a rival university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.26.220.246 (talk • contribs) 20:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
(That was the preceding user's first ever post)
Are you insane? Have you ever BEEN to a WSU game? Do you know any WSU alums or fans? If so, you should know (or ask someone who does) about "Cougin' it". If not, what in the world are you doing voting on this? --Matt Yeager 05:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a foolish example of how Wikipedia is being used to belittle a higher learning institution. Wiki is being a tool for some UW prankster.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.27.47 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Stop whining. It should be kept because the term really is significant in terms of pacific northwest culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.18.138 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteChildish dig at another college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.40.109 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure why some think this is insulting especially since the term allegedly originated at WSU and is used by many in the northwest & Pac-10.
  • KEEP IT
  • KEEPThere is nothing wrong with having the term on wikipedia.
  • Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP-It is a much-used phrase in the state of Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.80 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it: used by the media and sports fans regardless of slant, it's an oft-used term by more than just "the two sides". You cannot ignore a word or phrase simply because you want to believe that it does not exist.
  • KEEP! Used all over the Northwest by Huskies and Cougars.
  • KEEP Someone who heard this term for the first time can come to Wikipedia and learn what Coug it is and its history. This is definitely worthwhile to keep.
  • Keep It: As mentioned above, very popular in the NW and I have heard it referenced last year in other sports (although I cannot remember where) publications.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 03:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cooged it[edit]

Soon-to-be orphan of "Coug it," above. JDoorjam 18:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete above. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleet it ;-) — RJH 15:13, 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. – Alphax τεχ 04:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Curry Powder Rebellion[edit]

Hoax. Hoax, hoax, hoax, hoax, hoax. Hoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax. Kill it with fire. DS 18:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete tiresome, unfunny fantasy. (replaced VfD notice as well) Sliggy 18:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • REVERTED VANDALISM BY PAGE CREATOR; SUGGEST BLOCKING PAGE CREATOR AS VANDAL
  • Delete Much less funny than "The Great Ink Drought 1902" (Goons) Alf 23:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dehli-eat patent nonsense --Doc (?) 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. --Etacar11 23:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tire of these people who don't realize a VfD won't go away because the tag is deleted. -- WCFrancis 01:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


Deleted +6/0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, August 22, 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 03:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetoelectric induction (Faraday's induction)[edit]

Ugh. Sidam (talk · contribs), also editing as 194.158.222.26 (talk · contribs), 194.158.208.242 (talk · contribs) contributes a number of strange physics article with out-of-date, strangely worded and strangely formatted informations and fails to discuss his changes and new articles. We're doing reverts, redirects and (where a previous VfD exists or its a very clear clase) speedy deletions, but I'll put this article on VfD to make the problem more transparent. --Pjacobi 18:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unnecessary, confusing fork of existing articles covering the subject. --Pjacobi 18:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Pjacobi that this is not a useful addition and seems to have been created solely to circumvent opposition to this material at electromagnetic induction [17]. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please! This is a junky confusing mix of material already well-covered on the already existing articles on this subject Salsb 20:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very nonstandard notation. Half of the equations seem to be wrong, though it's hard to tell with this notation. What is useful duplicates Faraday's law of induction. ManoaChild 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with all above statements. linas 21:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh my eyes! This article is a serious danger to the encyclopedia-going public. -Splash 02:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article seems more comprehensive than Electromagnetic induction. 80.255 21:55, 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 03:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bell[edit]

This guy isn't one of the leading figures in the creation science movement and within science is not more notably than the average college professor. Both pages that link there are about the Tory MP for Bolton East. Dunc|☺ 18:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yet another nobody trying to advance themselves. There needs to be a wiki for resumes or something, but I guess that'd be monster.com...Karmafist 19:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a "Who'sn't Who" wiki that we can allll put our bios on. Until then, Delete. JDoorjam 20:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 20:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should possibly have an article about the MP. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 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.
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 delete. --Coredesat 04:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overrated[edit]

