Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

Purge server cache

August 21[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) 02:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Gender[edit]

Delete, a recently-started webcomic. FreplySpang (talk) 00:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete poorly written POV article about a nn webcomic that's "recently started" Soltak 00:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.—Encephalon | ζ  00:34:52, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might indeed "go very far", but this isn't the place to promote it. Flowerparty talk 00:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fancraft. (Or even author-craft.) Ashibaka (tock) 01:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 01:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page was created by a new user who hasn't received a welcome from anyone yet, the first thing they'll have noticed is their creation up for VfD. I'll go do the welcome and point them here so they know it's not personal. Alf 08:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I must agree there's certainly potential in the webcomic itself, it is as of yet not notable. --Lomedae 12:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It has a couple thousand daily hits. It's poorly written, yeah, but I imagined that will eventually be fixed. It, in itself, is not a very large webcomic yet (only about two and a half months), but it does have a connection to the much large The Wotch, which is then connected to the very popular Misfile. Keep it for now... The webcomic does look pretty decent, and someone will probably come along soon enough and fix up the article a bit. Solomaxwell 02:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Wannablessedbe 03:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)(User has one edit -- this one.Textbook meatpuppet. Karmafist 03:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While it's true the article needs to be rewritten and expanded, and it doesn't meet any of the suggested minimum requirements for a webcomic, I get the sense that this comic has a large enough fanbase to justify including it. In other words, it seems likely useful to enough people, so it should be kept. However, this assumes there is enough information to put in the article. - Matthew0028 09:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, looks like vanity. "It is unknown if She'll play main role in the future." Of course it is, unless you're the author of the comic. Dragonfiend 01:39, 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 merge. JYolkowski // talk 16:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Masse[edit]

Also, Bruce Morgenholt

This is a hoax. (Article has now been rewritten) Phillip Masse is a fictional character from the Splinter Cell video game, as is the "Georgian Information Crisis" [1]. The Bruce Morgenholt article by the same anon author also mentions this fictional Georgian Information Crisis and is also a fictional character [2]. We have articles on fictional characters, but they can't be written as if they were real, and these ones likely aren't notable enough. -- Curps 00:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: also note Josef Klasinkova, also under VfD at the moment, by the same anon author. -- Curps 00:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both.—Encephalon | ζ  00:33:06, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Phillip Masse article at least has now been rewritten as a page about a fictional character. The only issue now is, is this notable enough? -- Curps 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Bit parts in the Splinter Cell games should not be included. If he is a major character, then maybe it should be expanded, as major characters in major computer games are wikiworthy. - Hahnchen 03:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Hahnchen. Dottore So 05:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Splinter Cell as minor characters section. Karmafist 05:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article, as outlined above. --Agamemnon2 10:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

D69ers[edit]

Non-notable, poss. vanity. Minor Mugglenet-based "message board club". Less than 100 Google hits. Kwekubo 00:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There does not seem to be anything special about this particular forum, certainly nothing that would merit an article. non-notable, probably vanity. Rje 01:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 01:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insanity! (rhyming is fun! reading this post was not) Parallel or Together? 04:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This group is special because of the "strange" way they were created. How big they are: they may not have a lot of members but that doesn't mean that people don't know about them! They are like my second family! they've supoprted me when times got rough, and even, for instance, when one of our members developed cancer and the d69ers (I was new when it was going on) sent her a book with "get well soon" handwritten and drawn cards via snail mail! I think that makes them special! Saphira_the_Dragon (D69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.30.69 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 21 August 2005

I vote with Saphira. Why does this particular forum deserve it's own page? Because of the history of resiliency and the level of Maturity and kindness displayed; unique in the wealth of Harry Potter fansites. So great is the reputation of the group that Mugglenet (who, as it happens, recieved the very first Fan Site Award from JK Rowling, author of the books) not only put The D69ers on the page of links, but put them at the top. -WarnerRaider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.121.107 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 21 August 2005

