Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

Purge server cache

August 20[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dot Pilot[edit]

Dicdef with no hope of further expansion. Denni☯ 00:19, 2005 August 20 (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 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherwood Online[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Francs2000 | Talk 00:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What's up with the quotes? Thatdog 01:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(Quotes now fixed)
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Christy747 07:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. The Examiner is allowed so why not this? -- RHaworth 17:05:41, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:N, WP:V.—Encephalon | ζ  17:54:53, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
    • Why do you consider this unverifyable? An external link is given. -- RHaworth 12:07:54, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
      • I do not, RHaworth; you are quite right to point out that the existence of Leatherwood Online does seem to be verifiable. However, simply because the existence of something is verifiable does not mean it deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. The concept of notability is often used to determine "encyclopedia-worthiness" on WP; as you can see from the WP:N page, this concept as understood on WP derives a lot from WP:V. Something, such as a newspaper, that is truly notable will likely have multiple secondary sources which an editor wishing to write a scholarly article on the subject may reference. No secondary sources, or a small number of poor quality ones, is a very strong indicator of non-notability. This is not a trivial point, for it lies at the heart of what we all do (or are trying to do) at WP: write articles for an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia article cannot be written without good secondary sources (and at WP that is an absolute requirement, for primary research is forbidden). Let's take an example. If you wanted to write an article on the New York Times, you will have at your disposal thousands of secondary sources of all kinds, including best-selling books, scholarly articles, monographs, journalism and media studies dissertations, documentaries, editorial commentary, even websites. The Times is a highly notable subject that has been the focus of an immense amount of primary research; hence the great number of secondary sources. Now, I've used the Times as a particularly clear example of a notable newspaper, and do not mean to suggest that every article we write must have an equally prodigious number of sources; however, the requirement for at least some good, reputable sources is clear. What are the secondary sources one may use to write an article on Leatherwood Online?—Encephalon | ζ  15:10:08, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Keep - Stoph 00:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 05:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Print publications are notable, that should rub off on their online spin-offs. --DrTorstenHenning 13:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm.. but not all print publications are notable, are they? I could swear I've seen some proposed criteria somewhere... -- Visviva 05:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or failing that merge into Leatherwood, which however does not exist. -- Visviva 05:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Saucy[edit]

vanity, not encyclopedic Wyss 00:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mistress Rhiannon[edit]

Nothing but a copvio on a nonexistant page about a big-breasted whore who considers herself a living incarnate vampire sent here to destroy Earth. Freak. CyborgOrder 01:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how can you have a copyvio of a nonexistent page? Grutness...wha? 01:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The link in the copyvio template is working. Not quite sure what the nominator meant by that. - Thatdog 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with ADHD[edit]

Delete, I suppose this qualifies as original research, or at least is highly interpretive. I'll admit in advance to possible ignorance: maybe these characters have been fictionally diagnosed with ADHD, but I'm sceptical. -Splash 01:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very similar to the 'list of famous people with ADHD' deleted recently - speculative, original research and silly. Petesmiles 01:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above without positive verification. — Lomn | Talk 01:28:27, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Keep Fictional diagnoses are pretty common especially in situation comedies involving children. Some of the claims, although not currently sourced, are at least plausible. I have added the character Justin Cobb, from the movie Thumbsucker, which is verifiable and sourced. If that doesn't convince, I'll add more until you holler "Uncle". --Tony SidawayTalk 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Non encyclopedic | Celcius 02:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although author needs to add reasoning for each entry in the list. Might better fit under article about ADHD, though. Until it becomes a longer list.
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any verifiable content. Pburka 03:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though if the author chooses to come back and document the sources for all of these diagnoses, I will be way less likely to think this is a BS article. JDoorjam 05:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Hamster Sandwich. SchmuckyTheCat 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the verifiable part(s). Kappa 06:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Kappa. Soo 11:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Deleting all but the verifiable leaves this list one person long. Sdedeo 16:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep After removing two entries which I'm pretty sure don't qualify, I'm suspicious of the other characters listed. Wouldn't this be better if moved to "List of fictional characters diagnosed with ADHD"? Leaving it this vague seems like an invitation for extensive POV. As Tony Sidaway pointed out diagnoses are pretty common, but more importantly, they're verifiable. --TheMidnighters 15:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How do we know these guys have ADHD, it's all going to be unverifiable POV guesswork - Hahnchen 15:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are very few (possibly zero?) fictional characters appearing in notable fiction that are explicitly diagnosed as ADHD. What will happen with a list like this, of course, is that armchair psychologists will diagnose fictional characters on their own. Sdedeo 15:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. OK, Tony has convinced me. BUT, I strongly strongly suggest that boilerplate be added in the article to explain that only "in world" diagnoses count (i.e., the character has to be identified within the book as ADHD. By a (in the book) authority.) Sdedeo 02:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whil it may be useful article the name "List of ..." and its current format just invites jokers to insert any crap into it. Such result would be misleading. Article as "ADHD in fiction" with details on every character may be useful, current "list" not. Pavel Vozenilek 18:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Okay, I warned you. I've added two children's books with main characters diagnosed (fictionally, of course! but within the book) with ADHD. This could be a useful list for people interested in the portrayal of psychiatric illnesses and conditions in fiction. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another two. Two books for younger children intended to explain the disorder to them. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added four more which are all documented on Wikipedia and externally. Pburka 20:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is similar to List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum, which recently survived VfD when all speculative characters were removed. Informal diagnoses should be removed as speculation. ManoaChild 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the verifiable parts. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Nandesuka 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which part of the article do you consider original research? Every character in this list is identified as having ADHD by the respective authors or writers. Pburka 23:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. Name an item on that article about which it can be said that the diagnosis of ADHD is original research, and I personally will removed it with great delight--better yet, remove it yourself! And then change your vote to keep, if only because without breaking a sweat I've added nine indisputable characters who within the context of the fictional works were diagnosed as having ADHD. Well some of them were ADHD-diagnosed Jumpy Elephants and whatnot, but that's in the nature of psychiatric literature for children. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not original research unless inclusion requires some element of interpretation, and as such I'd support TheMidnighters' suggesgted name change. Flowerparty talk 23:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need that kind of propaganda on this encyclopedia.Sorry if this becomes a rant. Unsigned vote by Z.Spy (talk • contribs) 2005-08-21 02:33:11 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony Sidaway. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:33:56 Z
  • Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 10:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fictional mental illness. Klonimus 13:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly change this into a category attached to fictional characters noteworthy enough to merit their own article. Caerwine 17:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the page should include only the characters that are actually diagnosed. Superm401 | Talk 23:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the list as it stands now is considerably different than the original list nominated, all but one of the items listed have been removed because they were unverified, and the remaining one has been verified. Many new, verified entries are listed, and there is a header explaining exactly what is being listed (in order to avoid POV and OR). --TheMidnighters 00:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, funny though. Radiant_>|< 09:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep CanadianCaesar 04:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are many similar lists. See Category:Lists of fictional characters. -- Reinyday
  • Strong Keep... that list is really interesting. Voyager640 17:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change the title to "...diagnosed with ADHD." Penelope D 01:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

15c[edit]

Promo, not encyclopedic Wyss 01:07, 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 Speedy deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad0[edit]

Delete judging from the Google hits, Ad0 is the moniker of someone who did some hacking once. Nn.-Splash 01:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End VFD. page was apparently speedy deleted - Stoph 00:40, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn White[edit]

Vanity, seems to have been created by the subject of the article Wyss 01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy if possible --Mysidia (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending verification. He passes the professor test if the claims of pioneering work in radio signals, extrasolar planets, etc are indeed true. - Thatdog 01:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Keep but wikify | Celcius 02:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok by me to keep it, but creating one's own bio on WP violates policy. Technically, it should be deleted until someone else thinks enough of this individual to create an article about him. Wyss 03:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy that requires deletion of autobiography. The strictest WP:AUTO gets is to warn that an autobiographical article will probably be listed on VfD (where it is presumably debated on its own merits). Keep, notable, and slap the author's hand. — mendel ☎ 18:28, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to pass WP:MUSIC. There is no policy to delete pages created by their subjects, although it's not recommended. Kappa 04:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to... Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see what Wikipedia is not). (but as I said, that's the only reason I nominated it... ) Wyss 05:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, obvious vanity. jamesgibbon 10:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems strangely dogmatic to delete an article which would certainly have been kept if the exact same text had been written by someone else. The claims in this article are verifiable and, while I don't agree entirely with the "professor test" (far too US-centric), this guy would seem to easily pass any reasonable test of notability. Soo 12:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nobody complains when Jimbo edits his own article. We need more of this sort of vanity, I say. Flowerparty talk 00:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like the guy is reasonably notable. Crypticfirefly 02:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for vanity. --Agamemnon2 11:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. --DrTorstenHenning 13:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough in either field. Willing to reconsider if anyone bothers to verify anything in this article instead of taking the word of a random person who came by and wrote an article on himself. Gamaliel 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Myle[edit]

This isnt' an article about "Myle" (¿?) but just reposting of Rktect's already deleted content content all over again. See [1] and [2] for evidence. Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep on grounds of False accusation. This page shows the history of the Myle, as it existed prior to the statute Mile with reference to earlier examples of the Greek Milion and Roman Milliare and the revisions to the Milion and Milliare that made it something similar to its predecessors but also different from its descendant the Mile. Unsigned vote by Rktect at 02:29 22 August 2005
  • By the way Rktect is removing Vfd Notices in order to hide them. [3] -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Second False accusation. see below -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
      • Probably the result of an edit conflict, due to someone adding the original {{vfd}} tag while he was in the middle of adding in all those (spurious?) references --Mysidia (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In other words some of you are in such a hurry to delete pages you can't wait for them to be put up before you mark them for deletion -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
        • As a separate and related point all of these pages are being edited with references content and wikification being added, but then reverted by the people voting against them (Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe) to fraudulently give the impression that they are insubstantial. Egil was supposedly to have been constrained from changing them because we entered into mediation on this issue but he has contacted, Ken, Gene and Drini among others to ask them to act as his agents in deleting and reverting these pages. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
The previous are misleading and unsubstantiated claims, as I was never contacted with Egil before my vote casting. I wasn't aware of a mediation existing until Egil dropped me a single message on my talk page long after this controversy had started. -- < drini | ∂drini > 17:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently Rktect has decided to put everything he "knows" into every article he edits, and because those changes are generally reverted on the grounds of relevance, comprehensibility, a deliberate disregard of all the rules of editing, dishonest use of minor edit tag, and various other reasons, to create a few new ones of the same thing just for good measure. Gene Nygaard 02:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gene has systematically removed content, wikification and references from pages, Egil and Ken have marked 27 for deletion since August 5 and Ken is engaged in marking them in groups of up to four at a time so individual pages can't be voted on separately. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
  • Delete; Imcomprehensible evil | Celcius 02:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparent vandalism. MCB 06:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything relevant that remains should be moved to a history section within Mile and Myle should redirect Ian Cairns 09:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect a Myle needs to be discussed both on its own and in relation to the Milion, Milliare and Mile. -- Unsigned comment by RkTect
  • Delete for vandalism. --Agamemnon2 11:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The herd mentality is alarming Rktect 02:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may be some content worth moving into the historical section of Mile, when that article is unprotected (which I don't recommend until this battle has played out in RFC or arbitration (wherever it finally winds up, as I fear it must inevitably do). Of particular interest to me is the 1593 date, when Queen Elizabeth I of England changed the definition of the foot, and added a number of feet to the mile so that it would remain the same absolute size. (Which is what my quick research into the statutes says actually happened. The redefinition of the mile was incidental.) And there may be other content that's worth moving into an article on something like the topic of Pseudoscientific metrology. (Which is a title I hate, BTW.) I don't see any of those moves happening anytime soon, though, and the content is unencyclopedic as presented.
    Myle, by the way, is an archaic spelling of mile. I see nothing to indicate that it was a separate word used for a separate measure. Ken talk|contribs 22:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe that would be a good thing to check out before establishing a POV Ken.Rktect 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, good Lord. I went to the library and checked OED before I wrote that. Is that a good enough reference for you? If I say "I see no evidence..." or "I see nothing to indicate..." it means that I checked, usually multiple sources. Ken talk|contribs 03:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I'm going to be accused of being a member of a cabal, I might as well vote with the rest of the cabal. Delete, more of Rktect's incomprehensible original research. Zoe 23:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • As a group of vandals you are all coming along nicely and probably deserve your own page to give you the credit you deserve for all this good work you have been doing. You could call yourselves the Super Ekgdz wear lots of lyca and strike fear into the hearts of pseudo villians everywhere. Rktect 23:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Drini puts a possible copywrite image tag on an image that has written permission to use it on its main Wikipedia image page Rktect 23:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • In what possible way does that comment have anything to do with this VfD vote? Zoe 20:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, let's see. We have Egil, Ken, Gene, Drini and Zoe working together to destroy Wikipedia content in any way possible, making patently false allegations of original research and throwing around unsubstantiated lables of pseudo science, marking dozens of pages for deletion, then systematically stripping them of their content, removing images, references, tables, repeatedly reverting them to earlier versions so that what is voted on is never the best or latest version of a page, and misusing administrative powers to mark as copywrite infringements quotions from free source sites, or images already registered with wikipedia with written permission for their use. I know that might be standard operating procedure here but that doesn't make it right.Rktect 02:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Although the previous paragraph has nothing to do with the vfd process I want to add a comment (I've post this on some other pages but you keep spreading misinformation):
I'm not an admin. Any user can add copyright notice tags into nonfree resources. No administrative powers being misused. *Once again* Please check your facts before making unsubstantiated claims. And as I've told you before [4]:
If you refer to [5] then the copyvio is not a false statement. It's taken from [6] where it states:
Copyright Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes. Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms.
Obtaining written permission is not fulfilled with copying and pasting that paragraph. It means you need to provide a real paper permission form. And second, after the ruling of Jimbo a few months ago, free for noncommercial and educational is not free enough for wikipedia. Read [7] where it clearly states that noncommercial and "with permission only" MUST be deleted in sight. And you are now also claiming the image is registered with wikipedia which is a nonsense. I won't comment further on that. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A'Marie[edit]

Delete since WP:ISNOT a genealogy, nor should it be a list of names. -Splash 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteHamster Sandwich 02:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yeah, this isn't a baby name book... Christy747 07:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tekana 18:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there an R&B singer called A'Marie or something similar? She did that 'One Thing' song. I can't remember how it's spelled, though. Redirect there. Proto t c 08:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha! Amerie. Redirect to her. It's pronounced 'A-marie'. Proto t c 09:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Definite Baby Book entry Leeannedy 23:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dicdef at best, and a lame one at that. If it's only "most likely" that this name is derived from "Annemarie", how can it be possible to know that the name means "gracious under diversity". Could be a bizarre joke - "gracious under diversity" is nonsense anyway. Adversity, perchance? CLW 09:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin stodola[edit]

Vanity, unencyclopedic, copyvio Wyss 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio if it says which website it's been taken from, it can be taken straight to WP:CP and doens't need to come here. I've tagged it and bagged it. -Splash 01:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; cv | Celcius 02:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:49, 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 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Milliare[edit]

This isnt' an article about "Milliare" (¿?) but just reposting of Rktect's original research and already deleted content content all over again. See [1] and [2] for evidence. Delete -- < drini | ∂drini > 01:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; cv | Celcius 02:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHamster Sandwich 02:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JDoorjam 05:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vandalism. MCB 06:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete latest copy of lengthy (and decidedly messy) treatise on historical metrology. Or transwiki to Wikibooks (if they'll have it). Ken talk|contribs 22:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gene Nygaard 03:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aamu (name)[edit]

Delete, a foreign namedef — we don't collect meanings of names. Is there a viable transwiki? -Splash 01:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Finnish wikipedia doesn't collect meanings of names either. Thatdog 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHamster Sandwich 02:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Non ecyclopedic, Finnish oriented | Celcius 02:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think there should be a place for these name meanings though, especially from non-English countries, because they are quite interesting. But alas, it is not here. Soo 12:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adding my vote to bring up the numbers. -- llywrch 01:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 11:03, 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 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slipple[edit]

Delete faintly amusing neologism (collects about 200 Googles, but few if any are relevant). No redirect since we don't retain redirects for invented words. -Splash 01:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Toilet humor | Celcius 02:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you use your nipples in the toilet? (But, yes, delete.) — mendel ☎ 18:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although this contains an interesting example. -- llywrch 01:35, 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 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Fan Blog[edit]

Blog ad Wyss 01:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although this is a blog about a popular TV show, it is not an/the official blog and hasn't made it off blogspot.com yet so is nn. -Splash 01:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn | Celcius 02:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHamster Sandwich 02:52, 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 (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Child Abuse in Government Schools[edit]

Delete, patently original research. This isn't a hoax, it's [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36326 here] but it shouldn't be here. -Splash 01:50, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scars (song)[edit]

Contains lyrics only, nothing beyond them to indicate why it might be encyclopedic Rx StrangeLove 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Retarded | Celcius 02:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Charles O'Rourke 03:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move and redirect to Scars (single) I've rewritten the article to make it encyclopedic. I would move it right now, but I'm not exactly sure how moving an article on VFD affects the VFD page. Cyclone49 04:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect as per Cyclone49. The rewrite is actually a (short) encyclopedia article, not just lyrics. Boojum 04:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have added further to the article including the meaning of the song. Move and redirect might be appropriate if we deem that the song is notable enough. In its favour as an article, it did make some charts in the US and Papa Roach is a reasonably well-known band. On the other hand, there is a case for a merge with the Getting Away with Murder. This is that it certainly wasn't a major hit nor has it won any notable awards such as a Grammy etc. Nor is it a landmark record such as the first rock and roll record believed to be the version of "That's All Right" recorded by Elvis. Perhaps we ought to have guidelines for what is a notable song. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charting single. Thanks Capitalistroadster. Kappa 06:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after rewrite, nice job! Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 18:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep charting songs are encyclopaedic, we have hundreds of them if not thousands. --Kiand 20:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten. No need to move as it is titled correctly per Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Flowerparty talk 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --Agamemnon2 11:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now valuable. Punkmorten 13:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alf 15:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CanadianCaesar 08:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please it is encyclopdic Yuckfoo 18:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cyclone's edits and additions. Popular hit song right now that is worthy of an article. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:40, August 25, 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 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HCASC[edit]

nn fan club ad Wyss 01:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

XMLambda[edit]

A proposal that, as far as I can tell, was not implemented and was not developed further.