Overrated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is not encyclopedic, it is in fact a vanity page done as an homage to a former guild from World of Warcraft. The guild was banned for exploiting a bug, and a few articles were written about the exploit. Those articles are being used as a justification for the existence of this page even though the articles have little or nothing to say about the guild itself. The only information that might be arguably notable (if you consider the few sources for it) would be the exploit itself, but that would exist in a different article about the exploit specifically. -- Atamasama 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Atamasama has been WP:CANVASsing: [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckaysalisbury (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain how this is WP:CANVASsing. Fangz the Wolf 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(from WP:CANVAS "but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive" (opening section) under "types of canvassing" it "says" that if a message is biased, it is considered disruptive canvassing. Atama's message implied that he needed a force of people to fight against the "fanboys" who will vote to keep it. So he was requesting people to come for a "delete" vote. McKay 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, he didn't purpose the article to be deleted, he just signed it up to be AFD. I purposed it. Fangz the Wolf 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mckay, by what you posted "canvassing" is composed of multiple postings trying to get people to influence the outcome. I posted one request in the WoW main article where a deletion for this page was discussed to let people know that this article was being put up for AfD. Why did I mention fanboys? Because I was informed that the polite request I'd put in to have this article reviewed by an admin was deleted by a former guildmember, and so I expected to have a biased response against the AfD. The irony is that the only multiple postings I've put about this article were on talk pages of people who have worked on this article to give them a chance to defend it out of courtesy. Including your talk page. -- Atamasama 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable group, no real assertions of notbility at ALL. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Somewhat ironic that something named "overrated" is being removed for, well, just that. Subdolous 17:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you call this or this or this? McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- [see below] I'm sure this has been up before. In any case, I am not a WoW player, I hate WoW for stealing all my friends, but this is notable. The guild recieved online coverage for their cheating, and sources are linked at the bottom, as well as copied out on the talk page in case the link goes dead. In accordance with WP:NOTNEWS, a case could be made for renaming this article to Overrated cheating controversy or something, but the article should certainly be kept. J Milburn 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge. As clear from the provided references, the exploit is what is notable - not the guild or group of players that carried it out. The article should either be renamed to reflect the exploit or merged into an appropriate article. --SesameballTalk 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing notable here. Its essentially a vanity page.The guild isn't notable, the exploit is not notable, the members are not notable, nor even the fact that some were banned. Wow members are banned everyday for a variety of reasons including exploiting. Even the exploit itself certainly is not notable even within the specialized realm of exploits, let alone a general encylopedia. If wiki were to have an article about every minor computer exploit, it would resemble a technical journal more so than an encylopedia. I don't even think this is worth a few sentences on the general World of Warcraft page. Dman727 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources. What are your notability criteria? J Milburn 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is the notability criteria.Dman727 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it passes WP:N. If you think it doesn't maybe you should try explaining why you think it doesn't. McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it will help if I point out what part of WP:N would apply here. It states that Wikipedia is concerned with long-term notability. Something that seems notable on a short-term basis is suited better for Wikinews than Wikipedia. This is the criteria for an independent article. In other words, even if you only consider the exploit and not the guild it still lacks enough long-term notability to have its own page, but you might perhaps add the exploit information to a page about online game cheating. -- Atamasama 23:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've still yet to see a notable, encyclopedic article on an online-game guild... and this isn't one either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's interesting how the deleters assume anything about a videogame can't be notable. "Let's delete Fragdolls too!" The topic clearly passes WP:N because it passes WP:N. It's got several independent articles about it. Sure, maybe they're all about one event. If you want, feel free to Rename the article to the event covering the banning. Maybe the article isn't written very well, maybe it needs some cleanup, removing vanity, sure. But there's nothing wrong with the presence of some of this content in Wikipedia. McKay 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article passes WP:N because it passes WP:N?? That is not a valid reasoning. Chris! ct 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I corrected Typo McKay 23:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Fragdolls aren't a WoW guild whose 5 seconds of fame were from getting banned and ending up with a brief mention on 3 gaming news sites. Please, assume good faith, don't start accusing the editors of trying to purge videogame information from Wikipedia when most of us are regular contributors to game pages (World of Warcraft in particular). -- Atamasama 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sutiable for Wikipedia, seems unimportant. Fangz the Wolf 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Overrated banning scandal was barely 15 minutes of fame even in the World of Warcraft, it's certainly not real-world notability suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Stormie 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:N, mostly a unreferenced vanity page. This does not belong in wikipedia. --Fogeltje 12:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Doctorfluffy 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People keep saying things like "Delete per WP:N" and while such arguments should generally be avoided WP:VAGUEWAVE, there are people who have specifically mentioned that it does pass WP:N. I guess it needs to be explained in more detail. From WP:N:
    "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
    • "Presumed": It doesn't fail WP:NOT. No problems with that there. Maybe people are meaning something like this, but then, it wouldn't be a problem with WP:N, it would be a problem with some other guideline (like WP:NOT).
    • "Significant Coverage": Gamespot, softpedia, and WoW insider (aka joystiq) all give significant coverage to the event. Yes, it may just be the event that's notable. I'm admitting that. In such a case a Rename would be necessary.
    • "Reliable" Gamespot and Joystiq are considered excellently-reliable sources in the video game world. WoW insider, even more so in the WoW world. Admittedly, I haven't heard of softpedia, but I think the case is strong without it.
    • "Sources" There are multiple, secondary, high-quality sources
    • "independent" they are all objective, indepdendent sources, with no leaps of analysis.
    Basically, what I'm saying is that if someone says, "Delete, fails WP:N" they'd better have a good reason, because it seems very clear to me that it passes WP:N. McKay 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You completely ignored my explanation above, Mckay. I suggest you read it. Essentially, an article must have long-term notability to justify its existence, all cited news sources for this article were published within 2 days of each other. Allow me to quote from WP:N:

A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

-- Atamasama 07:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Atama, I understand your perspective, but you must understand that the policy says that such events could be notable or not. There's nothing in WP:N that states that the topic isn't notable, but merely that it's possible it isn't notable. You can vote, state an opinion clearly that you think that because it was a short burst, it wasn't notable. Your opinion is valid, Stating "fails WP:N" is not entirely correct. McKay 17:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just my opinion. Take a look at WP:NOT for further discussion:

Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.