  • Did spawn a notable amount of trolls during the MuggleNet VfD process, but I'd still say Delete. (Also, have done IP attribs on the anons.) Marblespire 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite WarnerRaider's claims to the contrary, The D69ers appear at the top of Mugglenet because they appear to come first alphabetically. Irregardless, this may very well be a nice group to its members, but not noteworthy enough to warrant an entry in an encylopedia. -- Corey.spring 05:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The article poses the question as to what will happen to this forum. Well, for a start, this article will be Deleted as not notable. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be quickly despatched to a better place. Dottore So 05:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Lomedae 12:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Sorry. Nandesuka 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. The people on the mentioned forum may be special, but that does not make them relevant for an encyclopaedia. --Camw 03:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spare us the sob stories. -HX

Yes, Cool enough to look at it and vote delete, and hide the username from non-users. Proud of your vote then, I can see... Oh, and I'd prefer you don't put my IP on this, especially since I did put my username right on this. Ah, I can't say that I'm glad you picked up on that, however shocked I am that you did, Corey.Spring . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warnerraider (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 August 2005

Delete Optichan 21:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An excellent example of how an online community can be brought together by a common topic (Harry Potter), and can grow into a supportive group. First-rate Harry Potter discussions, very open community. Hopefully other online communities can learn from their example. KiwiChi6 9:22, August 24, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon 96[edit]

Appears to be advertising a work in progress, almost certain vanity. Rje 00:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Chokozilla We should delete the article for not being clear enough. However, I have a message for the person who posted it: When you have worked some more on Epsilon 96, you are welcome to try making the article once again. All you need to go on is to show some professionalism. For the time being, delete.
  • Delete. According to the page this article links to, this is the creation of a 16-year-old. Latest entry (14 August) confesses that he has "not really worked on anything e96 related for awile [sic] now, But I just can't motivate myself that easily." If the creator can't interest himself about this, then why should we feel it's notable? (Yeah, I wrote a bad word, but to call this "vanity" implies the author actually cares -- & he admits that he doesn't.) -- llywrch 01:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per llywrch. Flowerparty talk 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 01:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruuuuuuuft. Karmafist 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete "Out, damned spot! out, I say!" --Agamemnon2 10:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally nn. --Lomedae 12:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--even if this was not advertising, and was an attempt at creating an artical about something that the writer considered noteworthy, it is obscure enough(and a stub to boot) that it is a good canadate for deletion anyway.

--1 black hand 22:02, 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 no concensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usb8x[edit]

Why is this notable? We agreed to delete "ticalc.org" from WP, why not this? Frenchman113 00:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not place to record every SW ever writtn. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is notable in the calculator programming/hacking community, but I don't feel that it is for WP, especially since you thought ticalc.org isn't (though, I think the ticalc.org article would have been but I unfortunately wasn't around to vote on that VfD). --Andy Janata 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable in the calculator programming/hacking community. Kappa 03:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case we should definitely undelete the article on ticalc.org. --Andy Janata 04:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pavel Vozenilek. --Lomedae 12:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pavel. Nandesuka 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pavel. Making shareware and putting it on a webpage is too easy. Radiant_>|< 10:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup, per Wikipedia:Importance#Policy item number 1 in the first list. At least 500 people at ticalc.org (which also should be undeleted per this reasoning) and other calculator communities are interested in using the USB port on the TI-84+. --Andy Janata 22:05, 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 Keep. Acetic Acid 10:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Since Acetic Acid isn't an admin, and the vote was not unanimous, he asked me to look over this and confirm his closure or change the result. I'm confirming the result as Keep. -- Essjay · Talk

Places in Afghanistan[edit]