  • Weak delete. Gazpacho 02:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 02:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with XML and redirect. The XML article does briefly touch on the view of an XML element as a form of S-expression, and XMLambda was a modest move, employing functional programming concepts, to define a superset of XML for producing active documents (ie executable programs). The XML article thus already provides the perfect context for this item. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with redir. Radiant_>|< 09:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, too little information, and not notable. Link to only reference is a draft paper from 1999. Dmeranda 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:21, 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. Woohookitty 09:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't exist. Go away.[edit]

Non-notable error message. For comparison, we do not have You are not expected to understand this

  • Delete. Gazpacho 02:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; wtf? | Celcius 02:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not even a sentence --Dysepsion 04:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless babble! Tekana 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stupid User:Inquisitor911 18:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And the explanation is wrong. -- llywrch 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 11:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. I will note the explanation is not so much wrong, as grossly incomplete. It's a fairly common *nix error message indicating that a user is logged in under a UID without an appropriate user entry in /etc/passwd or equivalent. I memorably saw this after one of my housemates attempted a "sudo rm -Rf /" on a Linux install just prior to reformatting, just to see what it really would do. After enough system files were removed to cause the removal process to crash itself, he attempted a directory listing; the error message resulted, to our amusement. We rebooted, got a kernel panic, and wandered off to find more booze and snacks before reinstalling. Abb3w 07:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and FWIW, Abb3w is entirely correct. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D.J.'s World of Pleh[edit]

The site in question seems to be just someone's blog, with cartoons. The cafe press link makes me think "advertising," also. Joyous (talk) 02:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Thatdog 02:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn | Celcius 02:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, advertising. Dragonfiend 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh my, i'm d.j., i run the blog in question (just found it tonight while doing some deep searching). get it off of here, please! it (to me) looks like a waste of the internet. the blog isn't known enough to have a wikipedia, and even then i'd question having one (someone writing about MY background on the creation of the blog!). anywho, thanks for wanting to delete it! Djparsons226 05:50, 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. Woohookitty 09:14, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nardelli's[edit]

nn ad Wyss 02:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn, adv, deli | Celcius 02:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 03:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Three outlets doesn't make the grade. -Splash 04:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, three shops are nn. --Dysepsion 04:16, 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. Coffee 10:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innate differences between the sexes[edit]

I believe this article does not contribute any facts related to the differences between the sexes. If I did, I would suggest the material be merged into Sexual dimorphism #Sexual_dimorphism_in_humans. If the title was not unwieldly, I would suggest deletion of content and a redirect to same. As it is I nominate it for deletion. I only stumbled across it while looking at Random Articles. David Henderson 02:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete. Christy747 03:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is at best original research, so WP:NOR, but is largely the musings of someone thinking out loud. -Splash 03:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. It may or may not exist, depending on who you ask... come on. If the first line doesn't decide it for you then I'm not sure what will. Simply not encyclopedic. Mmmbeer 03:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing of any great value here. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its present form - there is, I think, room for expansion in various ways that would make merging into Sexual_dimorphism_in_humans unnecessary. Dlyons493 09:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to be salvaged here. Pavel Vozenilek 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix it. As written now it sucks, but this is a Wiki. It should be left to encourage people to expand it into a worthwhile article. The topic is certainly worth covering; I've gone looking for this very thing on Wikipedia before, and been frustrated by the lack of info. Penelope D 01:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if any) and Redirect to a split off Sexual dimorphism in humans - I like neither the title nor the current content, but the subject should be covered. -Acjelen 01:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Cheese-Eating_Bird[edit]

nn blog ad Wyss 02:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete, not encyclopedic, not notable, vanity, ad. You name it, it's got it. Mmmbeer 03:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article says it all: absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever Boojum 04:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable and makes no claim as to being so. --GraemeL (talk) 16:22, 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. Coffee 10:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark troll[edit]

Delete. This must be a neologism and I can find no support for it. It doesn't even seem to have any actual legal standing--someone who has no intent to use or does not use a trademark will lose it. So, unlike patent troll, this is an entirely pointless definition. Mmmbeer 03:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect into patent troll or Leo Stoller. Alphax τεχ 07:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Do not merge/redirect into patent troll or Leo Stoller. A trademark is not a patent. "Leo Stoller'" "trademark troll" returns only one Google hit, i.e. the present page [8]. --Edcolins 10:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Google returns almost no relevant hits for this practice. Unless or until there is an established use of the expression, it would not be "encyclopedic" to keep the article. --Edcolins 10:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kantutan[edit]

dicdef Wyss 03:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional keep. Looking through the Google summaries and following a few of the links (don't do this at work!) would appear to suggest that, actually, it might be a fetish (or similar) to do with Filipino women. There are at least a few sites that pick up the term. So I would hazard a guess that someone who can read more of the sites than I can might be able to extract an article from this. If this proves not to be possible toward the end of the VfD, I'll change my mind. -Splash 03:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't know how you can expand this into an article --Dysepsion 04:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded from dicdef to article. MCB 06:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks to me that this is just a Filipino word that describes acts that are already covered here. This is an English language encyclopedia and I don't think we want to start adding non-English equivalents of common terms unless there is some evidence that the word is also widely adopted by English speakers. -- DS1953 06:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Agamemnon2 11:08, 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. Coffee 10:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cremation of Care[edit]

Fringe conspiracy theory. Delete. Alternatively, if consensus considers it salvagable, then Merge and redirect with Bohemian Grove. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:04, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • List at BJAODN and then delete. Harro5 03:04, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting, despite the fact that there is videotaped footage and the Ceremony is written about in the Bohemian Grove article which has been edited by dozens of respected editors and despite the fact that the ceremony can be verifiable by googling it and finding the dozens of legitimate sources which have written about it, it is referred to as a "Fringe conspriacy theory" and is suggested to be sent to BJAODN? Khaosworks and Harro5, should I tell users: Uncle.bungle, Daniel Quinlan, Maveric149, Ed Poor, Jengod, Khranus, Oliver Crow, Hephaestos, Punarbhava, Hierarchypedia, TheGrza, and Fox News, NBC, Time Magazine and dozens of others that you consider their writings to be BJAODN-worthy and fringe conspiracy theories or shall you do it? -Wiffle0rz 03:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Read it... The ceremony involves the corpse of a dead child, wrapped in a cloak being floated down a makeshift river... with ex US presidents in attendance? Never mind if it Googles. It's patent nonsense and should have been speedied. Wyss 03:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually read the Bohemian Grove article which has been edited by dozens of respected users? Did you look up any sources? Click on any of the links. Whether your opinion may differ on the significance of the event is one thing, but the idea that this is nonsense? Apparently even if something is mentioned in the greater media and can be verified by many people including dozens here at Wikipedia it is still nonsense if it does not coincide with someone predisposed view. I now see how biased and close-minded Wiki is. -Wiffle0rz 03:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Futhermore, if you beleive that Presidents do not engage in weird things then I suggest you look up the initation ceremony to the skull n bones fraternity at yale, it is freely available on Yale's library index and reported elsewhere on the net, if you read it you will see both John Kerry and George W. Bush have participated in pseudo-Occult rites. -Wiffle0rz 03:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bohemian Grove may exist, and the gatherings may exist, but this particular interpretation of it is still a fringe conspiracy theory. US Presidents? Animatronic owl statue? Dead child? Orgasming? None of this is mentioned at the main article, nor do I see it FAIR article you cite - the others appear to be usual conspiracy beating suspects. Cite reliable sources for the occult practices that this article claims. Whether or not US Presidents have been known to particpate in other rituals is irrelevant - show that they have in this one. At best, and this is really stretching it, it should be merged with Bohemian Grove. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Bohemian Grove is not up for VfD. When I see text asserting that ex US presidents float the corpses of dead kids down makeshift rivers in a Druid ceremony, I say "speedy." Wyss 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps. While this sounds crazy, I did find this which states

    [There are] three major stage events at each Summer Encampment. The first, called "Cremation of Care," is a bizarre production on the opening night of every encampment, a ritualistic ceremony involving hundreds of participants. It ends with the symbolic burning in effigy of a wooden skeleton in a coffin that represents the end of the cares of the world.

    That seems perhaps more reasonable. Stating that ex-Republican presidents float corpses down a "make-shift" river is totally unacceptable. Mmmbeer 03:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I spent an hour sifting through many sites, and found a reference to this ceremony that seeems legit (to me, anyway). A author/journalist named Philip Weiss has written for the NYT and Slate. In 1989 he published an article in Spy magazine about the Bohemian Grove. There is a reprint of an article at Conspirancy Archive that describes this ceremony. I don't have access to Spy magazine back issues to check the original publication matches this "reprint", but it looks legit to me. I've not seen anything from Philip Weiss that claims this article was not written by him. Now, closer to the article at hand, his account of the ceremony differs from the article in many respects, but it's my understanding that this alone is not a reason for deletion. Would somebody like to try revamping the article from a NPOV, and citing sources? (Oops, after spending over an hour on this, I forgot to include my sig David Henderson 04:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Following all the progress made with the content, I'll change to Keep Merge now, since I'm confident the unacceptable, unsupported content will be revised or qualified. However, it's a huge stretch from an effigy to a child's corpse, that, and Wiffle0rz's contribution history, are what caused me to put up the speedy tag originally. His Child Abuse in Government Schools went up onto VfD at about the same time. Wyss 04:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a real ceremony by this name. However, this article stretches credulity at the moment. However, I would vote to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I rewrote the article to include what is more or less verifiable. Sorry didnt include sources although Im sure most of it is available online. Sorry also if the writing sucks, first Wiki article ive done. Oh and this definitely isnt nonsense, the original guy who wrote it just apparently couldnt tell the differene between an actual event and something that is merely a play/production. Although there is some concern to be had over why US Presidents are attending an event where the effigy skeleton of a child is being burned, fake or not :-/. This could go intot he Bohemian Grove article but atm that one just has a quote on this and not an actual description per se so I can see why the article was written. I say keep. -TruthTeller 07:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bohemian Grove. Please adjust your tinfoil hats before proceeding. Alphax τεχ 08:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Bohemian Grove. Frankly, this is way too unsupported and tinfoil hat as it stands. JDoorjam 13:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bohemian Grove. Merits inclusion based on the 1977 NYT and other coverage, but not as an article PlainSight 13:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. I listed two versions of the earlier page at BJAODN. --Matt Yeager 22:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep TruthTellers rewrite. Apparently, the effigy is based on the guy of Guy Fawkes Day fame. Otherwise, it should be merged with Bohemian Grove. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please see the Talk page of the article for more information on the Walter Cronkite-Owl connection which was removed from the article by an user. -Wiffle0rz 04:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Marskell 09:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Mee[edit]

nn for now Wyss 03:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - historic event, though admittedly a current news item. I was about to add the current-event template. What does "nn" mean? --Cheese Sandwich 03:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search for "nn" reveals that it probably means "night-night". As good a reason as any for deletion of this article, I suppose. --Cheese Sandwich 03:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment: nn means not-notable. Frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is encyclopedic, but I'll abstain. Mmmbeer 03:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It stands for non-notable, and is a reference to the subject failing, in the voter's judgement, the various options at WP:Importance, or in the case of a person, usually more importantly WP:BIO. In reference to the appropriate material, it might also be referring to WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC or a number of other options. Note that at least most of those documents are disputed and none is policy although some carry considerable weight. posted after edit conflict-Splash 03:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is probably notable enough just for setting out on a serious attempt. Moreover, whatever the outcome (success, failure, death etc) he is almost certain to acquire notability from that. -Splash 03:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the source article this guy has had some other interesting exploits: "No stranger to adventure, Mee has undertaken several Arctic expeditions, including one in 2003 when he was trapped in pack ice and attacked by a musk ox which broke four of his ribs." I could probably expand this article a bit. --Cheese Sandwich 05:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Cheese Sandwich created the article. Wyss 06:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - pending the (hopefully successful) outcome of the voyage. Perhaps clean up into an biographical article about all of Mee's adventures. PlainSight 13:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Currently, this has the implications of a possible historic world-record. If it happens to fail, at least this such feat had been attempted. UniReb 22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems moderately notable already, although I'm slightly concerned by the guy's squashed head. Flowerparty talk 00:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Splash, UniReb etc. --Agamemnon2 11:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chackoism[edit]

Delete. This appears to be original research. Moreover, it doesn't seem to be verifiable at all as it's not sourced and what reference I can find to James George Chacko don't seem to support any of this. It's a particularly long VfD, but it seems like garbage.Mmmbeer 03:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless proven otherwise this is original research. As the nom points out, there are no references and Google finds only WP and a mirror. Also, the fact that such a large amount of text was uploaded in a single edit [9] by an anon gives me suspicions of it being an essay or copyvio. -Splash 03:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when I first looked, the only hit in Google was this page itself (mirrors have since picked it up. Was originally non-wikified anonymously contributed. Tenbaset 08:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism and probably OR. ManoaChild 22:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced - probably original research. Possible hoax article. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --Edcolins 10:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simei Green[edit]

Nonnotable condominium R. S. Shaw 03:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds like a very nice place, but unfortunately it is not encyclopedic. Thatdog 03:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn, ne as above. -Splash 04:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete it? SchmuckyTheCat 05:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. --GraemeL (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this any different to many other condos? If so, please explain how. Otherwise, delete. Soo 12:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soo. Nandesuka 23:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable; reads like estate agent-speak. Flowerparty talk 00:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably is estate-agent speak. --Agamemnon2 11:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 13:33, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reinaldonian Theory[edit]

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

Verdict: unnecessary, nonsense, delete. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete: No matches in google for the term. At best, "original research". At more likely, "made up nonsense."Boojum 01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. Maybe Reinaldo came up with it while running in the 1998 West New York 5K Run (in which he placed 8th!). —Charles O'Rourke 03:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research... btw can he spell objectification? Wyss 04:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 11:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references to such research in Google Scholar. Likely not even research, but"propoganda". Abb3w 06:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was No Consensus. brenneman(t)(c) 11:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil collins (south park)[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a repository for useless information. The portrayal of Phil Collins on South Park is not notable; it lasted one episode and was only a minor plot device. Soltak 04:32, 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. No consensus on the disposition of this article. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial tyranny[edit]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possibly redirect to Judicial activism, but the article title seems too POV. —Charles O'Rourke 04:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or else Merge with Redirect to Judicial activism and redirect. The term "Judicial tyranny" gets over 50,000 hits on Google. I think Wikipedia needs an article (or part of an article) explaining that the term is essentially a politically charged synonym for judicial activitism (which is not itself a very neutral term). This is not a dictionary definition, It needs context. -- DS1953 06:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to redirect. I still think we need to make it easy for someone who hears this common perjorative to find out what it means. A redirect may also prevent the article from being recreaed. Redirects are cheap.
  • Delete. I have added "a more pejorative denotation is "judicial tyranny"" as the second sentence of Judicial activism. I think this is a sufficient problem solver. Marskell 10:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Based on Judge Magney's changes. Whoever decides this consider the before and after. Marskell 09:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Find a better home for explaining this political term. David | Talk 10:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Judicial activism. Bikeable 17:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This should not be redirected to judicial activism; the two epithets are not synonymous, but refer to fundamentally different ideas. The charge of "judicial tyranny," in its basic/traditional form, is based on the idea that non-elected judges should not be allowed to overturn the policy decisions of elected officials. The charge of "judicial activism," in its basic form, allows that non-elected judges may make such decisions, but that a particular decision (or decisions) lack(s) an appropriate constitutional basis. The epithets are often used interchangeably by partisans of the extreme right, but their usage should not be governing. Judge Magney 01:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to judicial activism. —Seselwa 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an entirely pointless neologism. No need to redirect. It's also sort of any oxymoron. By definition, a judicial brach, especially in the United States, does not have the ability to be a tyrant--courts rely on the rest of the government to enforce its rulings. Mmmbeer 00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Mmmbeer on this one. --Mtrisk 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In response to a request, I have rewritten the page into a text which quite briefly summarizes the ideas I mentioned above and mentions a letter by Thomas Jefferson which is often cited as the origin of the term (in U.S. political discourse). I believe this resolves the issue. Judge Magney 22:41, 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. Coffee 10:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Alterac Valley for Tuesday" thread[edit]

Although the article makes the dubious claim that this thread was referenced in the National Enquirer, I fail to see how a discussion thread is notable enough to warrant an article. 23skidoo 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non notable forum thread. Zoe 05:31, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You are right it was a typo and also some inconsistencies were edited...but deletion is probably imminent whoohw

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 15:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albertsons Saratoga Avenue, Santa Clara, California[edit]

I've been in this Albertson's. I live about six blocks from this Albertson's. There is nothing special about this store. This article is either vanity or advertizing, either way, it should be deleted. Gentgeen 05:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this store impacts the lives of thousands of people in california everyday. Very notable. Klonimus 13:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need an article on every branch of every chain store in the world. Only keep notable ones, if there are any. Zoe 05:30, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, individual stores in chains are not encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 05:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe and Metropolitan90. -- DS1953 06:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • del waste of time ---Irpen 06:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as an unremarkable instance of a chain. --TimPope 07:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I should write an article about my local Safeway. After all, it's my favorite supermarket, Ive known people there for 14 years, they are very friendly, and they have everything I like!!! Total delete --- Antonio Banana Pie Martin 9:51, 20 August, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete--Barista | a/k/a MaI6KeRu | T/C 08:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the author of the article and past discussions of school VfDs, this may be an example of WP:POINT. ESkog 14:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I live about 20 miles or so from this store. If it were notable, I would have heard of it. ;) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 19:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, like, totally... to the max. —RaD Man (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change of vote to extreme keep as per Gateman1997 and FCYTravis. —RaD Man (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before I give in to the urge to write about my favourite Edeka store ... --DrTorstenHenning 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article is about a very notable grocery store that serves and provides food to thousands of people. Alot more important and notable then some Elementary school. And yes this is WP:POINT, and a very valid one at that. Most of the critera used for keeping worthless elementary school articles applies to this store too (eg: It's a physical place, has four walls, impacts the lives of thousands of people and it vital to its community). Gateman1997 14:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If individual elementary schools in districts are notable, so are individual stores in chains. FCYTravis 07:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Are we going to create an entry for each of the company's 2,500 stores? What about Safeway... and Kroger? If this were about - say the chain's first store (or other notable location), I might feel differently. - Boisemedia 21:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? We create dozens of articles about dozens of schools and other places that have no notability. Not to mention that Wikipedia isn't paper.Gateman1997 21:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though I understand your desire to frame this debate around the school argument -- it doesn't wash. A place that children go for 6 (or 7) of the most vital years of their lives -- to get knowledge that will last them a lifetime, does not compare to a place people go to buy a can of tuna fish. Boisemedia 22:02, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • I beg to differ. You can survive without school, you can't survive without tunafish (food).Gateman1997 00:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly, as well this store probably has about 100 or more employee's and does several tens of millions in retail turnover. Anyways wiki aint paper, and we don't have a concensus to delete this. Klonimus 00:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • how funny, he thinks 11-4 isn't consensus to delete. Gentgeen 00:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just saying there is not consensus doesn't make it true. 12-4 is enough to pass a school bond in most states. How ironic. Boisemedia 06:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stop the insanity. Gamaliel 04:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sounds notable. Voyager640 17:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there is no concensus to erase this Yuckfoo 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Delete. The article's author was making a WP:POINT about non-notable school articles by creating an article about a very non-notable grocery store. What's next? Are going to start creating articles on each Starbucks? BlankVerse ∅ 10:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not, wiki aint paper, a typical starbucks serves coffee to upwards of several thousand people each month. That seems notable to me. Klonimus 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Marskell 10:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cheney[edit]

Vanity. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable performer in notable band. -- DS1953 05:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable Australian musician. Capitalistroadster 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What DS1953 said. Also a member of Australian supergroup The Wrights -- Chuq 12:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- article requires expansion. - Longhair | Talk 13:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A member of a notable band. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, member of a notable band. Satisfies WP:MUSIC on just about all the criteria. --bainer (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and suggest that the nominator learn to use Google. Ambi 13:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please cyberjunkie this is a group project not my way or the high way Yuckfoo 18:07, 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 Speedily deleted. --Golbez 22:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound Steal Money[edit]

No entry on IMDb, supposed release date in the future, nudity in a cartoon, nothing on Google. Smells like a hoax. Zoe 05:35, 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 Speedily deleted. --Golbez 22:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Boo Party[edit]

Deleted sveral times, user continues to recreate it despite no evidence that any such game exists. User has a history of creating hoax articles, and has been blocked in the past for this activity. Creator of bogus The Fox and the Hound Steal Money article. Zoe 05:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - more nonsense from RyanCahn. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not verifiable, as far as I a google search indicates, the subject does not exist --Mysidia (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. --Irpen 06:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy as hoax if possible. Yet another non-existant video game. DomRem | Yeah? 12:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • If this has already been deleted several times, isn't it eligible for a speedy as recreation of deleted content? If not, I vote delete at any rate. ESkog 14:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this still here? Why is he not blocked? Jeff Knaggs|Talk 21:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. --Golbez 22:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Klasinkova[edit]

Josef Klasinkova is probably one of the most notorious crackers known to the European world today...