There has to be something really special about this subject for it to be worth having its own article despite a lack of long-term notability. Nobody has demonstrated anything but the opposite in this discussion. -- Atamasama 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change my 'vote' to delete. I'm convinced- there is no lasting notability, as far as I can see. Unless someone can find a mention of the guild from either before or a fair while after the banning, then this should go as having no lasting notability. J Milburn 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 03:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enoround[edit]

Delte Advert for a little known product. (30 unique google hits). Icelight 18:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BorgQueen 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 20:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And here I was hoping that this was about a section of a quiz devoted to ambient music. Grutness...wha? 01:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by FCYTravis for Nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikiPoliceman/WPPD[edit]

Inappropriate attempt by a new user to make others think he has some sort of official capacity. Disrupting Wikipedia with a role account. Zoe 19:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nominator, impersonating a police officer is a felony, even in cyberspace --Outlander 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Someone might think this is actual Wikipedia policy or enforcement - Tεxτurε 19:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I completely agree with the arguments here, has anyone simply asked the user to change the page? That'd be a lot easier, methinks. JDoorjam 20:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing the page content wouldn't change the user name, which in itself could be misused --Outlander 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a harmless user page. No one with any intelligence is going to take him seriously. Gateman1997 20:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've issued an infinite block on the user per the Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames policy - "names that serve to confuse readers." Clearly, this is a trollish/WP:POINT-violating username. FCYTravis 20:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Page appears to have been deleted. -- Visviva 12:56, 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 03:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unborn Media Inc.[edit]

Ad-linkspam By their own admission, a new company with not much history Outlander 19:19, 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 03:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SuSELinuxSupport[edit]

wikipedia is not a webhost space provider -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:32, 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 03:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Lover[edit]

fanfic --Doc (?) 19:45, 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 03:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Blonde[edit]

More band vanity - nice website though --Doc (?) 20:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. In time this band may become noteworthy, and I emphasize may, nevertheless their only claim to fame seems to be on a grassroots marketing campaign via myspace.com. Also the article itself reads like an ad. I agree, they do have a nice website though. --Dysepsion 22:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely delete. Typical Non-notable band vanity. Is that tag coming anytime soon, people? JDoorjam 22:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The film of the same name is more famous. Alf 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good luck to them, but nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by CJCurrie for patent nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNDP[edit]

Alleged group in Saskatchewan, opposing the province's NDP government. Evidence of its existence dubious at best. The "group" (or someone claiming membership) operates a website called "nondp". A similar website surfaced in 1999, and was accused of forgery by the opposition Saskatchewan Party (click here for the cached story). CJCurrie 20:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It claims to hold meetings in secret and not release names of members. What proof is there that it it exists? Ground Zero 20:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is almost certainly a hoax. Dottore So 20:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A simple whois lookup reveals who owns (and probably operates) the nondp.com domain. Mindmatrix 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see a name on the whois listing. I know I'm dim, but what does seeing the name tell me? I vote Delete anyway as this looks like a hoax or some weird unverifiable POV allegation. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, on its own. However, a judicious google search may turn up interesting links, given that info; let's see - nah, only a link to a tripod page, a tblog page, and some of his writing. He seems to like black. About the nondp.com site, he states: "A Saskatchewan politics site that I contribute to here and there." So there ya go. Mindmatrix 23:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Spinboy 22:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense. Homey 00:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have consensus. Speedied. CJCurrie 00:27, 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 speedily deleted - it's a twofer, CSD A6 and A7. FCYTravis 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gutierrez[edit]

Bordering on a speedy for being an odd combination of a vanity/attack page. Joyous (talk) 20:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - A defamation attempt. BorgQueen 20:44, 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 Delete. Redwolf24 03:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Hyperstrike[edit]

Delete nn forum/clancruft. A group of people recording video games. TheMidnighters 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of "Team Hyperstrike" returns 0 results and the forum only has 14 registered users. --TheMidnighters 22:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do not delete, this is a producton studio, and the article details the history and workings of said studio. It does not endorse a clan, a forum, nor does it contain bias shedding a fair nor poor light on the studio. It only gives descriptions of members, movies, and projects that the studio puts forth. ---This wiki is about a studio just formed within the past two weeks, so therefore, predetermining that this is an unreasonable entry when the studio and its users (myself included) are relatively new in scheme and new to Wiki, is an unfair judgement. The two users defending its relevance are both users to Wiki who registered today to create an article about our studio. The forum has 14 users, but the users have grown in size recently. In just three days, the forum grew to its present size. Going into the future, a reference guide to the history of our studio would be helpful to new members. While it is sure that a giant number of users wont access this information, niether will many people reference what the national bird of Andorra is either. This article clearly does not endorse, advertise, or promote the studio, it is an article doing exactly what an encyclopedic article should, explains an organization with a NPOV and in an informative way. And the remark about a certain 'xCRAZ3SN1P3Rx' is irrelevant, that has no bearing on this article's delete status. Coldradio 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned vote and blanking of VFD page by Coldradio. Fixed by FCYTravis)[reply]
User's only edits are at Team Hyperstrike and here. --TheMidnighters 22:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Do not delete because this is unbiased and is only a documentation of a movie studio. SkiBumRacer6
User has 3 edits, all of them here. --TheMidnighters 22:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Team Hyperstrike does have xCRAZ3SAN1P3Rx as a member. NN Master-Chiefcruft. Delete. JDoorjam 22:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. / Alarm 22:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --PhilipO 23:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. ) Coldradio 17:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- this entry doesnt present any negative for Wiki, it doesnt show that wiki is accepting clan information, it isnt a misuse, it just provides information on a group of people making movies in a virgin and underused medium. Tiburon78 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User has two edits, both here. --Etacar11 05:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. Martg76 03:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.)clarification by Coldradio 17:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • You guys... lol. Points for effort and a dizzlete vote for vanity. FCYTravis 18:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional) Coldradio 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KVH_Industries[edit]