This article is way too long and just takes up space. 98% if the links are red and most of the towns are not notable. List of cities in Afghanistan exists in its place anyway. Banana04131 00:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect. Pavel Vozenilek 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That article is massive; it almost crashed my browser. From what I could see, there was no information beyond just the names. Nothing to smerge, just delete. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is useful information. We have lists for western countries (see UK, Canada, France, etc.) and similar lists for US states (Alabama, Pennsylvania). It's long, obviously, but that's no reson to get rid of it. It just needs sorting into sublists. (And I say just in its loosest sense.) The need for this list would ideally be obviated by categories, but since there are few articles on Afghan places that's not going to happen right now. Flowerparty talk 01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG, where do I go to delete all of them? Not only is this not a valuable or notable list, neither are the ones for US states. The state pages already list counties and towns. This is lunacy. --Tysto 06:27, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep per Flowerparty. -- Kirill Lokshin 01:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Flowerparty. --Revolución (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Flowerparty. CanadianCaesar 02:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not voting on this, but it ought to be pointed out that the vast majority of the small number of blue links in the article do not refer to articles on places in Afghanistan anyway, but other meanings of the same words. 80.255 02:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Flowerparty but it needs substantial correction. 80.255 is correct about the blue links e.g. Qamishli is in Syria, a long way from Afghanistan. Dlyons493 03:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs a lot of work though - The list is a useful starting point, whoever made it must have reference material in regards to Afganistan, is it not possible to split up the list into regions? - Hahnchen 03:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect" to List of cities in Afghanistan and in the process remove incorrections. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:28, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not all places are cities. -- BD2412 talk 03:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely a notable list. Zoe 04:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Flowerparty. --Apyule 05:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Dottore So 06:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, revise, and divide into shorter pages. Uppland 06:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is too large, and it has thousands of useless links. Maybe this would be useful later on, bt not now. Jolb 07:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Right, and it's absolutely impossible to break up the article into smaller, more maintainable articles. Too large is now a criterion for deletion? CanadianCaesar 07:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, atlases and almanacs are the place for lists of places, not encyclopedias. And this list doesn't even separate them into types of places or give populations; it's just a list, that doesn't even link to anything. Category:Places in Afghanistan, sure. This page, no.--Prosfilaes 07:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an index. Thus it helps people find things. An encyclopedia without an index isn't overly useful. Ambi 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an index, because an index links to things that are in the book. It's not an index, because the function of an index is to help you find things where you don't expect them, and if these articles did exist, they would exist right where you expect them. Not only that, the search box elimenates most of the need for an index, and what's left is mostly handled by Category pages...and as I said, a category page would work just fine.--Prosfilaes 08:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, have you ever read Wikipedia:Five pillars? It reads "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs." CanadianCaesar 07:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Incorporating elements of" is different from being an almanac. In any case, this isn't even almanac-worthy; I've never seen an almanac with a list of names without information about their location, population, or even what type of place they are.--Prosfilaes 08:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right now, we have a list with a crap load of places in Afganistan. But how many people would be able to list so many places in Afganistan, if we delete this, we may never have a list as comprehensive again. It may not be almanac-worthy right now, but it serves as a handy to-do list. - Hahnchen 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. Ambi 07:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Don't clutter up List of cities in Afghanistan, making it hard to find major places (for those of us with serious foreign place name confusion). But, the secondary list is *easily* justified compared to the endless mass of lists for North American communities. Don't split the list up into sub-lists yet though, because then you'll just spawn a bunch of unnoticed orphans lists. With just two Afghan lists, we can put "back-links" to the list from the place articles, which will encourage "filling out" the info". --rob 09:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is practically useless, the vast, vast majourity of the links are red, therefore, without a LOT of work, thee page will stay useless! Tekana 15:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uppland. Guettarda 16:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just went through the A's and checked the links. Most were blue only because the incorrectly pointed to non-related extant articles (as mentioned by 80.255). Most of the rest are only one-liners in disambiguation pages that I added. I think this content is notable and important and in keeping with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but maybe it could be a to-do list in the community section rather than a live page. Bubamara 18:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's a good idea. I've listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks. I didn't think of the Systimatic Bias project when I listed it for VFD. For my vote...
  • Delete Unless some of the "cities" have pages created for them that are actually relevent. I don't want to encourage people to create a million one sentance stubs on every villiage in Afghanistan though. Even if pages were created for all of the places I doubt half of them would be notable. Both posts mine. --Banana04131 20:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wonderful article. I regard the English Wikipedia as the World Wikipedia, and our goal must be to cover every place in Afghanistan. But it desperately needs dismbiguation link repair. Punkmorten 20:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; An updated list with more explanatory data regarding areas is needed though. "Place" is way to diffuse - is it a city, a village, a riverbank, a mansion? | Celcius 01:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. --Celestianpower hab 14:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vote count so far: merge/redirect-2 Delete-5 keep-17