Maybe missplelled or a hoax. Google gives zero hits. Move if misspelled, delete if a hoax. --Irpen 05:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • "Klasinkova" is a feminine ending. A male would be Klasinkov, but I can't find anything on Josef or Joseph Klasinkov. Unless somebody can find a different spelling, Delete. Zoe 06:12, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. I am a nominator of this VfD. --Irpen 06:24, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, unless sources and probably different spelling is produced abakharev 06:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, a couple of perturbations of spelling did not work on google–Gnomz007(?) 07:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, note also Phillip Masse and Bruce Morgenholt by the same author, which are fictional character from the Splinter Cell video game, but with article written as if they were real. -- Curps 00:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was guessing that it was a fictional character. Which raises an interesting issue, do we want a character guide, like the one from Xenosaga? like see Dmitri Yuriev, Cherenkov (Xenosaga).–Gnomz007(?) 00:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have plenty of articles on characters from well-known fictional works, as long as they're notable enough and aren't written as if they were real. -- Curps 00:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The surname Klasinkova isn't even plausible. As already pointed out, it's female, but it's also a typo at the very least (should be Klasnikova). -- Curps 00:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:15, 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, not including sockpuppets and unsigned votes. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 14:53, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster[edit]

Note to admins: This nomination was made on 06:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC).[10]

Do not reformat vote pages!
Please do not try to reformat this page into supposed valid or invalid votes; see the Talk Page for more details.
ATTENTION!
If you came to this page because this LiveJournal post told you to come and "Do your part", please don't. Despite what you may have been told, it is not true that everyone who shows up to a VfD discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The VfD process is designed to draw on the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand what they are voting on and how it fits in with Wikipedia's overall policies; for this reason votes from users whose histories do not show that experience, including those who sign up for accounts after the vote started, are traditionally discounted. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be. However, unless you have a point to make in the discussion that no one before you touched upon, it may not be worth it; merely saying "me too" or reiterating an already-raised point is unlikely to sway anyone. Please remember, if you comment, that the discussion is not about the merits of "Flying Spaghetti Monster" as a concept, but Flying Spaghetti Monster as an article. If the distinction seems at all unclear, this is a good sign that maybe you would not be helping matters to chip in.
  • KEEP I actually came to wikipedia to look up what the hell the background story of this thing was. As such, I definitely think the article should be kept--it is not at all inconceivable that someone else might turn to WP with this question. Just because it's silly doesn't mean it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, imho. 84.165.255.63 14:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to log in. That was me: Bringa 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Whether FSM is a minor blip on the culture screen or becomes a larger touchstone of the ID debate, it IS a legitimate phenomenom whose record should be preserved. This sort of historial incident is gold for researchers; if I were to study 14th-century Venice, I'd have to spend many years combing through mouldering papers in state archives. If I wanted to study the rhetorical tactics of anti-creationists, I'm going to have a much easier job thanks to Wikipedia. The arguments that FSM is mocking religion are misplaced; Wikipedia should certainly work to ensure objectivity, but when that call goes so far as to demand that topics of offense not be included, it has gone far beyond that standard.--
  • KEEP Should be treated as all other religious pieces --
  • KEEP Thats an important and famous piece in an ongoing discussion abou relgion and freedom of speech --213.144.15.2 13:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP What about the freedom of speech?! This is not about mocking the religious beliefs of people, but about the fact that science and religion doesn't go that good together and should be seperated in school. And that the people who take everything in religious books as facts, are sometimes the same ones that crash planes into buildings, because they don't try to question the things they hear.

That said, it is part of the intrnet history now, and as that it deserves a place in the wikipedia, it is something people want to know about (just look it up in your favourite search machine)

  • KEEP Theres nothing wrong with it.
  • DELETE This whole 'phenomenon' started at as a typical atheist jab at religion, and while I am not religious myself, I find it insulting that this sort of behavior is acceptable. Seeing as no-one can prove 100% where we come from (or how), creation and evolution theories are both worth learning about. If this topic is worth keeping, I'm sure some wiki's based on the evolution of dinosaurs to humans can be added.. it worked for Mario Brothers the Movie.
  • KEEP Because its a matter of keeping scientific standads in schools as well as a appreciating an coutermovement to the nonsense of the Kansas school board.

KEEP

  • KEEP If I remember right, there was a concept called "freedom of speech" ?!?.
  • KEEP its informative and helpfull and its a matter people are interested in.
  • KEEP until you can proof anything it claims is wrong (from Sebastian Zieglmeier)
  • KEEP Better intelligent nonsense than ultraordox nonsense!
  • KEEP Please keep the article and simply add, who was the first to scribe about it, so that an educated reader can classify the information for himself correctly
  • KEEP Many many many guys are seriously interested (including me)
  • Keep Every opinion on how this world came about is an advantage for humanity
  • Keep This is political (and religious) satire at its very best! 80.142.97.152 10:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as you can see by the german news coverage people are obviously interested. if there's interest, than have it in wikipedia
  • Keep - This article is informative and concerns censorship and free speech. It is in no way offending, misinforming or wrong.
  • Keep - It is a kind of political protest, which just made it's way to Germany (www.spiegel.de)
  • "Keep" - Huge step for mankind.
  • "Keep" _ this is a very good artikle
  • Keep - Maybe it needs some minor cleanup, but it documents an important viewpoint in this debate. Regardless of how "silly" it is perceived as wrt being a religion, it is still equally valid. This article documents an important and popular topic that has sufficiently broad scope.
  • Keep - Deleting that would be a gross act of censorship. People must be smart enough to separate the obviously wrong from the right.
  • Delete* As an article it's terrible.
  • Keep - This page explains what the phrase "Flying Spaghetti Monster" refers to. Deleting would be similar to censorship. 20:30, 22 August 2005 (CST)ellimist
  • Keep - The FSM raises an important point against Creationism, as it shows those who do subscribe to the "theory" of Creationism the same view that rational individuals have been hearing from Creationist "theory" for years. 00:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)ndsutter
  • KEEEEEEP - This is notable as an important cultural backlash against Creationism. More notable is the internet origins of this concept and its rapid ascent to the forefront of the internet debate on Creationism. SPOILER WARNING: We evolved from lower primates. 23:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Alan J. Romero
  • Keep FSM is an important internet meme, but unlike many of the others cited, it's not just a joke. FSM is a direct response to the movement to teach Intelligent Design in schools. As noted in the article, "U.S. President George W. Bush and U.S. Senator Bill Frist have publicly supported the teaching of non-evolutionary theories". The ID debate is a serious issue in America today, and the FSM is a humorous but sincere response to that debate. This article clearly explains the issue & deserves a place in the Wikipedia. 67.171.35.234 22:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation--my submission to World Book Encyclopedia was rejected. While it may be offensive to some, its parody of religious faith is impossible to argue against--just like religious faith! Fancy that. And it is timely; a deft, modern arguement in a debate which, for some reason, didn't end at the Scopes Monkey Trial. You want to delete it? Well, my Jesus bobble head just told me that you shouldn't. –Gelatinous.Cube (talk · contribs)'s only edit 16:58:46, 2005-08-22
  • Keep--128.218.15.83 17:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FSM may be junk to some people but IMHO it is something that will be around for quite a while and needs a "no rubbish definition". The article is well written, explains the subject matter and thus should be kept. If it is to be removed then there should be an article which covers this subject in a broader context. –Astrolox. 14:10:46, 2005-08-22 (UTC) Astrolox (talk · contribs)'s only edit
  • Keep The great thing about the Wikipedia is that you can find quality information about topics that might not be otherwise found in a regular Encyclopedia. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is now its own entity that will have a life on the internet, just like I_kiss_you. It is important that this piece of history be recorded, and the Wikipedia is the best place to do it. -- unsigned vote by 24.84.192.212 (talk · contribs); user's first and second edits
  • Keep To remove this yet keep other similar nonsense by "organized" religions would be hypocritical. 67.10.88.183 (talk · contribs)'s only edit
  • Keep At one point, this would have been just a joke; now, it is a joke with a rebellious undertone. I believe it is worth keeping. –Cory M. 11:54:34, 2005-08-21 (UTC) CoryM (talk · contribs)'s fifth edit
  • Keep It is important, funny and great. --64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 64.54.250.128 (talk · contribs)'s only edit[reply]
  • Keep Comes under freedom of speech and opinion. Edward301 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Edward301 (talk · contribs)'s eighth edit[reply]
Ummm, while I'm in agreement with the keep vote, Edward, you're aware that neither freedom of speech nor opinion are criteria for keeping an article on Wikipedia, right? Jason 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the things that makes wikipedia great is its inclusion of various "internet phenomena" such as Numa Numa and The Star Wars Kid. As this seems no different, I certainly think it should be kept. -- unsigned vote by Jingman (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep It serves a valid role in the debate over intelligent design in the science classroom. Grant-o 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that satire is a powerful and legitimate way to seriously critique the Kansas decision to include ID in the curriculum and that "Pastafarianism" should be allowed to stand in the Wikipedia. -- unsigned vote by 24.80.166.229 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep Even if its not a real religion or anything thereof, it is now apart of internet culture. -- unsigned vote by 69.231.226.37 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep It's a quality piece. -- unsigned vote by 129.120.43.165 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep This is now a part of net lore and has as much of a right to be here as the Invisible Pink Unicorn -- unsigned vote by 217.43.118.253 (talk · contribs); user's 32nd edit
  • Keep It is an accurate and factual article that is referenced in mainstream journalism (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/online/archives/2005/08/20/intelligent_design_and_pastafarianism.html) --CYBAEA Cybaea (talk · contribs)'s second edit
  • Keep The article reports accurately that FSM and Pastafarianism are parodies. It does not present them, unlike Uncyclopedia would, as real. --Drauh Drauh (talk · contribs)'s 29th/30th edit
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. --MicroFeet 06:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like it's on its way to becoming a decent Wikipedia article. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of other Internet phenomena covered on Wikipedia. The article will not turn into an Uncyclopedia article as long as editors do their best to keep the article encyclopedic (See relevant discussion on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster).-Loren 06:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Creation and evolution in public education if it's a good fit there; otherwise, Keep. Notable parody, and it's not just a parody for the sake of parody, although it may seem so at first glance. android79 06:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Lullabye Muse 06:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable phenomenon with political/religious background (although I'd vote Keep even if it were just fluff, based on wide notability). MCB 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) MCB (talk · contribs)'s 30th edit[reply]
  • keep --Irpen 06:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The originator of the FSM is apparently serious about taking the Kansas School Board to court if FSMism is not given equal time. This lends further credence to the points brought up by 69.110.2.83. moof Dogcow (talk · contribs)'s 20th edit
  • Keep. This is a fun little article. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh please. Cleduc 07:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a very good parody, worthy of a page. --Nate3000 07:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Nate3000 (talk · contribs)'s 29th edit[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Important. Hilarious. --jenlight 07:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Jack (Cuervo) 07:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree fully with capitalroadster Aleichem 07:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC). BTW, the article is in dutch also.[reply]
  • Keep agree with Android79 and several others --Jrssystemsnet 07:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Jrssystemsnet (talk · contribs)'s fifth edit[reply]
  • Keep. There are lots of articles discussing bits of geek folklore and humor; this fits in just fine. Evan 07:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, part of a well known religious and political controversy and a funny parody.BrendanRyan 08:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although a "light-hearted" topic, it is based on genuine concern surrounding the "for and against" in an argument that has ostensibly been going on since the Scopes Monkey Trial. As such, I think there is meritage in keepage. If other internet phenomena such as All Your Base Are Belong To Us have found a home on Wikipedia, then there is room for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well Sirimiri 08:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for what it's worth (the vote is leaning pretty heavy one way as of right now). It's a good article about a valid parody religion, like Discordianism. Gaurav 08:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Years from now, when all the ID/Evolution drama subsides, cultural anthropologists will find this article informative. It truly reflects the ethos of our time. --Cioxx 09:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Cioxx (talk · contribs)'s 22nd edit[reply]
  • Keep on the condition that the article be made more objective and less stupid. In particular, the irrelevant minutiae of this "religion" decribed in excruciating detail at Flying Spaghetti Monster#The One True Monster need to be removed. If this article is just going to be a clone of the uncyclopedia version, then it is redundant and ought to be deleted. --Ardonik.talk()* 09:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote from keep to abstain since I have just made a major edit to the article in an attempt to improve it. --Ardonik.talk()* 18:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Contains information about a serious political and cultural protest. --JonasGalvez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonasgalvez (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 August 2005 Jonas Galvez (talk · contribs)'s third edit
  • Keep -- Longhair | Talk 13:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is bullshit but if it's notable as an internet joke then rewrite the article. --Sleepyhead 14:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 43,800 google hits for it. It will take careful editing to keep it from becoming Uncyclopedic, but a lot of people are interested in it now, hopefully it can stay/turn into a good wikipedia entry. -Interiot 14:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all the reasons above. Moncrief 15:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Omegatron 16:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it notable in my opinion. It's like a modern update to A Modest Proposal. --TheKoG 16:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like the consensus is keep, of course. But while FGM is totally hilarious and awesome, these are not criteria for inclusion. As far as I can tell, FGM has not made any major newspapers and is mostly a fad among liberal/lefty blogs. I doubt FGM will be notable in six months. Please note that "flying spagetti monster" gets 473 hits on google [11]. Sdedeo 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misspelled spaghetti. "flying spaghetti monster" gets 47,600 hits. android79 16:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • And [Google News shows two major newspapers have picked up on this story recently. android79 17:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • I apologize for my faith based spelling. Weak Keep Sdedeo 17:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have Invisible Pink Unicorn, why not this too? — ceejayoz ★ 16:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nothing unencyclopedic about this article - for an encyclopedia posted on the bloody internet, it only seems natural to have entries on internet phenomena :\. hiffy 12:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC -5) Hif (talk · contribs)'s 38th edit
  • Keep. If its notability fades later, as some have suggested it will, it can be merged to Invisible Pink Unicorn. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. cprompt 17:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sean Bonner Sean Bonner (talk · contribs)'s 28th edit
  • Keep. I agree with the above statements. --68.50.237.89 17:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's related to significant current events. --Brouhaha 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See above. -Hoekenheef 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for at least the next year. The issue may be worth reconsidering after that; Pastafarianism may not prove to be as durable a joke religion as The Church of the Subgenius, Discordianism, or the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it sparks and dies, re-examine the issue. However, the FSM has been recieving mainstream (back page) news coverage in items touching on the Intelligent Design debate. It furthermore has distinct elements which make it difficult to merge back in with either Invisible Pink Unicorn or Intelligent Design. Mind you, the article should be WATCHED closely by the more cynical, as there is too great a likelihood of NPOV assertions creeping in to pose as fact, especially from Pastafarians who think Wikipedia is the proper place for expounding their recently received divine revelations: Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. But reporting the facts of this tongue-in-cheek movement seems appropriate: keep it. Abb3w 21:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Schultkl 21:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC) This is AndreTorrez (talk · contribs)'s third and fourth edit.[reply]
  • Dunc|☺ 21:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Yes, I managed to sign my name without voting (oops!). Anyway, keep (though I myself prefer the Invisible Pink Unicorn pbuh, the idea that She is the only deity capable of crushing believers beneath her holy hooves is blasphemy! The spaghetti monster can help by spaghterreizing them, or something. Dunc|☺ 17:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' Agree that it fits neatly in the category Internet Phenomenon. One that goes way beyond the scope of this single article. It's deletion would only be a disservice to those may have heard of it in passing and seek a communal description. No different than All Your Base Are Belong To Us Vote actually placed by 67.177.33.245 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep While you may or may not agree with the point of view that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is intended to parody, this article does not actually advocate that point of view. It merely explains a currently widely known cultural phenomenon. A reader wishing to find out what the noise is about, can read this page and gain understanding. The article also contains useful links regarding the creation/evolution debate as it affects public education in the U.S. I urge that it stay. - 69.110.2.83 06:10, 20 August 2005
  • Keep69.139.157.41 06:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 69.139.157.41 (talk · contribs)'s only edit.[reply]
  • merge into Intelligent design. failing that keep. editing out non-pc entries smacks too much of revisionism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.243.179 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 August 2005
  • keep this entry supports an internet meme and dose not attempt to convert readers but rater inform on the topic at hand much like entries of lime cat or clock spider 11:46, 20 August 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.162.107 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 20 August 2005
  • Keep It may in time be recognised as an Open Source Deity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.58.117 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 20 August 2005
  • Keep I see no reason why having an article on this topic is any different than having an article about Landover Baptist Church or A Modest Proposal --jarquet (64.238.164.115) 07:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --68.145.7.237 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)parody is not sufficient reason for exclusion of a cultural/social phenonmena. If the purpose of this site is to maintain a repository of knowledge, and one that goes beyond the regular boundaries of academia, then this is certainly a worthwile entry to keep.--68.145.7.237 07:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 68.145.7.237 (talk · contribs)'s only edit[reply]
  • Keep While the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory is in demand, the article should stay. Many people have never heard about this and want to find out about this cultural phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.97.126.191 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 20 August 2005
  • Keep It's a serious and informative article. Damn funny too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.27.208 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 August 2005
  • Keep Informative article about a parody, worth keeping. 219.89.137.185 12:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 219.89.137.185 (talk · contribs)'s only edit[reply]
  • Keep Worth keeping, provides insight into a widely referred-to cultural phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.161.63 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 20 August 2005
  • Keep. Entertaining, and obiviously self aware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.245.49 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 August 2005
  • Keep Although it is humorous, and the concept behind it is clearly designed to garner a chuckle, it does show a legitimate point of view in the creationism-evolution debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.48.127 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 August 2005
  • Keep How dare you insult my religion? There are pages on other religions, why not this one? --Crgn 11:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first contribution to Wikipedia
  • Keep This looks like a serious political movement that has already begun. The quality of the artwork depicted not only shows the integrity of the followers, it venerates the movement's purpose. Let's not delete it, lets make it more objective. The Flying Spaghetti Monster should have a page like Jesus and we should site both sides of the argument for and against the Flying Spaghetti Monster Movement.Larrykom 12:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first contribution to Wikipedia
  • Keep We need this if we have that. Skunkape 14:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first contribution to Wikipedia
  • Keep The article's tone seems to condone the message of FSM, and should be distanced. However, this is a widespread social occurance that should be noted here. --RyanBrush 15:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's first contribution to Wikipedia
  • Keep Please keep this interesting article. I really enjoyed reading it. Additionally, it describes a real faith system (even if contrived and unpopular). People seeking information about Flying Spaghetti Monsterism will likely have their questions answered by this informative and professionally-written article. (Plus it's fun to read!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.49.199.145 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 20 August 2005
  • Keep I agree with the above statements. Some people, may we pass no judgements, take very seriously an attack upon Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.--68.50.237.89 17:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC) 68.50.237.89 (talk · contribs)'s first and second edits[reply]
  • Keep Makes perfect sense to me. You just have to have faith in the noodle. -- unsigned vote by 68.239.89.234 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep. [X] all of the above. What's a better reflection of the zeitgeist than Pastafarianism? -- unsigned vote by buzcarter (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep. It's as valid of a parody as any other (see Discordia or SubGenius); placing it within the same article as Intelligent Design would be inflamatory, but linking to it within the article's "See Also" section would be a useful way of typifying reactions to the legal decision. TerrorsMartyr 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC) TerrorsMartyr (talk · contribs)'s third and fourth edits[reply]
  • Keep. Would like to see more relevant information about results of FSM: legal actions, public responses, etc. -wnallen at gmail dot com 14:10, 20 August 2005 (CST) -- by 66.68.91.136 (talk · contribs); user's only two edits
  • Keep The article is accurate, and FSM-ism is now well known enough to deserve coverage on Wikipedia. --foobar There is no Injeted-noaccount (talk · contribs); this is actually the only edit of 24.107.179.76 (talk · contribs)
  • Keep: the article is accurate, the subject is notable, and there's been enough press coverage as of late to make it something worth covering here. Jason 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AndreTorrez 22:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC) This is AndreTorrez (talk · contribs)'s thirteenth edit.[reply]
  • Keep: Simply no valid basis for deletion. The article records and details a relevant social phenomenon, which is what an encyclopedia does. The argument that the phenomenon will no longer be popular in a few months is ridiculous, since the whole point of keeping a record is for reference when a things popularity and its easily accessable resources have vanished. Further, deletion requests are clearly coming largely from biased entities who take issue with the idea more than the entry.Michael 20 August 2005 (UTC) There is no Vendor X (talk · contribs); this is actually the only edit of 69.230.188.94 (talk · contribs)
  • "Keep": Its funny, and its a valid internet in Joke. -- unsigned vote by 212.2.170.158 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • "Keep": God says it's the truth, so leave it in. God is always right, right? -- unsigned vote by 24.161.47.42 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep to quote User:Radman1, "the sockpuppets are right." Notable parody deity like Invisible Pink Unicorn. CanadianCaesar 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A lot less ridiculous than the thought of young-earth creationism becoming part of science class. Should demonic possession be studied during psychology courses, next? -- unsigned vote by Oacoombes (talk · contribs); user's 13th edit
  • Keep: People would want to look it up. So keep it. brandnewbrain 23:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Flying Spaghetti Monster designed me to vote keep on this entry. Nandesuka 23:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why are people still voting? It is an obvious keep. There is no need to continue to create so many wasted sockpuppet accounts that are going to vote once, and then never make another single solitary edit to Wikipedia ever again. Func( t, c, @, ) 23:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Seriously! We're going to keep the damned article already. Stop registering useless accounts and wasting our time with fake votes; no one will fall for it. Go back to the uncyclopedia if you have nothing to contribute here. --Ardonik.talk()* 23:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • A few comments: 1) I never bothered to create an account, but I've edited at least a handful of pages. Wikis don't generally require one create any sort of account to contribute his own input. These are valid votes (perhaps). 2) Pastafarians are only defending their religion (hey, lighten up). 3) If you're going to keep it, please remove the "This article may be deleted" notice, hmm?
  • Keep: Internet phenomenon. Plus, it'd be hard to justify deleting this while the Invisible Pink Unicorn is still around. Ubernostrum 23:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the fact that I agree with this mock religion's creators is not important in any way; this article documents an existing (Internet) phenomenon, and as such is useful and more than worthy to stay. --positron 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not only is it a parody of an actual public debate (creationism v. evolution)and real event (the writing of the protest letter to the Kansas School Board) but to take it down, you'd also have to take down IPU among others. Besides, if you don't, you'll be branded as having a conservative bias by all the liberal bloggers out there, not to mention the bad publicity from BoingBoing and Fark which would just cause a rather large mess as popular outcry to keep Pastafarianism (as it's also known) alive. --joellevand 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC) This vote actually added by 12.76.67.108 (talk · contribs), whose only edit this is. joellevand (talk · contribs) has twenty-four votes, all made on one of four different dates.[reply]
  • Keep: Pastafarians may just be the answer to the Fristinization of America. -- unsigned vote by 66.159.229.137 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep: The article clearly identifies that it's a parody religion, and explains how, why and for what purpose. That it explains its made-up tenets is only in keeping with all the other religion-based entries, such as Zoroastrianism. -- unsigned vote by 63.205.115.25 (talk · contribs); user's seventh edit
  • Keep: Every voice must be heard {chetchow proclaims) -- unsigned vote by 67.113.244.106 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • KEEP: If not for this article I would not have had the pleasure of knowing the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- unsigned vote by 71.116.187.184 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • KEEP: The flying spaghetti monster is real. What's all the fuss about? I vote to keep him -- unsigned vote by 66.158.195.32 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • KEEP: Removal would be discriminatory against Pastafarians. Seriously though, I really think this thing has legs (the religion, not the FSM). -- unsigned vote by 66.8.185.70 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep The truth must not be hidden! -User:shift82 -- shift82 (talk · contribs)'s third edit
  • Delete or Merge as suggested above. This could be used by Wikipedia's detractors against us. It is factual though. Merge it somewhere. --Philosophistry 03:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--64.54.250.128 05:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Part of internet culture, mainstream-ish media and a valid piece in the creationsism versus evolution debate. Especially the million dollars on offer for proof that this is not the godshead, as a counter to the $2500000 on offer for proof of evolution. -- unsigned vote by 80.213.187.73 (talk · contribs); user's fourth edit