This and linked pages seem to be advertising material, in many cases with wholly inappropriate titles (e.g. RV page consisting only of a list of KVH aerial products with marketing description). Another editor's Cleanup tag was removed by page author without any discussion. Redgrittybrick 22:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article definitely needs some cleanup but this is a valid NASDAQ-listed company and most of the information is factual, not "advertising". The listing of products is perhaps over done, but it is an editing job, not a reason to delete. -- DS1953 22:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is pure advertisement. It may be a real company with many facts in the article, but we delete adverts here. Nuking the article so that someone can start over is a totally acceptable option. The removal of the cleanup tag points even further toward a delete. Tempshill 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nasdq listing kind of says it all. The article needs a good rewrite/cleanup. Cleanup tag is back in. If someone removes it without doing the needed cleanup, maybe they need to be blocked? Vegaswikian 06:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has been significantly revised since I inserted the VfD. Whilst it could probably do with more work (POV), I now don't feel it needs to be deleted. Redgrittybrick 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep, Cleanup. Redwolf24 03:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Wilde[edit]

This guy may well be notable, but as currently written the article is blatently promotional. Ther are lots of google hits. the first few all seem to be self-promotional. I havn't found any sources for an NPOV re-write in a quick search. Delete unless drastically rewritten DES (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. Has written 17 books. However, when the article states "Some call him an urban mystic. Some call him a visionary." I am tempted to add "some call him Maurice cause of the properties of love". Capitalistroadster 02:04, 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 03:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smiley[edit]

Apparent vanity stub Boxclocke 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vanity. I vfd'd his claim to notability too. Flowerparty talk 21:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. No google hits for his name + missionary or +Blagadoush. --Etacar11 00:30, 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 03:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blagadoush[edit]

Seems to be a neologism. Delete, unless verified. Flowerparty talk 21:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge information here with Baba ganoush, perhaps? Boxclocke 21:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that would seem sensible if the information was verifiable, but it doesn't appear to be. Blagadoush gets nothing from Google. Unless it's a genuine term it's not even worth a redirect. Flowerparty talk 22:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE I order blagadoush every week at Ali Baba's on Macdougal Street in NYC. This is definitely a word. If you don't believe it you can go to the restaurant to see for yourself. As for Michael Smiley, I cannot say whether or not he has anything to do with the discovery of the word. I do know that the description of the food is on point though. *****SAVE!!!****

I don't know who the Smiley fella is, but I'll also atteest to the veracity of the word. My best friend is Ethiopian and personally told the owner of Ali Baba's on Macdougal to list "Blagadoush" next to the Babaganoush entry on the Main Menu at the restaurant. I don't know why so many people are incensed by this though, it's not really a big deal, but most NYU students invoke the new term now too....Thanks.

  • Strong delete Not a single hit on Google. --PhilipO 23:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it even smelled of being verifiable (and catching a plane to New York to check out Ali Baba's is a bit of a stretch for me to verify <grin>), I'd vote to merge to Baba ganoush, but without a source, that's asking to add non-verifiable info to another article. -Satori 23:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/unverified. Never heard of it and I'm an NYU student, but only part-time... ;) --Etacar11 00:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You know, it just dawned on me... how exactly does one "discover" a word that is already in use? I suppose in the same way that Columbus fellow "discovered" America (rolleyes). Boxclocke 03:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The thing is, we're not here to "discover" anything. That would be orginal research. See Wikipedia:No original research, our policy on that topic. To be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be verifiable. If the word comes into common usage, a google search should show results. And yes, just as that silly European "discovered" a place that other people had live in for millenia, Wikipedia only includes topics that are already known. An encyclopedia collects knowledge, it doesn't produce knowledge. That difference is the essence of the no original research policy. -Satori 23:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


well as an impartial observer i think it's safe to say that blagadoush should remain or be merged with baba ganoush. the evidence has spoken for itself. (Unsigned comment by 216.189.188.67 (talk · contribs), fifth edit)

What evidence?? No it hasn't!! Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth billiards club[edit]

Non-notable college club. A billiards club at a single college. No doubt intersting to those involved, and maybe to those on campus. not encyclopedic. DES (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dartmouth lists numerous organizations of theirs on their website; I'll put it into the discussion over there to see whether they want to incorporate it. (I doubt it.) Otherwise, delete. JDoorjam 22:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect after boiling down to a short paragraph. Welcome back, Big Green... please ask your classmates to have a look at User:Dpbsmith/Dartmouth.
  • Comment: VfD discussants, this is very likely a product of Peter C. Wayner's class project, which last year netted some 500-600 decent articles and about fifty that ended up on VfD. Most of the latter ultimatedly ended up being merged into Dartmouth College. This year's assignment is due tomorrow, and we will probably see a few articles on trivial aspects of Dartmouth student life. I hope everyone will be courteous to our guests. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:37, 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 03:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas_In_The_Desert[edit]

Film not notable. Google search returns very limited info. IMDB has not a single review. Format of article suggestive of possible copyvio. Contents of article not focused on fact. David Henderson 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Soltak 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Nicholas Zedd's astrological relevance not withstanding. JDoorjam 22:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is a documentary by that name from 1994, but it has nothing to do with this nonsense, which I can't make sense of. --Etacar11 00:39, 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 03:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Potato (Game)[edit]

This is a game invented by the Milton Bradley Company, but I don't see it as something encyclopedic. There are some Google hits, but I don't think it's worth mentioning on Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, of course, you're right. Delete. Why are you dragging Milton Bradley into it, though? DS 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is it even a MB game? Mr. Potato Head is MB, but I didn't find any hits that refered to what this article describes. I don't think we even meet the WP:V test, here. -Satori 23:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how this has anything to do with MB. There is nothing in this game to sell, it's just trying to get someone to say the word "potato". Also, I doubt this line is valid "This strategy was first used by Alfonso Gracia-Saz back in the year 1012". --Aqua 00:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund Hardy[edit]