  • Delete A forest of red links, and very obscure to us Westerners. --Wtshymanski 23:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither is a valid reason to delete something. It is a forest of red links because of systemic bias, and the English Wikipedia is not an exclusive club for "Westerners". List of places in Pennsylvania has quite a few red links and is probably of limited interest to Afghans. There is no reason to delete that either. Uppland 07:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • They may not remain red links for long. If they are expanded. I do not recollect a rule in wikipedia where a page is deleted if it has too many reds. Because it's a transitory phenomenon. Unless we allow such pages, far flung peoples may not use wikipedia or find it useful. Manik Raina 09:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , expand. Manik Raina 07:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I had a thought regarding the use of categories. We could use categories and do something very similar to what this page is doing. What are your thoughts ? For example, create stubs for each of the cities mentioned in the page and categorize them as "Cities in Afghanistan". Would that not be more intuitive ? We could get rid of many lists .... Manik Raina 13:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using a catagory would be good, but it means that someone would have to make a lot of new stubs. It might be best to do a catagory and keep the list as well. --Apyule 00:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to keep this article, but I agree that the signal to noise ratio is far too high for it to be useful as is. So I think we should revert it to this version, which is right before it jumps to about 1500 entries. Then we can reasonably build from there (or, more realisically, we can then talk about merging with List of cities in Afghanistan). Bubamara 07:36, 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. JYolkowski // talk 16:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mast[edit]

Delete Seems of dubious value to me. PhilipO 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Hamster Sandwich 01:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can cite a credible reference to verify the notability claim, and even then MERGE to Billy Corgan. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Manifestly unimpressive claim to notablility; doesn't even Google particularly well for a "regular poster". But merge if verified. Flowerparty talk 01:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 06:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Fernando Rizo.
  • Delete. --Sleepyhead 20:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Page has been protected from recreation. Dunc|☺ 17:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamem8ker[edit]

This page has been deleted several times and has reappeared again, it's pretty obvious it should be deleted Corey.spring 01:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this page it is part of something important that the X-Box community is working on.

(unsigned comment by 69.225.203.153. This person also blanked corey spring's comment)

  • Delete take it to the sandbox if you want to work on it. Hamster Sandwich 02:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Unexplained, nonsense. -maclean25 02:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague (indeed, nonsensical) statements written backwards do not an encyclopedia article make. Fipe 04:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per maclean25. --Apyule 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Dottore So 06:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, K1Bond007 06:03, August 21, 2005

(UTC)

  • DONT DELETE, if you don't like it, stay off it. This is needed. stay out of things you don't understand.

I have protected the page, because a large number of anons and new users have repeatedly vandalized the page, including repeatedly removing the VfD header. Zoe 07:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material. --TheMidnighters 09:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, as per TheMidnighters' suggestion. --Agamemnon2 10:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, this is an interesting site, and that's an interesting puzzle, sry I don't know howto comment so I'm editing this page --RoCKy
  • Speedy Delete as per TheMidnighters' suggestion. --Lomedae 12:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The talk page says it's part of a marketing campaign, so not only is it rubbish and not encyclopaedic, it's an ad. Cursive 14:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. No consensus otherwise. JYolkowski // talk 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda Sigma Upsilon[edit]

Just a copyvio, no other info, no activity for nearly a month Wiffle0rz 01:42, 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) 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up for grabs[edit]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Any moving should be handled outside this VfD's scope. JYolkowski // talk 16:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hen which lays Golden Eggs[edit]