  • Keep - important not only for comedy but for a viable argument about religion as a whole. Encyclopedic and verifiable. Just make sure it stays encyclopedic and doesn't go making silly statements as we've seen in some of the recent vandalism. -- unsigned vote by EatMyShortz (talk · contribs)
  • Keep : deletion kind of makes the original author's point. This page is just as viable and worthy as any other page on religion. -- unsigned vote by 81.86.124.195 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep And bring back clock spider. -- unsigned vote by 81.86.124.195 (talk · contribs); user's third edit
  • Keep This is an informative article about an actual phenomenon that is clearly under attack by religious idealogues, who keep trying to delete it. Should be locked for a period until these vandalism attacks cease. -- unsigned vote by 66.108.220.146 (talk · contribs); user's only edit
  • Keep, sufficiently notable (50,400 googles). But troutslap all above anons. ~~ N (t/c) 16:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is a legitimate political satire movement. - grubber 19:08, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteable enough to keep. The Zaniak 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Grubber. Malo 19:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real religion if people believe it. Does Christianity Have a page? I think so!
    • Did Christianity Have an existence before January 2005? I think so! -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, failing that, merge with intelligent design. This seems to have attracted some mainstream attention and therefore is probably notable. If it's forgotten in six-months then we can simply have this discussion again and merge it with something or delete it as appropriate. That said, I'm far from sure the current edit conforms with POV guidelines. That's easy enough to change, though. Disillusioned kid 21:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are other parody religions with articles on wikipedia, this is no different. Akersmc 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kansas and the nation are at risk of brain death if we don't encourage skeptical thinking. Wikipedia plays a great role in this endeavor.
    • Please read WP:NOT before voting. You seem to be completely unacquainted with the actual purpose of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article documents the creation of an "illegitimate" religion. The subject may be satirical (which I don't believe is grounds for deletion to begin with), however the events surrounding and leading to its inception are actual. One researching this period of time who manages to stumble upon this page (or any given article in tangeable press) will discover the circumstances that brought this joke to life and furthermore won't be mislead into thinking FSM is an actual deity. The article is clearly prefaced in this way. The FSM phenomenon actually took place and it deserves a home in Wikipedia. Jack Driscoll 21 August 2005

Removing this article would be blasphemy. --69.19.14.17 22:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC) DoomPenguin 21 August 2005[reply]

  • Keep: You can't hide the truth forever! (18:35 pacific, 21-08-05)
  • Keep The FSM has been mentioned a lot on the internet lately, and Wikipedi is (and IMO 'should' be) an obvious place to come for more information. This kind of cultural information is one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. — B.Bryant 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. --fiberglassdolphin 22:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Fiberglassdolphin (talk · contribs) has exactly one edit. This is it.
  • Keep: Without a doubt! Definitely notable. Meets all criteria for a Wikipedia article. Funny too. Sunray 01:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The "Flying Spagheti Monster" by itself is pointless. The fact that it is significant in that it is a part of the debate between religion and evolution being taught in schools. The religion is a persuasive arguement, but notable. Because of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we will probably see the monster appear again in later debates. --Zoop 01:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The FSM article should be kept, but in a manner that is encyclopedic. Wikipedia has various articles on other Internet meme's, why should this be treated any differently. Let the external links point to the sites that have more humor, let the wiki article reflect it's history and coverage as an internet meme.Cfpresley 02:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article makes clear that it's satirical. Keep for the same reason that the Invisible Pink Unicorn has an entry. Both satirical religions deserve to be noted. --taliswolf 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article looks good, and has become a pretty popular meme. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 04:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep StrongUser:Indolering
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia has become an astonishingly entensive and accurate reference to internet culture, as the articles for Invisible Pink Unicorn, Gay Nigger Association of America, and Animutation articles can testify sstrongly to. I've seen things that have gotten less media attention and more controversy kept, so why delete this? --TexasDex 05:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The article is of good quality and is noted appropriately as an internet phenomenon of fictional nature.
  • Keep. Notable, sources available. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment, even with a lot of discounted votes, it looks like this is going to be kept. Might I suggest it to be listed in Wikipedia:Unusual articles alongside Invisible pink unicorn? - Mgm|(talk) 07:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has become an important figure in the ID debate. As such, it is useful to have an article which describes Him. August 22, 2005 Ortcutt (talk · contribs)
  • Keep It's a popular meme (As of this writing "flying spaghetti monster" yields 56,900 hits in Google) and it's certainly less silly than List of songs about body parts. -Hessef 08:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many articles on Wikipedia about seemingly trivial things, like All Your Base or many video game related articles. If we keep those then we should keep this. ____Ebelular 09:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now For the time being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems pretty notable as a parody of Intelligent Design, and has notable similarities with Invisible pink unicorn. Perhaps we should return to this issue in a year's time, and ensure that it is still notable. I should stress that the wikipedia article should be an 'encyclopedic' articles about the concept, and not a piece of fictioncruft Bluap 10:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - itz a matter of fredum ov speech! (sorry, just wanted to say that once...). Uh, seems notable enough by the previously accepted standards of "weird but widespread Internet phenomenon", though I guess it is rather quick. Shimgray 10:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FSM is a net phenomenon and part of ID history. CatMoran 11:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically, ditto for the above. Like the (shudder) dancing baby, it is a legitimate 'Net phenom. Just make sure that it is accurate.
  • Keep The article seems well written, especially after the rewrites, and I feel it is encyclopedic. ++Lar 14:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removal of information decreases the relevancy and therefore the value, of Wikipedia. One of the promises of an open source archival system is its ability to encompass information not traditionally found in an encyclopedia, to be a knowledge repository, and by doing so becoming more useful and relevant than the limited scope of a traditional encyclopedia. The function of the moderators should simply be to ensure that such information is described and categorized properly, as is done here, with the description of the FSM as a parody religion. As such it can only serve to increase knowledge, not obfuscate or confuse. This entry, as current August 22, 2005, should be retained. JLF, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Google gets 124,000 hits for Flying Spaghetti Monster. Invisible Pink Unicorn gets 65,100. Both are relevant, and for the same reason. The article qualifies on "noteworthy" --KillerChihuahua 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because notable, as voiced in other votes. Sietse 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable parody, especially in regards to ID debate. Eclipsed 15:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because otherwise I'll declare a jihad on the unbelievers who delete the FSM. :: DarkLordSeth 15:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced of the FSM's encyclopedic nature. The 59K google hits seem to be from blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. (Obviously I was skimming, not checking on all of them. Change my vote to Keep in the event a newspaper article or significant web magazine pickts it up and runs with it.--Tznkai 16:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: [12] Looks like FSM has attracted the attention of some journalist in a notable paper or two.--Tznkai 18:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need this and other similar satires documented so that others can read about them in years to come. This article is a part of history. Just today I saw a bit on the news about the evolution vs. creationism debate and thought "I should email them and tell them about FSM." Someone needs to archive this. Wikipedia is a perfect place to do this!
  • Keep Wikipedia is far more than a standard book encyclopedia, and articles such as this are uniquely found here. Besides, if we're going to include Densa, FSM is of the same nature. I've recommended this article to my Mensa friends. Simesa 17:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Stbalbach 17:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful page written with no POV. It was useful to me after reading about the FSM phenomenon in the UK's Guardian newspaper. Equant
  • KeepThis is a popular net parody and should be documented. However, I think the article should focus more on the rationale behind the phenomenon, the concept, and cultural impact vs just the "tenets" and "beliefs" held. --Aboverepine 17:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is a great example of wikipedia tracking online phenomena - the article is not a continuation of the hoax but a documentation of it, and i believe it has a place here. Merging it with spirituality and religion seems to add an organizational bias to the content. I think it should stay where it is... - ze
  • Keep - This article describes a movement just like all the other movements of the world. Just because the author has chosen a particular way to display his ideas about the world does not merit imediate deletion - even if that method is satire.
  • Keep Wikipedia is not really the same as a printed encyclopedia. Extra articles (especially of this quality) don't cost anything (apart from size, which is negligible) and people can find articles here that they can't find in any other encyclopedia, or even in webpages. In fact, my opinion is that we keep any article (unless it is of low quality or inaccurate) so that people can find anything they are looking for, regardless if it is a phenomenon or an internet fad. Poromenos 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hey, its even been mentioned on slashdot!
  • Keep - Just as long as you all realize you're going to burn in hell for this.
  • Keep
  • Keep - if only to show the reaction to the boards decision.
  • Keep - This is a bona fide article of underground culture, much in the same way that "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" and the "Badgers, Badgers, Badgers" animations are. Whether or not some people might be offended by the heretical or blatant silliness of the FSM should not be a reasonable grounds for deletion from Wikipedia. Heavens know, I dislike Republicanism and Rap music, but I would never support information on them being deleted from Wikipedia. If nothing else, the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster stands as a modern, if sillier, version of Swift's "A Modest Proposal", highlighting an equally stupid idea currently afflicting the Kansas Boards of Education.
  • Keep - historical importance, cultural meme, and a fine read!
  • Keep - This is an important article documenting a cultural phenonomenon.
  • Keep - Nothing wrong with the article
  • Keep - I used this article while researching the FSM last week. It was very useful, as I expect Wikipedia to be. Keep.
  • Keep Cabalamat 21:38, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia maintains pages on religions, cults, and movements - this would be no different. Sure, it's a parody, but I think the entry is valid, informative, and should stay.
  • Keep per 67.171.35.234. --Randy 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a joke religion like several others, and about notable enough. Rd232 22:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a previous user said, "It is an internet meme that requires explanation, and Wikipedia is exactly the kind of place to provide that explanation." I guess as support for that point, I submit the following. After hearing about the FSM, I went to the Wikipedia in order to find out more information. I suppose I'd like to know where I should be expected to learn about the FSM, its history, and the part it has played in the circus of pop-culture, if not from Wikipedia. I am certainly not a seasoned Wikipedia editor, but I feel very strongly that the topic of the FSM must be addressed here in some form. I guess it would help to know why there is consideration for the deletion of the article. On what grounds does the article fail the charter of the Wikipedia? Yek401 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FUCKING DELETE. Just for having caused all this stupid crap. -HX
  • KEEP. Absolutely, just so there will be an ongoing record of the stupidity going on in the Kansas BOE. From a former Kansan, educated there when it was actually OK to teach Evolution.
  • KEEP.It may not be a serious religion, it is a part of internet culture so i say keep it.
  • KEEP Samrolken 01:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Only the religious who are offended want to delete the factual information about this fake religion.
  • ""KEEP"". It's a part of the internet culture now. It's not just any old flyaway meme.
  • ""KEEP"". There is nothing wrong with this article. FSM was created to ridicule Intelligent Design which is a hot current event that is not going to go away.

KEEP. It is worth reading, so for heavens sake, please keep it.

  • ""KEEP"" The subject of the article is satire and a point of interest for the internet community and is exactly the information Wikipedia should cover. The article itself is adequately written and organized; much moreso than many other articles. It is definately worth keeping. Brlancer 02:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Anything that fights against moronism is worth spreading... Oops. I mean creationism.
  • KEEP: It is an excellent piece of satire on the state of affairs in American Lysenkoism. It is artistically done (the original concept) and the article is well written. This is a significant (sub-sub-)subcultural deconstruction of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical/Politically-active Christian subculture. To remove it from Wikipedia at this time would do a disservice to all:
    1. It would damage the pastafarians by keeping their beliefs out of public discourse.
    2. It would damage the Intelligent Design movement by eliminating a critical venue for discourse, thus harming both the consumers of Intelligent Design and those who would like to examine all the issues.
    3. It would damage American internetting society by depriving the members of the opportunity to reach an understanding of the religion/science/farce of Pastafarianism and through it, Intelligent Design, through an authoritative venue such as WP.
    4. It's censorship - or deletionism at best - but aren't there enough other things to fix in the WP than this? Gawd!!! I can't believe how much time I've spent typing this in.
John Elder 02:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This shouldn't even be in question at this point. It's become its own phenomenon both on Wikipedia and on the internet. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has earned the right to have a page. Arielle Rose

Delete How can anyone say to keep this? It started in June of this year. It has no real significance. It may be cute as a little joke, but to give it a defining page? Perhaps if it had been around longer than a couple of months, but right now it's just some fad.

  • Keep - a) It's been around for some months now, thereby unvalidating the above anonymous post. b) The article says it's not a "real" religion but rather a parody, and it really seems to have encyclopaedic value, considering its recognition in the media and possible (yet to be shown) role in the discussion about "intelligent design", which future generations will look back with a crying and a laughing eye. --Rubik's Cube 10:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article gives an informative description of a parody,,,dave souza 05:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - this article is informative, and as valid as listing Christianity or any other religion.

Delete By all means, please delete this nonsense.