No google hits on Sigmund Hardy or Riparian State of the Colorado. This is either a vanity article, a hoax, or both. Soltak 22:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity --Dysepsion 22:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity. Nandesuka 22:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Jaxl | talk 00:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity with yearbook picture. --Etacar11 00:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. I personally think likely hoax. www.anywho.com does not know of anyone named Sigmund Hardy in either California or Arizona. I do get exactly one Google hit on "Sigmund Hardy" but the circumstances are very odd. My preferences are set to search any language." I get a hit at a Dutch-language literature site, http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/lic/autor.asp?paras=/lg;1/aut_id;3443/. "Sigmund Hardy" does not show up visibly on the page, but it is hidden in the source text where it forms part of a popup menu. It is a list of separate items, but Google picks it up as "Thomas Carpenter, Edward Forster, EM Freud, Sigmund Hardy, Thomas Joyce". Get it? Forster, EM; Freud, Sigmund; Hardy, Thomas... I can't quite imagine anyone running across this by accident and using it as inspiration for a hoax, though. Anyway "Sigmund Hardy" will be a good Googlewhacking search item, at least until Google indexes the VfD article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 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 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Edappallath[edit]

Non notable. Google turns up only one result Dysepsion 22:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As above. --PhilipO 23:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity that really isn't very clear. From google, I'm guessing he works for a pharmaceutical company? --Etacar11 00:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although from the first few lines, I wonder if there might be someone notable lurking here. This is the trouble with an encyclopedia built on Google. If someone finds something, prod me on my talk page. -Splash 03:04, 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 03:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Independent advocacy[edit]

The page appears to be original research. Additionally, it offers advice and makes POV suggestions. Chairboy 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is interesting. What's your definition of independent research? This is based on well established work, which thousands of people around the world are engaged in, and it most of it is written in a style typical of the field. There has been a request for an article on this subject (see the advocacy discussion page), and I am employed as an expert. The last two sections are slightly speculative, but I have informed the independent advocacy community about my post and it would be good if the experts could make these sorts of decisions and tidy the article up.

  • Therefore I have to say Keep Visctrix 22:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The valid criticism would be of original research not "Independent Research". I think that "Independent advocacy" is a Scottish term and not the term used to describe the same thing in other English speaking parts of the world. Hyacinth 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have published original research under this definition in an advocacy magazine published in London as well as other places. This article is not original research. Most of it is copied directly from published information that has been produced out of a consensus of the eight advocacy projects I support. These include branches of national organisations including Mencap, Barnardo's and Age Concern. I am also a committee member of the (English) National Advocacy Network and I know this article fits closely with common practice across England and Wales as well as Scotland. They also have this sort of advocacy in Scotland, where it became a statutory requirement for each local authority to commission independent advocacy schemes in 2001 - hence the references published by the Scottish Executive in the same year. This is despite the potential confusion with, and in addition to, the Scottish solicitor-advocates you find in every town. Visctrix 23:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does the statement above that Most of it is copied directly from published information make this a copyvio? In other words, was the "published information" available under GFDL? Tonywalton  | Talk 00:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the fact that my organisation published the information save me from this, or does it place me back in the error of original research? Visctrix 00:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with OR. Copyright violation (copyvio) depends upon the criteria under which the informaton was published. If your organisation claims copyright (and this is independent even of whether you put the information there in the first place - even if you did so personally you did so under the copyright of that organisation) and you have copied that information elsewhere you are in breach of that copyright, unless the copyright holder has specifically authorised such release . I would advise you to see [19] and be aware that anything on Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, so effectively if you put anything on WP you are stating that the copyright holder is willing to license the material freely. For what it's worth I'd vote 'keep' for your article, though with some NPOV cleanup, but if it's violating someone's copyright it has to go. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are the original author, or one of the original authors, copying from your own publication with authority to release this under the GFDL, it is not a copyvio. It would help to cite the sources where this work and similer work was published in the article, see Wikipedia:Cite Sources and Wikipedia:Inline Citation. If the info was originally published in reputable primary publications it is not original research in the wikipedia sense. Such a citation would help significantly, IMO. No Vote pending provision of citations. DES (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I'm concerned that the author stated "my organisation published...", which might well make it not his own publication Tonywalton  | Talk
On re-reading, he also states "I have published...in an advocacy magazine". Again, if any of the material in the WP article was copied from there, is this breaching the copyright of that magazine? Tonywalton  | Talk
All of which is why I said If he is "copying from your own publication with authority to release this..." then it was ok, as to a magazine it denpends what their deal is, but most only buy "1st serial" rights from authors, the author retains the copyright and the right to publishe elsewhere, possibly after a stated delay. We need more info from the submitter here. DES (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern, and the concern of my employers, is that I support independent advocacy, which includes making our work accessible for people to use. Hence this contribution to Wikipedia. There are no copywrite issues with any of the material here, and certainly not if the article is left online as it's free distribution will be guaranteed. Visctrix 21:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
VfD issues aside, copyright is a bit more complicated than that. The original owner of the text must release it to the open license, and you realize that it will not stay intact, right? The text will be edited by others, extensively. This does not change the fact that this article appears to be non-encyclopedic and would require an extreme rewrite. - Chairboy 22:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there appears to be little clarity about the copyright status of this, and per Chairboy (and come to that, myself) this needs POV editing that doesn't seem to be forthcoming from the author, I vote Delete. Visctrix, it might be good if you could sort out:
    • The potential copyright issues (and "we're putting it on here so a lot of people will see it and it can be redistributed" is not enough, as Chairboy says)
    • The POV aspects of the article - that's "Point Of View" - articles on here should be NPOV; "Neutral Point of View", not, to coin a phrase, advocating a POV. Your statement that "I support independent advocacy" above says that your article is placed in a spirit of advocating a POV (once again, pun unintended). Wikipedia specifically prohibits such advocacy. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm doing my best, and I've just deleted the final section before the references which I admit was somewhat speculative. I have asked members of the advocacy community to contribute to this debate and to the article, but clearly this hasn't happened yet.
    • I'm a bit confused as to what you think is POV in the article. There was one place in the deleted section that said 'in my experience' but that is all I can see. I'm left wondering if you think that the initial sections, which are carefully written to be understandable by people with little literacy and are therefore in the second person, count as POV. Can you give me any more specific pointers?
    • I've read Wikipedia:Copyrights and I can't see anything on that page, nor am I aware of any other reason, why any of the text of the article may constitute a copyright infringement.
    • This subject is very topical in the UK. Two major pieces of legislation have just been passed that will extend the importance of advocates (see Talk:Independent advocacy) and I have provided links to three national advocacy organisations and networks as well as to publications of the Scottish Executive. I can provide more links later on in the week. Historically there have been advocacy organisations working in the UK for 20 years, and in the US and Germany even further back. The UK Government seems to have problems with the lack of clarity surrounding advocacy work in a similar way to the people calling for this page to be deleted - but the thousands of people who benefit each year from working with advocates have no such qualms. I am very surprised and disappointed, as a new contributor to Wikipedia, that my work, in good faith, on a subject of such significance, could simply be deleted after 5 days. I'm certainly happy to continue working on this article, and others, but I need more time for this, and I think there are issues that need more debate. Visctrix 23:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Riparian State of the Colorado[edit]