  • KEEP - It is notable as a humorous response to attacks on science.
  • Keep - Do not delete reference to a religion that I believe strongly in. RAmen. --Readme 06:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Do not delete this because I think that Wikipedia has done well at indexing and providing information about other internet memes, why is this one any different?
  • KEEP - It is a phenomenon which as discussion and on many other fora has shown has proven to be interesting enoughRomanista
  • Keep. Zeitgeist, google hits, notable for the discussion of intelligent design etc. And BTW, it's a very enjoyable article. If the article is informative and NPOV then it is in any case not uncyclopedic Ben T/C 09:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP - It is without doubt a issue in current newspapers. We need to know this in years.
  • KEEP - A very good article.
  • KEEP. - First Amendment rights, and it also explains just what the fuck the goddamn thing is. yadadydyadyadyadydayada. Delete it and the Catholicism jargon can go as well. --<:3   )~ 12:00 (blinking), some time ago (UTC)
  • KEEP, of course - this is neither a joke (but rather satire), nor an internet phenomenon (too many manifestations outside); it's even an international issue - see [13] -, and the wikipedia is the logical place to look it up. Clossius 09:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - please keep. The times of witch hunts and censorship is over. Long live Immanuel Kant!
  • KEEP - This article documents today's developments, just like AYB, for example. This knowledge, however insignificant it may seem compared to today's big problems, must be conserved.
  • KEEP [no more to say]
  • Keep. I am not surprised that there is a LiveJournal or other blog entry drawing people to here to vote "keep", but I am not one of them. I believe that this article is legitimate. What started off as a humorous open letter became a notable Internet phenomenon and was mentioned on various high-traffic websites; the vast numbers of e-mails and comments on its own site, as well as references to it all over the Internet, show this clearly. This article is as legitimate as, say, Badger Badger Badger or All Your Base Are Belong To Us, which are wholly unnotable things in themselves, but become notable due to the attention they receive on the Internet and the impact they have on Internet culture. – FSM is even more than this because it forms part of a huge controversy in contemporary American society: the Creationism debate. It is a beautiful illustration of how the controversy is seen by one of the two camps. If this article isn't notable, I don't know what else. – Timwi 11:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Verifiable pseudo-religion. It's good to know not everyone in the USA is stuck in the 14th century like President Bush or that Frist(sp?) guy. — JIP | Talk¨
  • KEEP - As important as creationism
  • KEEP - This article was the only place I could find a definition of "Pastafarianism." --AStanhope 11:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP** Pleeeeeease!
  • Keep - even made it to Der Spiegel [14], so certainly noteworthy enough. And a note to all those who dropped by: You can't really expect your vote to count now, but if you sign up and do some work here, the next time, it will count. -- AlexR 11:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moo. Someone should just delete this trainwreck of a VfD right now, as there's no way that it's going to end up with a consensus to delete with all the crap above. Kelly Martin 11:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a record of our times. A diary of the world. Will be useful a few years for somebody researching it.--Jetru 11:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP The article is fact-based, well-written and -structured and its topic has received fairly widespread attention, even in the traditional media. --y!qtr9f
  • Keep. a) as pointed out before, it's fact-based, well-written, and addresses the satirical origins, b) "flying spaghetti monster" does get something like 70,000 hits on google by now, and has been picked up by numerous media around the world, so it's definitely relevant enough afromme 13:52, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since this could become interesting and, if it succeeds, could change the way fundamentalism is treated ;) --Viciarg 12:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ligitimate topic andy 12:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we ARE living in a free world, then Spaghetti should be included on the intellectual (spiritual) menu too! Ideally with a bit of Parmesan... net_efekt
  • Keep. Fact-based dogma description. Would fit in a similar way to Christian fundamentalism. Uh, oh, so THIS is it about...stupid me. --El Suizo 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP It's as good as any Religion and as one of the more fact based ones sure worth being mentioned here! Prasie the FSM!
  • Keep. I for one welcome our new spaghetti overlords.
  • Keep. cited in most important German weekly newspaper "DER SPIEGEL" http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzkultur/0,1518,370849,00.html . --Chim 12:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you delete this, you are religiously discriminating all FSMists. So if this goes down, then we all must vote to delete anything on christianity, judism, etc..
  • Keep Please keep this page! Every good encyclopedia should have some humorous articles which should not be taken too seriously.--mac_c 13:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Freedom of religion must be respected!
  • KEEP! This is not reported to be a "real" religion, but is reported as it actually is: A spoof religion designed to show the logical inconsistencies that arise when you try to teach religious tenets as scientific theories.
  • KEEP! This is an important article documenting a cultural phenonomenon.
  • Keep Clearly marked as parody. Definitely relevant. If you delete this, you MUST also delete all reference to, for example, fictional characters. One should keep the same standard for everything. Groeck 13:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! see comment by Groeck kodayu 13:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! It is not against religion, its about handling religion and science. And therefore, it should be kept!
  • Keep. Although this is one of the most heavily sock- and meatpuppeted VfD's I've seen, the article as it currently stands is a well written encylopaedic article on a notable topic. Thryduulf 14:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! The "Flying Spaghetti Monster Phenomene" is part of an important discussion about "educating religion" in school.
  • KEEP If at some point it is decided to delete the page, then each page referring to a religion should be considered for deletion as well. What right do we have which religions are valid religions and which are not. (Mausy5043 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This article clearly displays faith as the underlying concept of religion. --62.159.27.99 14:46, 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.
  • Comment for all those LJers out there who are being abnoctious. you should know that the VfD process is not just a vote. The votes and comments are looked at until general concensus is found. Also the focus of this is wrong on both sides. whether or not Spagghetti monsterism is a legitamate reigion is not the question. The question is whether o not wikipedia should have an encyclopedia article on said religion. at the moment I don't think the article is up to wikipedia standards but that could be fixed by some1 who knows more about it than me. if we can keep it encyclopedic, its good with me. O and a reminder votes are rarely thought of as counting for anything on VfD if not signed. Olleicua 21:57, 13 November 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive cultures[edit]

Delete, subject is inherently POV. Use of TinTin as a source suggests article not created in best of faith. FreplySpang (talk) 06:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, racist babble, probably intentionally provocative. Everyking 06:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irreparably POV title. --MarkSweep 06:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, racist nonsense, and I rather doubt China has a lower level of literacy than the West. Zoe 06:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't accept the authority of TinTin -- Solipsist 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (just BS) --Irpen
  • DELETE-There shouldn't even be a discussion, it borders on Vandilism --dirtyliberal 06:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, babble, somehow I don't think this is NPOV. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or to put it another way, fuzzy original research with dodgy terminology and no anthropological support. Wyss 07:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE- racist bunk. a relatively backward civilization compared to the West. come on now. Christy747 07:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to primitive culture. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:33, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Christopher Parham. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete POV racist Manik Raina 19:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge salvagable information with Primitive culture, and keep as redirect. 80.255 20:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • to anyone arguing for a redirect. It would be good to have this as a redirect to Primitive culture, but this new redirect entry would have nothing to do with this bunch of BS. There is nothing salvagable here to merge there, and keeping this original research (to put in mildly) in history, would only provide a battlefield for restoring this text from a redirect by a racist POV pushers. We first should delete it, then create a redirect. Please think it over. --Irpen 23:15, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • When I voted to redirect, I voted to delete the content of this article and create a redirect to primitive culture. If I thought there was any content in the article worthy of preservation, I would have voted merge. Capitalistroadster 23:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who was the racist who wrote ths?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unscientific and POV trash. The warped mind who created this article is the real "primitive". —Seselwa 22:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all nonsense with reasonably valid titles. - Zanaq
  • Nominate for "Best of Wikipedia". If "Primitive cultures" isn't a legitimate subject, then how can somebody have MAJORED in it in Animal House? Logic, people!
  • DELETE- Sick Humour.--Ambar 14:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 15:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The House of Aviance[edit]

Advertising. Also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Www.houseofaviance.com--Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The House of Aviance is real and Trademarked so I am not sure why someone wants to remove or has removed us. www.houseofaviance.com

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 15:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.houseofaviance.com[edit]

  • Delete, while the other article may be helpful, this one amounts to a linkspam fork ad. Wyss 07:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising Spam Tekana 18:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 15:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

East Scandinavian Norwegian dialects[edit]

I'm relisting this because of the lack of response in this nomination's first go-around. Dmcdevit·t 06:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Original research most likely based solely on the fact that SIL International on very shaky grounds have classified the two official written standards of Norwegian though they were spoken languages (Norwegian has no official spoken standard language) and placed the one based on written Danish (Bokmål) among the East Scandinavian languages, despite the fact that spoken Norwegian is considered a West Scandinavian language in literally all other sources, encyclopedias and linguistic literature alike. The article contains no (factual) information that isn't already mentioned in Norwegian language or Norwegian dialects and should be deleted as an altogether misguiding and flawed article title.

Peter Isotalo 12:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't know. Sounds like a content dispute? Kim Bruning 23:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the content is not exactly top of the line, but the problem is the article title itself. It contains a pretty serious factual error in claiming that spoken Norwegian could be classified as East Scandinavian. / Peter Isotalo 01:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could someone delete this already? It's not verifiable and never will be. / Peter Isotalo 15:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to reflect the above controversy. There's a source right in the article text, which you also mention, so the issue is not unverifiable, it is disputed. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:31, 2005 August 20 (UTC)
    • Uhm, there's no source in the text at all. There's a link to SIL in the infobox, but their entries are on written standards of Norwegian which are not used by people speaking certain dialects, but are up to the discretion and language-political views of the individual speaker. The classification is founded on the fact that Norwegians wrote in Danish when Norway was part of Denmark and that Bokmål is based on written Danish. However, to use this fact to support the claim that everyone who write Bokmål actually speak Danish (or a language derived from Danish) is pretty far-fetched. The Ethnologue entry does not mention anything about the spoken dialects in this article. I would not mind to be proven wrong about this, but I would like to see it done with proper sources and reasoning. / Peter Isotalo 15:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think this issue might deserve mention, this article is not good and I'm not familiar enough to reform it. No vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Current article has no value. I have read the Ethnologue entry for Norwegian and, quite frankly, it's bullshit. The article also contains false information. But I find myself agreeing with Christopher Parham. Punkmorten 15:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • SIL's credibility is truly crappy when it comes to North Germanic languages. Their separate classification of Scanian and blatant factual errors in synonyms for what they like to call "Dalecarlian" is enough to disregard them as a credible authority in these matters. Just the fact that they're inventing English names for languages is bad enough. It's not a matter of POV, it's just a complete lack of logic in some of the entries. Hopefully, they'll amend this in the 16th edition of the Ethnologue. / Peter Isotalo 16:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These dialects do not exist. Sam Vimes 22:35, 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. Coffee 15:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Submerged carco pump[edit]

I am relisting this because there were only two voters. Dmcdevit·t 06:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tagged for a speedy, but not a candidate. Unlike Frank Mohn AS (which I voted to keep) this article looks a little bit like advertising, and I am unsure of notability, so I will abstain from voting on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This very short article is a copyvio, and there is an obvious typo in the name anyway, so it will be better to have a fresh article about Submerged cargo pumps one day. --DrTorstenHenning 12:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see what value this article has. -- JamesTeterenko 06:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain in order to get the quota of 3 votes (will that work?). Kappa 07:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • :) I never said anything about a three vote quota. I'd just like to see more voters here, so I'm putting it through again. It'll be closed in at least 5 days' time, as if it were a new nom. I don't think anyone objects to this? Dmcdevit·t 07:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, because if you chop out the advertising too little remains Sliggy 12:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per DrTorstenHenning. Nandesuka 23:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DrTorstenHenning. -- Kjkolb 10:56, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern Ivy League[edit]

No such thing exists! 18.95.1.22 07:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is patent nonsense. There is no such league. Nor is this a colloquial term. I suspect it was merely invented by an alumnus of one of these universities. 18.95.1.22 07:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A plausible term, but appears not to have any kind of currency (no google results for "Midwestern Ivies", no relevant ones for "Midwestern Ivy League." Sdedeo 16:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I suspect that in time there will be such a term. --Dysepsion 17:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is common in academia, and while it is not officially a league as the Ivy League are it has become the definitive way to refer to the small private schools in this grouping. I suspect the lack of google hits is due to the colloquial nature of the term, and it's use in popular speech rather than official documentation. Google is not the best, nor only test of whether an article is notable enough. I encourage keeping this article as it adds an important bit of comparative information to Wikipedia, and challenge other editors to find fault with the factual comparison on the page. TheChief (PowWow) 16:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I need to do a lot of work here before this is ready it seems. I would appreciate comments on my talk page on how to improve this article and make it ready for Wikipedia. TheChief (PowWow) 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, I have no affiliation with the listed Universities as the nominator claims. As one might imagine I am affiliated with UIUC. TheChief (PowWow) 18:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies. Go Illini. All the same, there is no such league. If you think "Midwest Ivies" is a colloquial term, why not start an article with that name? The inclusion of "League" in the present article's title is too formal to be colloquial. You may find the current discussion at Little Ivies interesting. -18.95.1.22 20:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not a problem. Yes, Long live the Chief. That's a pretty good suggestion. My purpose in the article was to highlight the colloquial perception of these four schools as being the "Ivy League of the Midwest". Are you interested in helping me to improve the title/focus of the article? TheChief (PowWow) 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an Ivy League student, I can say that I have never heard students, faculty, or media use this term. There's no doubt that they're great schools, but that doesn't mean that the term exists, will exist, or should exist.--AaronS 04:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - total BS CoolGuy 04:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism at best, but overall too vague a concept to be encyclopedic. Saying "the Ivy League of" is like saying "the Cadillac of," or "the sick man of," or "the Tiffany of": it's a device of language that can be applied to an infinite number of subjects. - choster 05:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. No evidence of currency. Nohat 05:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no such thing, sorry.
    • As a note, like TheChief, I'm also affiliated with UIUC, and I believe that UIUC easily outranks any schools in this 'Midwestern Ivy League'. So, the list is fundamentally flawed, even if such a thing existed ;) Jawed 06:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AaronS. Too vague, too unbounded, and too neologistic. JDoorjam 11:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence presented of real use. Just promotional, point of view, academic boosterism. These universities are not bracketed together by tradition or common use or anything else. Nor are they the four best midwestern universities by any particular criterion I can think of. And by the way what's with Jesuit Ivy and Little Ivies? Public Ivies has some reality to it because of an influential book with that title. Jesuit Ivy quotes JFK so is worth merging into the BC article, although I live near Boston and have never, never, never heard BC called that. Little Ivies is just unattributed unsourced personal-essay garbage. The phrase Ivy League has a real well-defined meaning as an athletic conference. It also has a social resonance does not mean simply good schools with small classes. There is no Engineering Ivy League (MIT, Caltech, RPI and Georgia Tech). And there is no "Midwestern Ivy League." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never heard of this term, and I've met alumni from some of these schools and not only have they never mentioned this term, I expect it would be considered somewhat condescending if I were to use it. Also, this page is very POV, insisting at every point that people's general infamiliarity with this "league" is due to its location in the Midwest. --C S 16:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of usage (my parents went to Northwestern and I've never heard it). I would suggest a redirect to Big Ten if the alleged list were a little different. Septentrionalis 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Delete: for all the reasons listed above

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, at its new location. -Splash 06:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Australians[edit]

Personal essay. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - to Irish in Australia or similar... in a recently featured new article it says about 50% of Irish live outside of Ireland... it could be interesting... even if this article right now isn't up to par. gren グレン 08:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irish Australian or the stuff listed below will be fine too. gren グレン 20:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Possibly rename. There are certainly plenty of people descended from Irish settlers in Australia including Prime Ministers such as Paul Keating. Capitalistroadster 09:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, per gren. Unless somebody provides evidence that "Irish Austrailians" is commonly used in Australia. The only place that I'm aware of it being in usage is in the US. --GraemeL (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page and title, I'm sure the list of irish aussies will grow. Erich 16:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Irish had a significant role in the growth of Australia, just as they did the US. We have similar articles for a variety of nations; I see no need to delete this one. Ambi 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but perhaps move to Irish Australian to match Irish American and Irish Canadian. - SimonP 19:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Irish Australian, reference, let it grow. No more reason to delete this that there is to delete Chinese Canadian or Greek American. CanadianCaesar 20:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to Irish in Australia. The basic premise of the article is valid: the Irish were indeed a major influence in the history of Australia. Hesperian 12:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the content, regardless of the title it may eventually reside at. Useful topic. —Seselwa 22:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Sesel.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has a lot of potential. 64.109.248.118 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a list of "Irish Australians" would be fairly useless at this point. There's just too many of us to list, and frankly most people couldn't care less about their own ethnicity one way or another --- wouldn't even know if they were Irish/English/whatever if it weren't for their surnames. That's not to say that the influence of Ireland on Australia wouldn't make a good article (apart from the original research problem); there was a time when Irish/English Catholic/Protestant etc. was significant (cf. William McKell). --fuddlemark 15:09, 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 (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah hosegood[edit]

Nonsense. Zoe 08:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 08:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There was no TV broadcast in Britain during the war. The whole article is nonsense. Like this contributors other articles. CambridgeBayWeather 08:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of two jokes by the same anon. No useful content. Andrewa 09:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Agamemnon2 11:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not establish notability. --DrTorstenHenning 14:00, 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 Inconclusive. This VfD was not taken as a serious suggestion by the Wikipedia community. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Aguilar[edit]

Simply put, Don Antonio deserves a better page than this. POV...he invented the "sport" of charrismo???? Who said HE invented charrismo?? Or that charrismo is a sport anyways??? Delete and I bow to dedicate a much better article to Don Antonio. Antonio Puerto Rican charro Martin

  • Hi there. VfD is not the place to complain about article quality. It is the place to call for the deletion of an article that you think should not exist. Please be bold and just fix or completely update the article. Given the nominator is a little fuzzy on the nature of VfD, I call for this nomination to be closed. Sdedeo 16:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey whats up? Im not fuzzy about the nature of VfD, just ketting everyone express their opinions whether this article should go or not then I can prepare a more informative one. Don Antonio is a Mexican music legend and well loved by most of us Puerto Ricans as well, he lived for many years in our country. Of course, my article would be facts and not opinions about his career. Thanks for your imput, through. Next time I come across something like this, I will see if there is an appropiate page to discuss instead of sending to VfD, through, thanks and God bless you!. "Antonio "Bazooka" vs. "Tito" Martin" 08:43, 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, but it does need moving per Grutness, which I will do. -Splash 06:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpower NZ[edit]

Hoax? Zero Google hits. Can't Google "united blacks" because of too many false hits. Black power gangs in New Zealand? Zoe 09:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Other articles created by the user are hard to verify but the content doesn't resemble a hoax. lots of issues | leave me a message 12:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Police.gov.nz says "Mongrel Mob, Black Power and Nomad Gangs are the prominent New Zealand gangs". --GraemeL (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable crime organisation but needs a cleanup. Capitalistroadster 13:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. About as well known in NZ as the Hell's Angels are in the US. Should probably be moved to Black Power (New Zealand), though Grutness...wha? 03:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this too but grutness is right it should probably be moved to that title soon Yuckfoo 18:08, 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 --Tony SidawayTalk 22:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apotemnophilia and homeopathy[edit]

Well, at the very best it is an attempt to give highly questionable medical advise, which would not belong into the WP. Personally, I am more inclined to simply describe the page as BS. Therefore, Delete AlexR 09:25, 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 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupor[edit]

Delete dicdef that has already been transwikied to wikidictionary Cje 09:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Read my original vote as per Soo and Kjkolb, unless someone can point out something significant .... --Cje 12:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't really see how this article would be expanded - is there any cultural significance to stupor? Delete unless we can come up with something. Soo 12:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Soo. -- Kjkolb 11:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MOVE to Immunopathology. -Splash 06:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immunopathologic[edit]

My first reaction was that this was a dictionary entry. On reflection, it's plain wrong - immunopathologic is pertaining to the immune system. Dlyons493 09:36, 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 (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Revolution Radio[edit]

Not speedy material, but it looks like an ad. wrestling-revolution-radio on Google gets three hits including the organisation's website. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:03, 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 06:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet II[edit]

No merit to the content. External link site appears to confirm there isn't any real plan - looks like a homepage, which according to the time stamp hasn't been updated in over 4 years. delete lots of issues | leave me a message 12:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expand the Usenet II people were very active on Usenet for quite a while, their activities may well end up being very relevant to Wikipedia as an example of protection strategies that failled to stop abuse. --Gorgonzilla 13:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The USENET II network was an ambitious project of several longstanding news admins including Russ Allbery, Usenet admin at Stanford University, and for a brief period when the spam situation on Usenet, particularly the classic "Big 8" groups, looked absolutely dire, it seemed like the only way forward would be to completely replace the existing machinery that allowed unauthenticated injection of material into the system to one that had "sound sites" (mutually validating peers) and only permitted posting from a valid authenticated email address. It enjoyed some limited success, and the "sound site" concept pioneered there has been adopted by small-scale closed networks that use the NNTP (Usenet) transport. I'll expand a bit with whatever I can come up with. --Tony SidawayTalk 13:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found 966 Google hits for this term, the usage across results was uneven. Some may have referred to an unformed idea, while others used it purely as an expression of hope for unknown salvation. Whatever lies at the core of this term, it receives at most minimum attention. lots of issues | leave me a message 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're looking in the wrong place. A search on "usenet-ii" in Google Groups (the Usenet archives) gives 5770 hits. You get even more if you go for usenet2 but some of those references are to the kind of vague handwavy notions you peak of. In any case Usenet II did operate for a while and was seen as a possible way forward if the spam situation got worse. In practice evidently the spammers realised they were choking Usenet, decided not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and ramped back their operations so as to avoid a catastrophe, so the pressure driving Usenet II project was released and it withered. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of it Bluap 10:09, 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. -Splash 06:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord gore[edit]

Obscure. Does not meet requirements of WP:Music. Erwin Walsh

They claim two albums (plus two demos). Not notable enough for you? DS 13:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do your research. Erwin Walsh

Keep. Two albums on a label of at least moderate significance appears to meet WP:Music #3. — Lomn | Talk 16:12:12, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

  • Keep per Lomn. Kappa 22:06, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Computation[edit]

Neologism. The first paragraph of the article says:

"Scientific computation is a term often confused with scientific computing. Often, the terms are used interchangeably. [...] Scientific computation, if the term ever becomes widespread, seems like a natural outgrowth of it."

This confirms my experience that there is in fact no difference between the terms scientific computation and scientific computing. It seems the author wants to introduce a distinction, but this should not be included in Wikipedia until it is a bit more widespread. I warned the author to include references on User talk:Cat2020 and here, but to no avail. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. OR and POV fork. The author appears to be creating a distinction that does not currently exist. Require objective citations. ManoaChild 23:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ranting. Oleg Alexandrov 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Paul August ☎ 01:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful content that is not already in scientific computing. Gandalf61 09:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research/Neologism. --DrTorstenHenning 13:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to scientific computing
  • Delete. Neologism. (Disagree with redirect, if anyone cares.) -- Arthur Rubin 20:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable. Lots of work on optimizing algorithm's for doing scientific/statistical calculations. Klonimus 03:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand your comment. I agree that scientific computation is a notable area and that lots of important work is done in that context. My problem with the article under discussion is that this area is already described in Scientific computing, and that article under discussion (Scientific Computation) is about a distinction between "scientific computing" and "scientific computation" which does not exist. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eris Discordia[edit]

Vanity article about non-notable camgirl. DenisMoskowitz 13:09, 2005 August 20 (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 (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous psychopaths[edit]

Delete.Conflates a medical definition with criminal behaviour. The person who started it admits "I'm not sure if these are all psychopaths." The extremely comprehensive List of serial killers by country all ready exists.Marskell 13:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a medical term is the problem with the list--these are convicted criminals. Again, conflating criminal behaviour and medical diagnosis and thus confusing the term for the reader. Marskell 08:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't actually check the contents of the list. I agree wholeheartedly that the conflation existing now is totally undesirable. After inspecting the list I vote either:
  • Keep - but fill the list with real & clinical psycho's.
  • Redirect to List_of_serial_killers or something along those lines.
--Zanaq 14:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Dingoes ate my babies. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - If this is entirely speculation, why then, does it say on the pages of some of the listed people that they are psychopaths? As for Larry King, are there any accounts of his behaviour indicating that he has displayed any of the traits or clinical symptoms of Antisocial Personality Disorder?[16] At least for some of the listed people, they have displayed a disregard for the well-being of others, they have lacked remorse despite being convicted and sentenced and their lives have been marked by impulsivity and drifting (none of them got away with what they did). If anyone wishes to dispute such traits and symptoms in some of the individuals listed on the page, then they are most welcome to do so. Furthermore, it is a very important note on the page that these people's behaviour has been by far more the exception rather than the norm for those afflicted with APD. Of course Wikipedia is not a psychiatric registrar and this should be made clear to all users. However, if the fact that Wikipedia does not have any professional authority means that it cannot make observations in people's behaviour for example, then how do we know that Wikipedia

can have a list of famous people who have suffered from depression? Perhaps this page should make distinctions between those who have been diagnosed and those for whom it is entirely speculation.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthelia[edit]

Delete: This was apparently made by its owner, violating the ad policy in WP:NOT, and most of the hits I got on Google were for a hotel in Spain[17]. Karmafist 13:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'd also like to add that this page violates WP:VANITY in my opinion as well. Thanks for reminding me. Karmafist 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:VANITY section 3 "Does lack of fame make a vanity article?"
"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."
The rewrite of the article yesterday reduced it to salient and non-promotional material only. The inclusion of an External Link at the bottom is not promotion. --User:darcyj 05:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not delete "While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable." That's a quote from WP:NOT. There is nothing against an owner writing an article about something. The motion to delete is therefore invalid. As for the "not notable" charge, according to WP:NOT there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover. There is nothing against articles being posted that are "not notable". Now before you try to bite my head off about conflict of interest, I declare quite freely that I am a micronationalist, but I am not associated in any way with Anthelia. The google reference is irrelevant, and it seems that there is NO AD POLICY in wikipedia. - Graius
        • Do not Delete Actually there is a no-ad policy as follows: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs." However, as the 'Anthelia' mentioned is neither a company nor a product (unlike the unconnected hotel mentioned above), it cannot in any way violate the above policy, and therefore there are no grounds for this vote. In conclusion I recommend that this vote is removed immediately and that people should check their facts rather better in future. Iain - 13:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Founded" in March or something. Non-notable micronationcruft. Sdedeo 19:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not Delete. The above reason is spurious as many organisations, groups, entities etc, include foundation dates in their biographical information, and its inexactness (even though the actual data is readily available to quote from) may indicate that the nomination is less than serious and warrants discounting entirely. --Mercurivs 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons that I say delete to all the micronation stuff. Until I see the micronation listed on the CIA world factbook, it is hard for me to imagine that they are individually worthy of articles. You can always abbreviate the article and create a list of notable micronations. This one doesn't even seem to have that. Mmmbeer 00:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the writing style mimics a meaningful article's style, that does not make this page notable. The concept of micronationalism is covered at that topic's article, and this page does nothing to further that discussion. Friejose 12:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 07:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DarcyJ's Edits[edit]

Darcy J has voted multiple times, perhaps more considering the likelyhood that he is meatpuppeteering. So, for the sake of housekeeping, I'll paste the comments he made while voting down here. Karmafist 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not meatpuppeteering - trace the IPs. My "multiple votes" arise from my unfamiliarity with this procedure - I mistakenly assumed a prefix was necessary for every comment. Multiple voting, in any case, is meaningless because this is not a democratic process as Karmafist well knows.
Further note: On reflection, there are comments I wish to withdraw, as shown by the strikeouts below and above.
Is this a personal agenda, Karmafist? You are pursuing it rather earnestly. Darcyj 07:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Darcy, I am pursuing this earnestly because I am a dedicated Wikipedian, and I intensely dislike the use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Many people and things far more notable than your hobby have been deleted on here, and this article basically seems to be little more a bio on your hobby. If there are independent legitimate media pieces on your hobby or reasons why your hobby is unique, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There currently is none, and I believe it is doubtful that there ever will be considering that there are many other pretend nations such as yours on the internet.

Also, the main reason why Wikipedia is not a Democracy(see WP:NOT) is because of the potential of meatpuppets and sockpuppets. I am not an admin, I cannot trace the IPs of the meatpuppets. However, when an anon IP or user account with single digit edits votes on a VfD, especially when it is the user account's first edit, it's usually considered highly likely that it is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Karmafist 03:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your dedication as a Wikipedian is not in dispute. I intensely dislike your accusation that I am using puppets of any description, although I concede that I did post a message in a micronational forum to complain about the VFD. Certainly, there are many other micronations on the internet, as well as a strong core of people such as myself who are interested in making the hobby more respectable. There are a number of independent commentaries on micronationalism, although not on Anthelia specifically. I put it to you that you know as much about micronationalism as I do about New Hampshire politics, but this is irrelevant to the issue of deletion from Wikipedia. It is about time the admins made some sort of decision here. Darcyj 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete If you were to search Wikipedia all day, you would find an abundance of self-promotion articles. The official policy cannot be policed effectively and so why should this article be singled out? In any case, the hobby of micronationalism is something worthy of reporting, so why should there not be detailed articles on subsets of that hobby? Delete this article, and you must delete every other similar article and the Category. I could modify the article, making it much shorter and confined to bare facts, if that would bring it into line with the policy. User:darcyj
The article has been completely rewritten. Names and claims have been removed. I submit that the article now conforms to basic standards of factuality and neutrality. User:darcyj
  • Keep - Dear Darcyj, I am voting to KEEP this article because I believe that the term Anthelia is like the terms Kafirphobia and Kaafirphobia as they have notablity on Google Search. However, Darcyj, since I voting to KEEP your article, can you support me in the Kaafirphobia/kafirphobia sub-article in Kafir? Sadly, it got deleted by a bunch of Islamists who dislike the term kaafirphobia which means irrational hatred or fear towards non-Muslims by Muslims. Kaafirphobia is the opposite of Islamophobia. Garywbush 13:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, this is getting out of control. Gary, if you'd like to contact Darcyj about advocating towards your article, please do so on his homepage, this vfd is about "Anthelia", not "kaafirphobia". Darcy, this isn't anything personal towards you. There just isn't any indication that your micronation is any different than the thousands of other micronations out there, making it eligible for a list at best. If you want to make it notable, do something to make it unique from other micronations. A good rule of thumb I have when there's no guidelines for a certain subject is asking if I was a editor of a newspaper or director of a radio or news organization (i've been the first and second in the past), is if a general, random user of my medium would ask themselves "why the hell is this important or interesting?" Check out Hutt River Province, Sealand, or any of the other entries on the micronation article. They pass that test for most people. I think the main problem with your micronation is that it's in a vacuum, so it can't have any real relevance to anybody other than you. Get out there do something to make it stick out. I'll vote for keeping it then. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a PR device. I hope this helped. Karmafist 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karmafist, thankyou for anticipating my reaction to Garywbush. Without wanting to waste bytes on the matter, I would find it hard to "support" his request since I really know nothing about the issue. Regarding Anthelia, its consideration has been upgraded to the Pages for Deletion page but there are no comments there yet and I'm just playing the waiting game now. Cheers. Darcyj 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry Alert[edit]

  • Mercurivs has two edits as of 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC), both on this vfd.[reply]
  • "Iain", aka 62.64.214.63, has one edit as of 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC), guess where it is.[reply]
  • This Meatpuppetry Alert is nonsense as I do not think there is meatpuppetry or socketpuppetry. Garywbush 13:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erythorbin acid[edit]

Completing VfD submission for partially completed nomination. No vote --Allen3 talk 13:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - the article doesn't cover anything about the chemical itself, only acids in general --Leonsimms 15:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Should be "erythorbic" anyway. Could be a worthy subject, but as I understand it deletion doesn't prevent someone from writing a real article on erythorbic acid. --Trovatore 06:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article is improved by the end of the VfD. According to Acid this is not the same substance as Erythorbic acid (E315). Erythorbin acid is designated E317. Pburka 17:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. RJFJR 17:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article currently adds nothing further than that covered by E number. Richard Taylor 00:47, 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.

August 2005[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outsourcing to India[edit]

This article is signed by the author of the book. Although not a blatant advertising pitch, the content is similar to a Amazon.com info page. The purpose of the entry is of course to boast recognition and sell the book. This article is representative of a worsening vanity problem. Now subjects that may lie in the periphery of inclusion are vanity works. None of us wants Wikipedia to become overtaken by self promoters, so hopefully, we can establish more strict standards for commercial products.

delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 13:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marginal delete Self-promotion but not blatant, possibility of some original research. Book may be useful for a small group of people making a very restricted class of business decisions - that's not enclyclopedaic. I think the onus is on the author to justify its notability. Agree better definition of standards for commercial products is needed e.g. in an ideal world a notable book should only be proposed by someone other than its author. In the real world though that's unenforecable. Is the only workable criterion sales rank?

In an attempt to open discussion on the criteria I'm going to list the author's self-created page Mark Kobayashi-Hillary for deletion also. Dlyons493 14:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia has no chance to cover current books correctly. Better nothing than collection of ads. Pavel Vozenilek 18:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel. Marskell 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable book. 80.255 20:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why notable? Amazon.com Sales Rank: #540,801 in Books as compared to

Customers who bought this book also bought

    • What's This India Business?: Offshoring, Outsourcing, and the Global Services Revolution #144,324
    • Strategic Outsourcing: A Structured Approach to Outsourcing Decisions and Initiatives #169,644
    • The Outsourcing Revolution : Why It Makes Sense and How to Do It Right #126,112
    • The Black Book of Outsourcing : How to Manage the Changes, Challenges, and Opportunities #152,987

Dlyons493 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Google search for "Outsourcing to India" book produces 33,600 results. That suggests notability to me. 80.255 22:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but that includes other books also - a search on Kobayashi-Hillary+"Outsourcing to India" only returns 762 hits. Do you know if there are any wiki guidelines or precedents on Google and Amazon as measures of notability ?


  • Delete, per Pavel. --GraemeL (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. No ads please. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete User is free to add his work to the references cited in the article Outsourcing. As it stands, this reads like a vanity/OR page.Dottore So 05:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but delete the table of contents and useless stuff. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This screams of an advertisement. I think that many books are notable and wikiworthy, but an article written by the author for a book with very little attention? I think that Outsourcing to India is an important business phenomenon that warrants an article in Wikipedia, but the book of the title doesn't. Come on, let's get rid of this and place an encyclopedic article about the phenomenon! - Hahnchen 23:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: +6.5/-1.5 =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, does not assert notability. Thue | talk 21:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Pittman[edit]

Vanity page Salsb 14:34, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Alf 15:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Added nn-bio tag to article. --GraemeL (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. --Tony Hecht 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN JoJan 18:52, 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 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kobayashi-Hillary[edit]

Semi-commercial

  • Weak delete I don't have strong objections to this page but would like to see a discussion and possibly some tightening of the criteria for self-created promotional pages where the author stands to gain financially from the resulting increased exposure. See also this author's self-created Outsourcing to India article. I'm not very happy about self-creation in general, but unfortunately that's an unenforceable criterion!

Dlyons493 14:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, financial gain motivation and don't create autobiographies policy. — Lomn | Talk 16:19:04, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Lomn. Marskell 18:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lomn. Pavel Vozenilek 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete If we can spot an autobiography, we should feel strongly compelled to delete it. I think we need to break biography standards of living people into areas. Entertainers (people who have a fan base) will pass through the softest standards. But for non-fiction writers such as most journalists and authors, we should bar entries for because there is no one else but them with the motivation or information to write an article. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Vanity articles are certainly worthy for consieration as long as we apply the title correctly and they are not notable by commonly used criteria. There are certainly plenty of journalists and non-fiction authors who are notable enough per WP:Bio to warrant articles. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There may be a significant amount of vanity, enough to delete this, however, I just wonder if these accomplishments are noteworthy enough to keep. Perhaps if this article was cleaned up and changed around. Malo 18:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even a vanity article, purely a plug for his books. - Hahnchen 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup, but it's all verifiable and he's enough of a public figure that we can assume he is the most notable Mark Kobayashi-Hillary there is. No justification for deleting it, but you're a naughty boy for writing an article about yourself, Mark. Eliot 02:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought the article up to standards. The great thing about autobiographical articles is that there are no copyright issues. Eliot 23:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liquor spitslickers[edit]

This band was nominated for deletion in late 2004, and kept with 4 delete votes and 2 keep votes (one of them from a band member). I believe it should be nominated again because this band does not meet WP:MUSIC. They are not well-known in Norway with 20 hits on a Norwegian search engine, no media coverage, 37 hits on google, no AllMusic, no albums, no tours... Delete. Punkmorten 14:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Meelar (talk) 15:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article mentions recording due out in early 2005, we're now over half way through, if there is other evidence of notability, I will re-consider. Alf 15:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not-notable per nominator. --GraemeL (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --TheMidnighters 16:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. --Agamemnon2 11:26, 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 keep. Barring exceptional circumstances, we don't delete certified RfCs, and exceptional circumstances don't get run through VfD. --Carnildo 05:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keetoowah[edit]

This page is nothing more than a libelous personal attack on another Wikipedian by an anon user. The page attacks Keetoowah's racial identity and the anon user is making his comments based upon no evidence or personal experience with Keetoowah. The page fulfills no purpose other than to attack Keetoowah personally. It is libelous. Keetoowah 15:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed link title. Keep--we don't delete RFCs. Please be aware of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Meelar (talk) 15:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep -- we don't VfD RFCs. If they don't get certified, they go away; if they get certified, they go through the process. Antandrus (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Reopen -- This is demostrating the exact type of behavior that led to the Rfc in the first place. -- This vote by User:Gorgonzilla [18] Please sign your votes.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus never claimed he is the messiah[edit]

Badly titled, POV, largely unencyclopedic. If there isn't somewhere this can be merged once it's tidied it should be deleted imo. Francs2000 | Talk 15:10, 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 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon richardson[edit]

  • I was going to speedy, but this seems like perfect BJAODN fodder. Karmafist 15:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete, but you could maybe have waited more than 2 minutes before tagging it for deletion. Punkmorten 15:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2 minutes or 2 hours, garbage is garbage. If this is indicative of what he plans to write later, there isn't much hope for this article. I was on Welcoming Patrol, so I was keeping an eye on the Recent Changes. Karmafist 16:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch! Speedy delete before he actually spends any time filling this out. -- DS1953 15:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete written by a user with a 'red' user page, looks like the start of a user page, prob a 'user page' in error, the welcoming committee haven't even got there yet. Alf 15:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll contact him now. Karmafist 16:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A quick Google and Galenet search showed there doesn't seem to be anyone notable with that name. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Dottore So 05:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 11:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Be bold in tagging such junk for speedy deletion. --DrTorstenHenning 13:56, 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 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scythe: the bounty hunter[edit]

Non-notability. As non-notable as it gets, a random Flash animation, of no especial popularity or artistic merit. --Maru 15:26, 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 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North Flinty Knoll[edit]