No google hits on Sigmund Hardy or Riparian State of the Colorado. This is likely a ploy to back up the Sigmund Hardy article. Soltak 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 03:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGroupware.org[edit]

Not popular enough to justify an article (issues of verification) 160k Alexa ranking.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete poor Alexa rank, no Googles other than itself, so nn. -Splash 03:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a major open source competitor to Microsoft Exchange. It certainly could use some work, but VfD isn't cleanup. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 07:23:25 Z
  • Keep. Had nagging suspicion that I had heard of these people before, went to look, seems like they have been around for a while. And they aren't exactly vaporware either, so there's a chance the article could be significantly expanded in future. --Wwwwolf 11:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult sponsors[edit]

This is just a list of companies that sponsored a few English football clubs about 15 years ago, and is thus useless. Aside from this, the word "cult" is ill-defined and the list is subjective. Rje 22:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I was going to nominate this, but you beat me to it. - ulayiti (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; pointless. Jaxl | talk 00:05, 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 03:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two Good Arms[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Wikisource? DS 22:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikisource. Likely in the public domain now - who would have renewed the copyright? -- BD2412 talk 00:31, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 03:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saniel Bonder[edit]

Not notable. Richard W.M. Jones 23:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a borderline A7 speedy. -Splash 03:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Certainly to be expanded. Bonder is/was a longtime devotee of Adi Da Samraj, and I would like to see more info on him, not have the article gone ! Intersofia 05:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Note: simple Google of "saniel bonder" yields over 1000 hits[reply]
As was pointed out on the talk page, this guy is very good at self-promotion, but this article is still not notable. I get far more hits on Google than this person, but I'm definitely not a candidate for a Wikipedia article. Richard W.M. Jones 09:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the article not notable, or are you saying that Saniel Bonder is not notable ? If the article seems a little light, it is. It's a stub. That's what stubs are. They need further information, etc. But clipping them because they are small is IMHO not the way to go. I have taken note of Bonder a while back, and think it's great that someone commenced an article on him. I hope that the existence of the stub will invite more people who know about him to contribute. I invite you to take note of him so your point of view becomes that he is notable.
  • Keep, of course. Published author noted by bestselling authors Deepak Chopra and Ken Wilber. Controversial enough for his sixth google hit to be entitled "Saniel Bonder: Deluded And Brainwashed Scribe For The Great Da" Formerly Adi Da's official biographer, now apostate. Richard W.M. Jones' fame or lack thereof is irrelevant. --goethean ॐ 14:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 03:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre Uprising[edit]

  • Delete this nonnotable webcomic article. Alexa rank for this comic is 976,990 -- far short of the 200,000 suggested by WP:COMIC. Article also appears to be advertising/vanity. Comic is created by "Razlo," and the article is heavily editted by Razlo. Dragonfiend 23:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems nn. Punkmorten 21:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While clearly a stub in need of expansion, the comic meets all three of the Alternate Proposal WikiProject Webcomics Notability and Inclusion Guidelines: it has been running weekly since 2002, has 182 strips, and the edits by Razlo have consisted entirely of minor clarifications. - Matthew0028 19:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Matt said. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:03, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 03:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entertain-Dome[edit]