This VfD also applies to Double, North Carolina, as per Zoe. -- Curps 00:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Zero Google hits. Also, there doesn't seem to be a "Reynolds, North Carolina" or "Reynolds County, North Carolina". Also, this user (who uses an anonymous IP range) is a very persistent vandal: lots of childish vandalism (see recent history of Luxembourg and Mississippi and Stokes County, North Carolina and per capita income and many, many other pages). All of his contributions before and after creating this article were vandalism. In addition to childish vandalism, he creates transparently preposterous hoax articles (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Carlow Crab). Based on his track record and lack of Google hits or verifiability, this article too is very likely false, and in any case is not notable. -- Curps 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, as "Flinty Knoll" has already been CSD'd as patent nonsense (claims to statehood, etc) — Lomn | Talk 16:20:41, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Delete. Based on a Google search, there is a Flinty Knoll precinct in Stokes County, NC (apparently in Quaker Gap township) and a Flinty Knoll Road in Pinnacle, North Carolina in Stokes County, so there is probably some validity to the name "Flinty Knoll". However the Geographic Names Information System of the U.S. Geological Survey gives no place names in North Carolina with that name except a "Flinty Knoll Church" in Richmond County, NC[19]. I could find no references to North Flinty Knoll and I could not find enough information to even expand this into a real stub on Flinty Knoll. -- DS1953 19:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have added Double, North Carolina to this Vfd. Delete both. Zoe 22:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is an entire Category:Stokes County, North Carolina with a few dozen entries, fairly remarkable for a county with only 45,000 people. Most of these place names do seem to be real though very obscure [20], although "Double" and "Gap" don't appear there. -- Curps 00:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That entire county needs looking at. The original Rambot additions only added two towns in the county, and a repeatedly-reverted vandal added all the reest. We need to figure out how many are real. Zoe 04:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • If we believe placenames.com, nearly all of them are real. "Gap" and "Double" aren't listed, so I added them to this VfD (Gap now removed again), but the rest should go into a separate VfD if at all (perhaps on grounds of non-notability). Note this map only shows Danbury, King, Germanton, Walnut Cove as population centers, so non-notability could certainly be argued for the rest. Hanging Rock State Park is also in Stokes County and is notable. -- Curps 14:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gap" appears in the GNIS (but as a "locale" rather than a "populated place"). Regardless, I've removed it from this VfD... it can go into any planned Stokes County VfD with the others (but again I would exclude Danbury, King, Germanton, Walnut Cove). -- Curps 14:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. Dottore So 05:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, though I am perfectly happy to have my delete vote also apply to Double, North Carolina, I think it is very poor practice to add and delete new pages to a VfD vote after several editors have already voted. -- DS1953 17:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a very valid point, we need to avoid that in the future. The admin who closes this VfD can make the call as to whether to include it. -- Curps 01:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and also Double, North Carolina. I checked a couple of the others and they verify as Curps said; Topozone is another good place to look (e.g. here [21] for Dalton). Anything added by a 63.19.*.* IP is suspicious. Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia has deleted Carlow Crab. I want it back on this website.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huf2much[edit]

because it is advertising for a non-notable clothing brand. Googling only reveals further adverts Sliggy 15:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Also an identical page hufragz and a redirect at huf ragz Sliggy 15:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, some of the few Google results for Huf2much are advertisements like this. -- Kjkolb 11:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 07:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lechebnik[edit]

Not enough discussion. Listing for another five days' discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. The word simply means "medicine book" in Slavic languages, and there is nothing specifically mythological in the word to warrant an article for a foreign word. mikka (t) 23:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can verify the content -- JamesTeterenko 15:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per mikka, -- DS1953 18:49, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asuka Sakamaki[edit]

I'm not the author of this VfD; I'm completing PhilipO's VfD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see this as any more or less appropriate or relevant than any other article about a porn star. I'd say keep it. unsigned vote by 24.2.79.247 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. Fails the "average X" test. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another undistinguished product of the sex industry. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Antaeus Feldspar. -- DS1953 18:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, like Monique DeMoan. She gets over 35,000 google hits in Japanese [22], and Amazon.co.jp lists 2 DVDs, 9 videos and 2 books [23]. One of her DVD's has an Amazon.co.jp sales rank of 18,259 in DVDs [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs) , at 2005-08-20 22:01:56
  • Keep as per WP:BIO as actress in commercially distributed movies with total viewing audience of more than 5,000. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability for an encyclopedia means having independent reputable/scholarly sources which are centered on the subject. That is an absolute requirement to writing a serious (non-op/ed) article. 35,000 porn sites with pictures of someone's boobs are not source material. I truly believe that verifiability is the least understood policy on WP, even among many admins. Has someone studied this person in a serious book, or journal article, or film documentary? Has anyone even written about her in a newspaper article? No? Then how can even the thought of including this in an encyclopedia cross our minds? The concept of verifiability is the conerstone of WP; Jimbo has made it's importance clear repeatedly. And yet, daily, it is being violated both in the encyclopedia and on the VFD pages.—Encephalon | ζ  01:22:17, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
    • So where are the independent reputable/scholarly sources which are centered on Cyrus Farivar? Kappa 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this. I understand the difficulty that these decisions entail, Kappa. On a spectrum ranging from eminently encyclopedic articles to clearly unencyclopedic fare, there is a line that divides the two worlds. The problem is that there is no agreement between some editors about where precisely that line should lie. IMO, the Farivar article teeters right at the lower edge of what is acceptable for WP; he is, if you take an extremely broad view of notability, mildly notable, and there is one reference that I can see that one could use to write about him. The fact that it will be difficult to produce a decent article on him however is the big clue: if it's hard to write about someone because there are almost no secondary sources, that's telling you something. I honestly suspect that many contributors who vote to include almost everything on WP have never written a scholarly article, or a good encyclopedia entry, and do not understand how difficult it can be to write thoroughly referenced and reliably sourced material. This is not surprising: there are 700,000 articles on WP. Do you know how many are of sufficient quality that they are considered "featured"? About 700.
Clearly, you and I understand the verifiability requirements differently. Your reasoning, from comments both here and elsewhere, indicate that you believe that anything and everything should have a place on WP if it can be verified in some way. That is to say, you take the verifiability requirement to mean simply verifying existence of the subject, and little else. If this was the standard, it is very difficult (for me) to concieve of the product as an encyclopedia, and I am unable to understand some of the decisions made using this criterion. For example, Kappa, you've just woted on VfU to keep the Marvin Lara article deleted. Yet, conversely, you also voted to keep articles on Doody Trap, and a nude model/"actress". Lara has appeared in bits of many movies seen by millions of people; the model has appeared once or twice in bits of a newspaper seen by millions of people. Why the difference? What is transparently clear of course is that neither of them is even remotely remarkable; no one has produced any study of either, there are no reputable sources focusing on them that form a biographical nexus around which an encyclopedia article can be written. And that's the crux, Kappa. You never seem to acknowledge that this is an encyclopedia. What you wish to do here is suited for Everything2, which doesn't call itself an encyclopedia. But WP does, and is aims to be. I think it is impossible to reconcile your beliefs about verifiability with your decisions, and with the encyclopedic nature of WP, without resorting to cut-offs which are enormously arbitrary. Kind regards—Encephalon | ζ  20:01:44, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
      • Sounds like grounds to renominate his entry for VfD... ;) Dottore So 05:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazon seems independent enough, we use its subsidiary IMDB as our major source for info on movies/actors/etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:32, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do you know how much porn is out there in the world? Sdedeo 03:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a lot of porn, and TV, and baseball, and journalism, and since wikipedia is not paper, it can aim to cover every aspect of all of them which is verifiable and has a significant audience. Kappa 03:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. I moved this to the proper title. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:28, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems popular in Japan. cution 20:30, 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 (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITC Bailey Sans[edit]

NN Erwin Walsh

  • Delete no evidence that this is anything more than just another font. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be merged, or included in an "authors" section within the existing International Typeface Corporation page. While indeed there are many fonts, this particular foundry is a leader in publishing quality fonts. Is there relevance in documenting, to help understand nuances in the ongoing development of this artform, how it was influenced, and influences culture, no matter how small?
    • Comment. Previous comment is from 70.244.83.101 which created the article. The same anon IP also made changes to International Typeface Corporation which I have marked up as copyvio. --GraemeL (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adobe has licensing agreements with ITC to market ITC fonts. The language you post as a possible copyvio. originates as ITC boilerplate language. http://www.itcfonts.com/about/default.asp?nCo=AFMT I truly appreciate the diligence to police Wikipedia to ensure its quality whatever the outcome of this interesting exercize. Please excuse the disorienting lack of protocols I'm likely guilty of.
      • Not a problem. As to the consequenses of you posting the material that you hold copyright on, you should probably read Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#Copyrights. It might be better for you to write an entry from scratch rather than using your existing copy. You can sign your posts here by including ~~~~ at the end of your comments. --GraemeL (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Upon investigation into how information is categorized in Wikipedia I'm sure what I've posted as an article is actually a "stub". I do however believe that this info is of relevance contextual to International Typeface Corporation, in a subtext category (currently there is nothing there). Without boring readers too much I hope, and briefly, International Typeface Corporation is an institution that should be expounded on now before chance that they go out of business, and through consequence our culture potentially losing a vast database of contextual history in development of typographic forms and excellence, where these font designs came from and ultimately where the design influences came from and how they've been influenced by culture. Fonts that we see every day and take for granted, the fact that they're an artform as well as a facilitator of commerce is important. Anthropologists and typophiles in ages to come will research this topic, and they will have to research International Typeface Corporation if they're going to want to get to the heart of this subject. I'm not sure where to put this tiny little piece of history of this company. I also have letters that deal with the negotiations and design concerns and how they were resolved that would add further to this but there's no structure on their page to begin this process of elaboration. Kevinb3 01:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Developed over a period of three years ITC Bailey Sans was the first typeface family designed by Kevin Bailey. The genesis for the design came in the early 1990’s when he was looking for a subtle humanistic block serif face for a design project but failed to unearth one. Perceiving a need for a design that reflected these attributes Bailey began work on a block serif face. The exploratory design process eventually lead down diverging paths. Finding that the framework of the new design worked well as a unique humanistic sans serif, and because a sans serif generally has more utilitarian use, this direction was pursued. The design expanded to a complete family of complementary weights and styles including a true italics variant. The period during this fonts development included a relatively few number of true italics to select from the given cadre of sans serifs; many variants that were labeled as italics were technically obliques or slants. Other features of the design include open counters on the bold weights which increased their legibility.

ITC Bailey Sans was licensed and published by ITC (International Typeface Corporation) in 1996. The Design includes four weights: book, book italic, bold and bold italic. In addition a companion serif display face ITC Bailey Quad Bold was published. ITC Bailey Quad Bold reflects the early development and original inspiration for the sans serif family variants. Three other block serif variants: book, book italic, and bold italic were submitted but not published by ITC at the time. ITC Bailey Sans was recognized by the Type Directors Club of New York in a 2000 judging of fonts developed during the 1990's as representing a distinct and unique design from this prolific period of type design.


  • Delete All that said, still nn. Dottore So 05:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Really obscure minutiae. --Agamemnon2 11:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I wonder how many people that voted here understand enough about typography to cast an informative judgement on this subject, what is valuable and what is not. I dare say most here have never heard of ITC, not a faux pas by any means, but this plays a role in the culture that exists today. Something more than broadstrokes need to be included. Although most here I'm sure have heard of IBM, look up their site here, you can drill down a mile to find arcane facts. I would propose to all the academics and elitists to keep an open mind to allow Wikipedia to flourish so that it has value to all interests and be careful to judge things outside your knowledge too frivolously.

The beauty of this medium is the ability to drill down deep in a subject, far deeper then you would be able to afford in print. There will continue to be books on typography, but they can be more informative in the future with a site such as this that is agnostic to proprietary concerns, such as if a company goes out of business and some history is lost.

The first step here would be to allow some depth to develop around ITC where stubs of relevance can be attached and other typographic contributors can add relevant information. Then typographic academics themselves can police what is worthy or not on this subject and make the furure edits. Let this medium breath. The font you're now reading has a good chance of being an ITC font. When you pick a font to produce a paper you pick one that conveys a certain mood you want to express, and much of this is culturally driven. The medium's a tool. How many millions have been spent trying to figure out undocumented arcane facts from the past.

I read the boilerplate on Wikipedia again to make sure I didn't miss something, I don't think so. I agree a line needs to be drawn about what is accepted. I would suggest if the information has been allowed to be published through due diligence by an educated and distinguished group of authority on the subject, and thus becomes part of the public domain then it's worthy. I would draw the line on i.e. freeware fonts. Please don't police what you don't understand, and appreciate and allow facts you find uninteresting to flourish if the right pedigree exists.Kevinb3 14:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, well all that said as well, still nn. Delete Dottore So 15:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Its not that a typeface can't be notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, but absolutely nothing that has been presented so far meets that test of notability. It's not a common typeface. It hasn't as far as I'm aware been used as part of notable production. There's nothing in the article as is that it has had a significant influence on anything of note whatsoever. Probably would eould be worth an entry in an article about him if he can be shown to be notable enough. (The existing article at Kevin Bailey should probably be moved to Kevin Bailey (typographer) as even if Mr. Bailey is noteworthy enough, the member of the Texas House of Representatives by the same name is certainly more noteworthy. Caerwine 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lastly, I realized that this was not an "article" but a "stub" early on. A stub, whether it's "notable enough" or not would only be a question if in consequence the article it's attached to is relevant, correct? Bailey Sans is indeed a very small part of the legacy of International Typeface Corporation. Maybe not today, but someday, if this online encyclopedia concept has any legs (which it should), there will be much more elaboration on the art, craft and influence of typography on culture and the important foundries that published and created fonts, if this is the case then ITC will at some date have more then a single sentence declaring its existence. An article about the foundry would necessarily elaborate and expound on its contributions to the typographic field. If this holds true then all of the contributions of ITC will be touched on through the use of stubs. This is why early on in this thread I was requesting more thought, that this important foundry deserves an in depth article with relevant stubs for future typophiles and other academics of typography to peruse. The idea of a particular font being notable or not is misguided thinking, I would however as stated before, draw the line here with shareware designs because it's an open can of worms. As often is the case fonts move in and out of favor as time rolls on. As designs reflect a cultures tastes and expectations they're resurrected or serve as the framework and basis for new concepts in type. It's relevant to understand the pedigree if one ultimately wishes to understand the history. I can name notable uses of ITC Bailey Sans, I would think that would be a bit over the top. Finally, an online encyclopedic reference has an important advantage over print, one isn't confined to edit to fit a given number of pages (a condensed font only helps so much!). The beauty of this medium is there should be room for arcane but relevant information where a scholar, various academics and professionals etc., can drill down as deep as they need to find a necessary reference. Anything ITC is relevant on the subject of fonts and typography to those that study it, as boring and obscure as it might be to those outside related disciplines.Kevinb3 21:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kevin's articulate defense is stirring, but not notable is not notable. I am not sure that the Kevin Bailey entry is notable either. Dottore So
  • Comment While electrons don't take up as much space, they do take space and server space is not free. (Otherwise why the need for the current fund drive?) While this font familiy is probably notable enough for a encyclopædia of typography that is not what Wikipedia is. It's a general encylcopedia and so far all that has been shown is that it probably deserves mention in an expanded article on ITC. Wikipedia could also use an article on the Type Directors Club. Perhaps once there is some context, there might be enough to indicate that this typeface family deserves a separate article, but based on what I can find by googling on "ITC Bailey Sans" I don't think so. 165.247.168.56 20:58, 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 SpongeBob SquarePants. -Splash 07:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chum Bucket[edit]

Erwin Walsh

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Shoplifters[edit]

Being Swedish, I have never heard of this Swedish-Russian grungeband, which the article has claimed has existed since 1986, and released three CDs and two DVDs. Furthermore, I can't find a single Google hit that in any way confirms any of the alleged facts in the text. In fact, I get zero non-Wikipedia Google hits for all the CD titles and most of the names of the band members. The interwiki link to the Russian wikipedia seems to go to an unrelated page. I'm fairly certain that this and the related members' articles are all completely bogus. Delete as elaborate hoax. Alarm 16:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Uppland 17:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. The only band going by the name of The Shoplifters that I could find by Google are from South East Wales [25]

The Welsh Shoplifters don't qualify according to WP:Music and unless some verifiable sources are provided neither do these people. Allmusic.com currently has no entry for any group called the Shoplifters. Vote also applies to band members listed below. Capitalistroadster 00:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Found no information on them via Google. If they exist at all, they may be a garage band. ♠ DanMS 04:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like waffles. --Fred-Chess 05:43, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. --Agamemnon2 11:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three of the supposed members: Jennie Hansson, Lisbeth Högfors and Yvette Simonova match with identities on Swedish Wikipedia (User:CNB, User:Twincinema and User:Hansan), where they are frequently accused of being sock puppets. Gunnar Larsson 20:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Gunnar Larsson, bandmember Jennie Hansson clearly seems to match User:Hansan. Jordgubbe 20:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've made some improvements to the grammar, spelling and tone of the articles for The Shoplifters and the band's members, but have also been suspicious of the lack of Google hits for the band, the members, the "big Swedish festival" they supposedly played at and their recordings. Also, the articles tend to feature interwiki links to non-existent links in other Wikipedias or to articles which have clearly been machine translated. CLW 08:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Gunnar Larsson. We have discussed this intensively lately on Swedish WP and the users mentioned above have made trouble on the Swedish site too. Hakanand 16:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a hoax. Sten André 17:45, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Hansson[edit]

Part of a hoax. See the entry on The Shoplifters above for reasons for deletion. Alarm 17:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uppland 17:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 05:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also noticed the mention of Bjornpartiet in the article. The Bjornpartiet is best known as a personal agenda of one particualt person on Swedish wikipedia. Fred-Chess 05:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Freds statement is not true, but there is no Hansson in Bjornpartiet./Miller 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is as mentioned above clear indications that this is a hoax. Gunnar Larsson 20:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the band is totally unknown in Sweden, and the reference to Bjornpartiet, a party that has not participated in any public election, convinced me. Jordgubbe 20:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've made some improvements to the grammar, spelling and tone of the articles for The Shoplifters and the band's members, but have also been suspicious of the lack of Google hits for the band, the members, the "big Swedish festival" they supposedly played at and their recordings. Also, the articles tend to feature interwiki links to non-existent links in other Wikipedias or to articles which have clearly been machine translated. CLW 08:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly a hoax. Sten André 17:46, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lisbeth Högfors[edit]

Part of a hoax. See the entry on The Shoplifters above for reasons for deletion. Alarm 17:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uppland 17:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 05:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gunnar Larsson 20:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've made some improvements to the grammar, spelling and tone of the articles for The Shoplifters and the band's members, but have also been suspicious of the lack of Google hits for the band, the members, the "big Swedish festival" they supposedly played at and their recordings. Also, the articles tend to feature interwiki links to non-existent links in other Wikipedias or to articles which have clearly been machine translated. CLW 08:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sten André 17:47, 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 --Tony SidawayTalk 22:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Simonova[edit]

Part of a hoax. See the entry on The Shoplifters above for reasons for deletion. Alarm 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uppland 17:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 05:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gunnar Larsson 20:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've made some improvements to the grammar, spelling and tone of the articles for The Shoplifters and the band's members, but have also been suspicious of the lack of Google hits for the band, the members, the "big Swedish festival" they supposedly played at and their recordings. Also, the articles tend to feature interwiki links to non-existent links in other Wikipedias or to articles which have clearly been machine translated. CLW 08:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sten André 17:48, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Absolutely no consensus here, no coherent support for any one option, but a general expression of discomfort with the name. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titty_physics[edit]

Joke page best suited for Uncyclopedia Ovulator 17:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but clean up and move to a better name. Also needs a section about anime. Note: I'm not joking, this is notable and often discussed phenomenon. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relocate — An article on computer game physics could be most interesting, but I wasn't able to locate one. I suggest a rename to game physics or computer game physics, and removing the titillating wording from the article. :) (The closest I found was the article on ragdoll physics.) — RJH 18:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move per above. -- BD2412 talk 01:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Move I suggest either Computer animation physics or Physics in computer animation (I would consider Physics of computer animation to be an article about the hardware not the software if you see what I mean.) Caerwine 20:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY and YA RLY[edit]

Unencyclopeadic. 67.174.230.30 20:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • O RLY? No, I have to vote keep otherwise the entire of Category:Internet memes is VfD.-- Bob the Cannibal 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found this while browsing, the anon seemingly forgot to add it to the VfD page. Note: If this is deleted, its companion page YA RLY should go, too. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, because the Internet Memes category is useful and interesting, and this is no exception. YA RLY needs to be merged into this article, though. Penelope D 06:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are lots of internet meme articles, and this is one of the examples. It could be expanded though. --RealWingus 10:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT a place for spreading memes. At very best merge w/redirect to Internet meme. Alphax τεχ 11:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete both as non-notable neologisms. — JIP | Talk 12:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. humblefool®Deletion Reform 21:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, condense all internet memes to a single page, this is not a place to continually update them as new fads come to exist.
  • Delete All this material can be condensed to one or two sentences within some internet slang article. --Madchester 06:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Memes desere the explenation as everything else here...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 already. Woohookitty 10:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Rat zinging[edit]

Speedy delete. Pun on Pope's name. Obvious joke. Marskell 17:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ho ho ho. Alf 17:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but it will probably pope up again. --GraemeL (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Pun is way too obvious to even be a groaner. -- DS1953 18:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - personal attack JoJan 19:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a pun, not a personal attack. — JIP | Talk 19:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for insipid punnery. --Agamemnon2 11:33, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:12, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of japanese,manchu,mongol,korean,chinese,uiguir and foreing supporters personalities in ww2 period[edit]

This is a badly written list of red links with an incomprehensible and long name and a purpose I don't even understand. In my opinion, this doesn't even merit a merge into List of people associated with World War II. - ulayiti (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes and the criteria for inclusion is not entirely clear. What is a "foreing supporters personalities"? It would take somebody to weed through this list and do lookups on all the names. The list could be of value, but I'm just not sure. I'll take a pass on this one. — RJH 18:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: during last days someone got very active on Manchukuo and related topics, creating number of similar articles (they look as ripoff from a book). Someone knowledgeable of the topic and Wikipedia rules should cleanup the whole area and then nominate remnants on VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 18:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Marskell 19:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Is Dead[edit]

Non-notability. Don't want to bite newcomer--perhaps notability can be proven. Marskell 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wrote the article. If by non-notability you mean that not enough people have heard of this zine, I'd point out that it was easily one of the most well-known zines of the 90s and was featured in Time Magazine, CNN, etc. If a smaller zine like Cometbus rates an entry, I'd say BID definitely does. I was an occasional contributor so I'm not unbiased, but I'm approaching this more from a fan perspective.