  • Delete this nonnotable webcomic article. Alexa rank for this comic is 3,724,060 -- far, far short of the 200,000 suggested by WP:COMIC. Article also appears to be advertising/vanity. Comic is created by "Razlo," and the article is heavily editted by Razlo. Dragonfiend 23:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems nn. Punkmorten 21:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While clearly a stub in need of expansion, the comic meets all three of the Alternate Proposal WikiProject Webcomics Notability and Inclusion Guidelines: it has been running weekly since 2002, has 219 strips, and the edit by Razlo have consisted entirely of minor clarifications (he moved a wikilink and added an image of the comic). - Matthew0028 19:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What Matt said. Also, I have made some minor improvements. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:08, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sasaki[edit]

Probable non-notable illustrator. I can't read Japanese so my Google searching is limited, but I don't see any Google mentions of this person at all, which would be odd for a popular manga artist of today. Tempshill 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. Can someone fluent in Japanese substantiate this? Hall Monitor 23:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a variety of her works are available at amazon.co.jp [20] Kappa 23:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa. -- BD2412 talk 00:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Kappa; I'll vote keep on my own submission. Tempshill 00:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added link to substantial article on Japanese Wikipedia. Fg2 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep did you try googling on the kanji also (they can be copied and pasted)? --TimPope 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think it should be Akira Sasaki rather than Ryo Sasaki, then we get lots of google hits under the English version. --TimPope 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coq Roq[edit]

non-notable viral marketing spam. JDoorjam 23:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do worry that describing specific viral marketing campaigns is exactly the same as participating in them. Anyway, not notable Sliggy 23:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete made the news today because Slipknot is sueing them (BK) or something like that. But I'm not sure it is really notable. Most of this kind of thing is quickly forgotten. --Etacar11 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to suppose that this viral campaign is any more interesting than any other. -Splash 03:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the article because I thought it was notable, and you know, Subservient Chicken has its own page as well. Maybe merge it, since they're both based on the BK chicken character? --WikiFan04Talk 2:58, 19 Aug 2005 (CDT)
    • Then why did you nominate Subervient Chicken for deletion? Are you trying to make a POINT? -- JamesTeterenko 17:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coq Roq appears poised to be a breakout campaign in the tradition of a "Where's the Beef?" Blah blah blah Not A Crystal Ball but hey, I think it's funny. Needs more work, though. -HX
  • Delete. Importance not established. -- JamesTeterenko 17:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding Content. I found this page lacking content and I am adding to it and cleaning it up. --Klander Brigade 15:28 19 August 2005 (EST)
  • Delete. No constructive purpose, uninteresting and, as an above user said, lacks Importance. D-Katana
  • Keep Diggit. SchmuckyTheCat 05:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the point of deleting this article? Stoph 00:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, James, I put Subservient Chicken on VfD because I don't believe it is NOTABLE! And Stoph, I agree with you. WikiFan04Talk 2:49, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • Keep I'm researching the behaviour of online brands and most of the information I can find on this is within paid for marketing journals - surely the point of wiki is to get this information to everyone? (Unsigned vote by 82.45.254.131 (talk · contribs), third edit)
  • Keep I don't understand how major, semi-innovative national marketing campaigns of multi-billion dollar corporations aren't notable. RADICALBENDER★ 19:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Those new chicken fingers are tasty. --Boycottthecaf 23:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I mean, yeah, okay, it's notable, barely, but I get the feeling that we'd be better off merging this article with Subservient Chicken and other examples of viral marketing. --T-Boy 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Not notable! Are you kidding me?!?! This is part of a nation wide ad campaign! Most people have heard about Coq Roq, especially since the law suit. Its just as important as any of the other fictional band articles on Wikipedia.--The_stuart 14:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I've seen and didn't know what it was about, then came across it from a link on List of YTMND fads, because of the article, I know now about Burger King getting sued, which I didn't know until I read this article.. --Saint-Paddy 03:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 01:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph checkler[edit]

Non-notable blogger. 98 Google mentions. BTW, submitter didn't care enough about the article to capitalize his last name. Tempshill 23:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't assume the worst of submitters. Perhaps they were trying to look him up, didn't find him, and insteaed they were invited to create an article at that title. Kappa 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've done a search, and found that he's written articles that have moved the markets as much as 15% - factiva "Amazon Building Its Own Audio Book Download Store" - Audible's stock went down 13% on that news. I don't know, I think it stays. Besides, this Rowan place could use some more notable alums! :)

- Got 215 Google hits, plus many more when I search "Joe Checkler," seems to have covered some big matches during the 2003 and 2004 U.S. Open tennis tourneys. Ha ha on the Rowan comment, I'm from Jersey and we're the only ones that have heard of it. Not a deletable entry, in my opinion. Maybe I'm partial 'cause I'm from Jersey.