My bad. I should've looked more closely, particularly at interviewees. Keep. I have changed some of the formatting myself. Anon writer, can you provide links proving mainstream coverage and maybe try and tone the Tattler-esque feel, especially in the last line? Marskell 09:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a verifiable zine of some (if minor) notability. Article author should put more (independent) sources in. Sdedeo 02:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep needs, further formatting, otherwise nice article. Alf 07:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Agamemnon2 11:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even I have heard of this. Klonimus 22:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the best known (to the mainstream, anyway) examples of a zine from the heyday of the medium. Bcarlson33 21:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently Ben isn't dead, at least on here. ;-) Karmafist 23:02, 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 KEEP. -Splash 07:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lawn Bowls at the 2006 Commonwealth Games[edit]

The entire text of the article is "Rodney Anderson will be at the 2010 Lawn Bowls Tournament." Which is interesting, because the article claims to be about the 2006 games. Besides, that sort of inormation belongs here. Delete-ify - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 18:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unencyclopedic JoJan 19:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Dysepsion 21:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly worth deleting in its current format. However there is certainly potential here for an encyclopedic article as lawn bowls is one of the sports being played at the 2006 Commonwealth Games see [26] and representing your country at the Commonwealth Games is the highest profile one can achieve as a bowls player. I will have a go at cleaning this up Capitalistroadster 00:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article so that it refers to the 2006 lawn bowls competition. There is verifiable information about this event available and is contained in the article. Capitalistroadster 02:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep With the rewtite, the article nelongs in Wikipedia, but I'm less certain if that should be as a separate article or as a section of a broader one. Caerwine 20:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent at Olympic Games. Sam Vimes 22:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep -- The Commonwealth Games is the single top event in bowls and precedent was set at the Olympics for "sport at event. --OntarioQuizzer 03:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This serves no purpose now; I would not object to it being recreated after (or soon before, when other facts than the venue are clear) the 2006 games. It may be worth keeping some of the information for an article on the venue - which would be notable. Ambi 13:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
National squads have already started to be announced for the event. I've posted the Canadian team to the article. Hopefully this convinces others of the article's notability at the present time. --OntarioQuizzer 14:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a fair amount of information included now which can only be added to as the Games draw nearar and actually take place and which will of much use to anyone interested in the 2006 C Games and the C Games in general. There is certainly no need to delete the articel now just to recreate it later as this may result in a loss of some of the information. Evil Eye 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Scott Davis Talk 05:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 1942 in television. Plainly a no-consensus outcome, and no harm in the redirect. -Splash 07:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tv broadcasts in 1942[edit]

Idiosyncratic non-topic. Punkmorten 18:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps redirect to 1942 in television? - SimonP 18:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per SimonP. No merge since there's nothing to merge, but a redirect couldn't hurt any. Lord Bob 21:41, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delite, Just delete. Almost seems like a test for someone who might add seriously. Marskell 22:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Simon P. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 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. Coffee 10:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haircut indie[edit]

Neologism with few google hits (a good deal of which are irrelevant) Punkmorten 19:03, 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, no consensus, but with a reasonably strong suggestion that merge would be acceptable. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AARM[edit]

Do not reformat vote pages!
Please do not try to reformat this or any other deletion discussion page into separate "votes" and "discussion"; it is all discussion. See the Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Discussion and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maintenance for more details.

I'm not so sure that the "continuous cleanup" done by user Hyperbole is the correct procedure. It separates comments to the votes from the votes and adds some more votes where Hyperbole assumes how they are intended. (Assumptions might be correct, but I'm not sure if this counts as a vote). Only comments as to who is, in Hyperboles view a possible sockpuppet included in the votes section. Revert would delete some valid votes. On the other hand, the present state of the page makes it near impossible to find out who said what in reaction on what. --Irmgard 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was simply doing my best to keep this page coherent - and I think the fact that I specified two "assumed" votes against my own position and only one in favor of it speaks to that. I won't do any more reformatting; I'm fairly certain I've honestly and accurately represented the vote count, but upon reading the guides, I realize that the vote counts aren't even the point here, and that admins don't necessarily make decisions based on their quantity, so obviously what I did was pointless at best. So, I'm sorry. --Hyperbole 16:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I see no reason why a minor unmoderated atheist forum (less than 200 members) deserves a place in Wikipedia Irmgard 19:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not a FAQ, a list of quotes, a travel guide, a memorial, a news report, genealogy, a dictionary, or any of the other "indiscriminate information" listed in the policy page. Rather, it is a page on a forum populated by nearly 200 members, without which an NPOV examination of CARM and Matt Slick would be impossible. There is an ongoing campaign of attempts to censor any perspectives on those subjects that are not POV-in-favor (see the discussion pages to those articles), and as this is a subject that is of interest to hundreds of people, and improves the NPOV quality of discussion of the aforementioned articles without necessitating burdening the articles themselves with all this information, I would strongly advocate keeping it. --Hyperbole 20:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fact that some people feel their views are censured because they are banned from a moderated forum for violating the forum rules is about as uncommon as an umbrella in rainy weather - and it happens in discussion boards of every worldview. And that such people then move to a forum or open up a forum with different rules is also nothing new or special. Any moderator of a moderated forum could tell a dozen stories like that. (BTW I'm neither moderator nor registered user at the CARM discussion boards nor in any other way affiliated to CARM). --Irmgard 21:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with Irmgard. Having moderated forums for years, AARM is one of thousands of insignificant rooms set up for attacking other boards where they were removed, etc. It seems that the AARM participants, hyperbole as an active member, are seeking to promote their chatroom in self-promotion, also against the rules, in linking the boards constantly to wikipedia articles, which is against the rules and guidelines. There are no articles written on the AARM forums, or papers written by experts in the field. It is a chat room and does not deserve any attention. I vote for its removal and for an admin to please review the behaviors of the editors to CARM, Matt Slick, John W. Ratcliff sections with the editors constantly reverting to linking to aarm discussion boards in all the articles, attempts to attack Matt Slick by linking to chatrooms containing anonymous users, and using wikipedia as a soap box for a group of posters removed from discussion boards for rule violations.Interested Party 21:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning that Interested Party has multiple usernames, is currently evading a block for violating the 3RR (as she is the same user as Tom S 48), and is here on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of attempting to remove any and all material critical of Matt Slick and CARM, attempting to make those pages entirely POV-in-favor. Her vote for deletion of AARM is therefore entirely unsurprising. --Hyperbole 22:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the administrator Will, I am not Tom S. actually he is my brother-in-law. I am editor Interested Party and you have blocked three different people. This will be reported. Interested Party Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Apologetics_and_Research_Ministry" Peggy Sue is my sister.

Jennifer[edit]

My name is Jennifer, I am a stay-at-home Mother of four from Alabama and I am entirely tired of your demonic games. Get a life ....stalker!! Prove that I am Peggy Sue.68.62.227.47 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're presenting yourself as someone I've never met before - and you're "entirely tired of my demonic games"?? Well, that pretty much satisfies me that you're Diane. Hi, Diane. --Hyperbole 01:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irmgard: We need an admin here to remove this person hyperbole. Someone with access to IP numbers to inform this person hyperbole that each person he is accusing is a different person WITH a different IP address in different parts of the country. Yes hyperbole, Jen knows about you, I have told her and many others on CARM, that every person signing on to edit the CARM articles is accused of being me, :-) she knows you are stalking the Matt and CARM articles, everybody does, look to your edits for the last three months, you are an atheist obsessed with Christian websits. I manage to be in Penn, Alabama, NJ, different addresses and I do it all in one day, yeah right. :-) Jen knows you hyperbole, also you are now signed on as Urbie, because anyone reading CARM is aware that you are an atheist that is slandering CARM daily in these articles. You can expect more to show up. As CARM informs people of your stalking these articles. Maybe I can be all 6000 posters on the CARM boards. :-)Peggy Sue 05:59, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me remind you that I wrote the first draft of the 'Matt Slick' article - all the uncontested bibliographical information, the sections on Slick's websites, the original perspectives, were all a collaboration between Falphin, mdavidn, and myself - and you showed up later. So the idea that I'm stalking you here on Wikipedia is nothing short of silly. And the notion that someone named Jen, who I've never heard of, and whose description resembles no one I've ever met, would suddenly show up and call me a "stalker" and say she's "tired of my demonic games" is incredibly strange; I continue to think she's another Diane sock puppet. Finally, I have never made a single edit with any account other than Hyperbole, and I have not made an edit anonymously since creating the account months ago. Tom_S_48 has *admitted* that you write posts on other people's behalfs - so while it's impossible to prove what's Diane and what's not, it's usually pretty easy to tell. --Hyperbole 06:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

(Compiled and cleaned up by Hyperbole, 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. android79 00:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Woah, lots of talking. A 200 person board is non-notable. My local cafe's corkboard has more users. Sdedeo 02:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 05:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Eric119 06:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vote obviously intended by Interested Party (see above) --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vote expressed by Irmgard above --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not necessary Jenny1340 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly suspect this of being another sock puppet of the same user, along with Tom S 48, Interested Party, and Peggy Sue. The first thing this account did upon creation was to revert the CARM and Matt Slick pages and to vote on this page. --Hyperbole 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further discussion moved to "Jennifer" section --Hyperbole 06:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into CARM. Theo (Talk) 11:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into CARM and John W. Ratcliff. There is some noteworthy info. It is hard to write encyclopedic articles about webforums. -Willmcw 01:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into CARM and John W. Ratcliff. I am the primary author of this page. I wrote it specifically because I thought it would keep the CARM-related pages cleaner to simply link here. I have no problem with the information being presented there. --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - vote obviously intended by DigitalDrummer (see Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/AARM) --Hyperbole 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the best option present, while keeping a seperate AARM will prevent some edit wars at the CARM page it doesn't actually merit an article yet. Falphin 21:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -Content is very relevant to understanding CARM-related material.Urbie 18:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a para with the most relevant points in the CARM article - further merge is IMO not necessary. BTW, user DigitalDrummer has 8 edits and user Urbie 35. --Irmgard 21:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. BTW, I'm just curious as to why you mention that I have 35 edits. I hope I'm not in violation of any Wikipedia rules. Thanks.Urbie 23:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes in controversial ones,(this one is not yet so that doesn't matter) users with few edits are not counted. If that happned Peggy Sue, you, the Interested Party, etc would not be included.(I believe three delete votes and one merge it would make) but there to discount votes yet.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Garrison's Father (South Park)[edit]

Delete as non-notable South Park fancruft or merge to the relevant episode if you must. Soltak 19:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cruft, whatever text is here can be a mention in the episode. SchmuckyTheCat 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This title isn't even useful as a redirect. Also, would anyone who weighs in here leave word with the original author that he isn't being picked on, but rather being naughty? This is just the latest in a long line of these sorts of contribs. - Lucky 6.9 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect--this is a useful redir (for example, someone might want to learn more about the episode containing Mr. Garrison's father, but not know the ep. title. Clearly doesn't deserve its own article, however. Maybe we should start Minor characters in South Park? Meelar (talk) 15:00, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge witht he episode that it is in.Jobe6 19:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • In the event that "merge" is the outcome, does anyone remeber what episode that is? I don't remember seeing it. Soltak 19:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Mr. Garrison. -- Reinyday, 19:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, and tag+list for expansion. -Splash 07:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exultet[edit]

  • Should be Deleted because non-encylopedic Billhpike 20:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • NE as written which is just text without context. An article would certainly be possible on the topic (see e.g. [27]). Dlyons493 22:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd be happy to put it back on the to-do list for an expansion. It's highly-encyclopedic, as a theology topic relevant to many Christian denominations. I agree it could use some tidying, but I think "unencyclopedic" is a little far; if grammar schools and Pokemon characters can have articles, I think a traditional chant for the highest of holy days that has been in use since the 7th century can be included. -- Essjay · Talk 04:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Essjay, but please expand the article. Uppland 06:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Essjay. Important Gregorian chant. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that Essjay has promised to work on it. Alf 07:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep is this a bad faith nomination? Obviously the article requires expansion, but this obviously qualifies as encyclopedic as above. I will probably contribute to it myself in time.--Nicodemus75 18:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Essjay. Important part of the holiest of Catholic holy days. Psy Guy 17:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but try to expand articles. --Hurricane111 21:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Delon[edit]

Delete nn bio ad. Made by a blank IP whose only other edits were of the company this guy owns. Karmafist 21:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ad and worthy of deletion in its current form. The only link is from Detroit Fashion Week so it may be worth rewriting if he is significant enough in fashion. However, a quick Google showed that there is a French professor at the University of Paris who has published several works on the Enlightenment see [28]. Perhaps we should create a disambiguation for this page. C 00:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Very clear delete.—Encephalon | ζ  01:01:36, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 05:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alf 07:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. Wiping all spam ofcourse. Zanaq 00:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable ad copy. (Oops! Forgot to sign my name yesterday, sorry!) Friejose 15:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Linguist[edit]

It's an advertisement, pure and simple. RJFJR 20:41, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. He is touting for business :: flush it down the businessatory. Anthony Appleyard 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete. Obvious. Good catch. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' Blatant advert. Alf 08:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Blatant ad. --Cje 10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY Why is this page still up?? Dottore So 21:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sweet sorrow[edit]

User:24.53.131.188 put a VFD tag on August 7, but didn't complete the nomination. Reason stated was "obvious vanity page I vote delete."

Punkmorten 21:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should qualify for speedy: no assertion of notability. Dottore So 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete garage band as yet neither famous nor infamous. Alf 08:02, 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. Woohookitty 09:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sleeve[edit]

Even the article states that it's a newly created phrase; I can't find evidence of use. Joyous (talk) 22:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It will be used, just give it time...please? All it needs is a chance to expand. This isn't self promotion, or advertising or propaganda, so it's not a soapbox. This is an article about a new phrase. If we didn't have new phrases then we wouldn't have phrases at all. I'm not predicting a future event, it has been used and is being used, but it's not hugely popular yet.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kellmeyer[edit]

12.203.22.146 (talk · contribs), (who has been trying to push some pro-Christian POV) created Steve Kellmeyer, which is definitely highly POV, possible vanity, but regardless doesn't seem particularly notable. The same goes for his books Sex and the Sacred City and Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code. Dunc|☺ 22:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Severe POV. NN. Not encyclopedic.—Encephalon | ζ  00:57:38, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Dottore So 05:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems notable enough but article is very POV and unpicking would be tricky, if the original author would like to spend time re-writing from totally NPOV, I will reconsider. Alf 08:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is just horribly biaised. PhDP, 22 August 2005
  • Comment. Just thought I'd mention that severe bias or POV on its own is not usually sufficient reason to vfd. Articles that lack a NPOV, but which are nevertheless on encyclopedic subjects and in line with other WP guidelines, should usually be worked on to bring them toward the NPOV standard. However, in the case of the Kellmeyer articles, the subjects 1. do not appear to be of suficient notability to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, and 2. are intrinsically flawed because of their apparent authorship by an interested party; the few sources that are available because of the subjects' nn are non-independent and non-neutral, thus making it very difficult or impossible to use to write an encyclopedic article.—Encephalon | ζ  01:44:53, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 10:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the Sacred City[edit]

Not notable book, I suspect vanity. Dunc|☺ 22:31, 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. Woohookitty 09:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code[edit]

Non-notable book. I suspect vanity. Dunc|☺ 22:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If the result of the VfD is to keep the entry, it needs editing to a NPOV. --GraemeL (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really should not pass VfD, in my opinion. The book is simply not notable. Delete.—Encephalon | ζ  00:55:46, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete Dottore So 05:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --Irmgard 12:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Advertising for SK's book. Paul B, 22 Aug 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. Coffee 10:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bridegroom Press[edit]

Vanity press publishers of Steven whatsisname's books above. Not notable. I suspect vanity. Dunc|☺ 22:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Severe POV. +ad. +nn. Delete.—Encephalon | ζ  00:46:06, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Dottore So 05:53, 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. Woohookitty 09:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Tapes[edit]

Cool Tapes is perhaps a semi-notable item of Homestar Runner and that is the reason I believe it to not be worthy of a speedy delete. I vote to Merge to Homestar Runner. Derktar 22:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC).

  • Keep or merge somewhere per nomination. Kappa 23:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Homestar Runner.
  • Delete Homestar runner is too big for this. It isn't notable. Howabout1 Talk to me! 23:44, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Howabout1 is right. It is frightening how the most trivial nonsense is written into WP every day. WP is being bled dry, in an uncontrollable literary DIC, hour by hour.—Encephalon | ζ  00:44:15, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete Cool Tapes is too insignificant to be noted on Wikipedia. This fictional band was introduced in a cartoon this past Monday, and is not likely to make another appearance or become a major arc in the site. The purpose of Homestar Runner-related articles on Wikipedia is to explain the most essential parts of Homestar Runner to the general public. HRWiki is intended to cater to the fans. Thus, it contains all of the hundreds of more obscure bits to the site, such as the relatively small article for Cool Tapes. Homestar Runner is already too long of an article to catalogue such a minute part of homestarrunner.com. Granted, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but with that in mind, would it be practical to copy everything from HRWiki onto Wikipedia? —BazookaJoe 01:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dottore So 05:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a guide to the Internet --MicroFeet 08:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. That particular cartoon wasn't even posted until Monday, as noted above. It hasn't even existed long enough to gain notability among many Homestar fans. So this particular bit of cruft certainly isn't notable for the general public. --Several Times 19:56, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_20&oldid=1081091642"