  • OK I can vote keep because covering big matches for usopen.org [21] makes him a legitimate journalist. Kappa 14:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well after the info above. I was staying out of it til then since I could be seen as biased. :P  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:54, 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 04:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasticle[edit]

Neologism, more-or-less self-admitted: credited to "Jon Scarborough, Stefan Schaefer, and Terry White of St. Petersburg, Florida," who are not otherwise identified. No evidence of real use. Not in American Heritage dictionary. No Google hits on "fantasticle testis", none on "fantasticle scrotum", two on "fantasticle testicle" (one being a reply to another in the same online forum." 509 hits on "fantasticle," but inspection of the first hundred shows that it is being used merely as an frivolous intensification of "fantastic" or a misspelling of "fantastical" (as in Macbeth, "My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical...") Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C
    • I don't think it's a valid CSD. On what criterion could it be speedied? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Kappa 23:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism; doesn't seem to meet speedy criteria, though. Jaxl | talk 00:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Prattle. -- BD2412 talk 00:15, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a load of old 'fantasticles'. Alf 14:30, 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 04:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hipster PDA[edit]

Silly; non-notable Tempshill 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Obvious joke. -- BD2412 talk 00:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be a joke, but "Hipster PDA" gives 31,900 hits on Google. Notable as Internet meme? Punkmorten 21:00, 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 04:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So Fweet[edit]

Band vanity. The article itself states that the band is not notable. 7 Google hits. - ulayiti (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was once in a band that wrote five songs, and I know I don't deserve an article. -- BD2412 talk 00:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet the notability guideline at WP:MUSIC. Tempshill 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "not famous" says it all. --Etacar11 00:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • once again, what's the holdup implementing {{nn-bv}} as a tag? JDoorjam 01:56, 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 04:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Razlo[edit]

Delete this article about non-notable artist Razlo, creator of non-notable comics Entertain-Dome and Bizarre Uprising. Bizarre Uprising has Alexa ranking of 976,990. Entertain-Dome has Alexa ranking of 3,724,060. Article on Razlo is editedby, of course, Razlo. Dragonfiend 00:03, 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 Move to Erdini Qoigyijabu. Redwolf24 00:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erdini Qoigyijabu, 11th Panchen Lama[edit]

Page is mainland Chinese propaganda. Tibet chose someone else as the 11th Panchen Lama, this guy was chosen by communist China.--Biff Dong 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy DeleteAs explained above. Having this guy named the 11th Panchen Lama is incorrect and misleading.--Biff Dong 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After reading DS's comments, I would like to change my vote to Merge into Panchen Lama. I don't think he is deserving of a whole page just because mainland China doesn't like the other Panchen and decided to name their own. --Biff Dong 01:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Biff is referring to my comments on his talk page, where I pointed out that even distasteful topics such as government-imposed false lamas can be quite encyclopedic. DS 13:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and remove propaganda. The fact that he is being promoted as the fake lama is notable. We have a page for several pretenders, Lady Jane Grey was a pretender too. The argument for deletion here is based on a controversy that is itself notable and this guy is one of the major figures in it. If I see his name in a newspaper article I want to know he is the fake.--Gorgonzilla 00:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page title itself is propaganda--Biff Dong 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Who is that?--Biff Dong 00:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DS. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be similar to some antipopes of 12th and 15th century where we will not find out the truth until later. Panchen Lama needs to mention both. --Henrygb 00:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per DS. --Mairi 01:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DS. -Splash 02:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per DS. Shantavira 11:52, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 04:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2.5'[edit]

First of all, the article is misnamed. Also, the information has been merged into Hard disk and External hard drive which I believe to be a much better place for it. The article's name doesn't serve as a useful redirect, so I see no reason for it to exist. Aqua 23:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - noticing the policy on merging and deleting... the external hard drive part wasn't a merge in any way, I wrote that before I'd ever heard of this 2.5' article. That was just a coincidence. The article did prompt me to add the part about differnt sizes of hard drives to hard disk, but I already had that knowledge, so I don't think that quite counts as merging. --Aqua 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we can't have an article on each possible measurement of each possible thing in the universe. The article on 2.5" could also say ... insert joke here. Tempshill 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nobody is going to look for "disk drive" under the title 2.5' (or 2.5", for that matter). The content is easily reproduced, and probably exists elsewhere anyway. ManoaChild 02:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (just voting so that there a few votes, really). -Splash 03:09, 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 04:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Finger Theories[edit]

This page is mostly copied and pasted from Salad Fingers. The author asks that it's a work in progress and to please leave the page as it is. Actually this is inappropriate; in-progress pages could be created as user sub-pages if absolutely needed, but works-in-progress that are a total mess should not be article pages yet. In the meantime, this page should be deleted. Secondly, the concept of an article on the themes of a 6-episode Flash cartoon does not need a separate article and the content, if any is developed, should be merged into Salad Fingers. Tempshill 00:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any new material into Salad Fingers, perhaps in a new cat., and zap this page. Boxclocke 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just went back and re-read the page. Changing this to a delete vote. Hope that's all good and well. Boxclocke 03:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At least in my opinion, Wikipedia is not the place for articles that show isolated theories. It's not the place for personal conclusions. It's an encyclopedia. I don't think this should stay here.--Kaonashi 01:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Salad Fingers. It would make an excellent section, but the whole Salad Fingers universe IMO does not warrant any more space than the one wikipedia page. --Billpg 09:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I'd like to see how the current discussion concludes first. I withdraw my vote, if I can. --Billpg 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Salad Fingers and clean-up content. Showing the main themes of a work can only enhance the article, although any actual debate (i.e. content which is not obvious or concrete) should be moved to the Talk Page of the Salad Fingers article itself.
  • Merge. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Return to subroutine ASS68000[edit]

Article about assembly language instructions that do nothing particularly interesting. Subroutine already discusses hardware implementation in general.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need to list every instruction in the instruction set of every processor in existance. This is way too specialized. ManoaChild 01:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's linked from the RTS page, so a one-line summary could be inserted there and then delete. — RJH 14:56, 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 04:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mansion.com[edit]

Not popular sports betting site (Alexa 100k), can only serve as an advertisement. lots of issues | leave me a message 01:37, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Pharos. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Balzer[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_18&oldid=1081091613"