Not complete nonsense, but not far off. The title is the author's own invention, is not at all notable, and all the material in it is covered elsewhere.
Also see Hen that lays golden eggs, a redirect included in this nomination. 80.255 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So if the story can be 100% attributed to Aesop, maybe a redirect to that article? Hamster Sandwich 07:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to The Goose that Laid the Golden Eggs. Alf 08:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Golden Goose exists. Pilatus 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article is based on an actual cryptid that can be found in the See also references. It bears importance in the occult and cryptozoology. Note that it is not the same thing as the Golden Goose or The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. Perhaps they can be combined. Piecraft 13:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this user has made a total of 21 edits, only 4 of which have been in article spaces, and the earliest of which was from earlier today (21st August). Given this, this user's vote may be invalid. 80.255 18:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the above comment to be invalid in itself. I do not see how it is wrong to vote for an article whether I am a registered member or not, regardless as to which articles I have edited either anonymously or as a registered person throughout my time here. And I think the rules speak for themselves: Anyone can contribute to the discussion and vote, anonymous users as well as pseudonymous users. A direct quote from the Guide to Votes for deletion. Piecraft 02:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say your vote was invalid; I said it may be invalid; the decision is not mine. It's usually granted that the author, even if anonymous, has the right to a vote on an article he created. However, in your case, you do not appear to be the author and some might consider you a sock puppet. 80.255 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see what you mean now, however I was merely pointing out in my initial comment that the author's article is valid because I myself know for a fact that it is based on actual literature regarding a Hen that lays golden eggs - which has been considered a phenomenon in medieval folklore across Europe as well as a running theme in many fairy tales and stories. Also the Hen or Black Pullet is of considerable importance in the occult as a powerful image. Anyway, I still move to keep this article but perhaps rename it or even combine it with the The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg. which could therefore be expanded as well with this article included. Piecraft 03:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, interesting theme across several important stories, and a common phrase in the culture ("killing the goose with the golden eggs"). Move to a better title, at least in line wine naming conventions. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:27, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Move as per everyone else. ~~ N (t/c) 21:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move agreed with the above stated. Vipersp51 1:54, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Goose? I'm pretty sure the fairy tale is about a hen. Radiant_>|< 10:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is most definitely a goose. Move as per etc etc. Proto t c 09:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: It is a goose - so who's going to search for a hen? What use is a redirect? Should we also have unsystematicly-named articles on Partriges that lay golden eggs, Ptarmigan which lay golden eggs, the Albatross that did lay an egg that was golden?
      • Comment: So let's see according to your statement above we count the number of times that the Gooose appears in folklore (Aesop's The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs which has been sometimes considered a Hen as you can see by Googling it, and The Brothers Grimm's The Golden Goose). Now how many times does the Hen feature in folklore and other affiliated themes? (The Black Pullet, the Russian fairy tale Kurochka Ryaba as stated below and Jack and the Beanstalk, and that's not even mentioning the fact that it is also used as an Alchemical term.) So I guess it's 3-2 for the Hen so far. Also this Hen comes up in other fairy tales as well. However as stated before I feel it should perhaps be placed, moved into a category where the Goose, Hen and other fowls that lay golden eggs can be located etc.. Piecraft 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Goose" is more common in English, which is what matters. ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you figure that? I think I've provided more than enough evidence to prove against your belief that "Goose" is more common than "Hen". What you are forgetting is I'm not contesting against the fact of it being a Goose or not, but the fact remains there is still a considerable difference between both creatures, one is a Goose the other is a Hen - and in both respects we have seen that they are described as such in their respective folklore. I'll leave it at that. Piecraft 23:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there exist a notable Russian fairy tale as stated below on this subject, it should be dealt with at Kurochka Ryaba, and not in this article. This article contains nothing about any Russian folk tale, and my vote remains to delete it - if you or anyone else should decide to create a better article about this story in the future, there will be nothing to stop you. 80.255 23:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Russian fairy tale Kurochka Ryaba is just about that kind of hen.  Grue  18:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Derktar 01:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC).
  • I've checked it; there is a Dutch fairy tale about a hen with golden eggs. This may well be the same as the Russian tale, or it may be the same as the English one about the goose with a centuries-old mistranslation either way. So this should redirect some place, I'll let the experts figure out where. Radiant_>|< 09:39, 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) 02:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SPYG[edit]

Just a non-notable local youth group--14 displayed hits for "Saint Paul Youth Group". Niteowlneils 02:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article describes importance of group to wider community. Clair de Lune 02:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My non-notable faith-based youth group can beat up your non-notable faith-based youth group. Sdedeo 02:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:20:54 Z
  • Delete. Dottore So 06:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn faith-based youth group vanity. --TheMidnighters 09:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --GraemeL (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Lomedae 12:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. feydey 12:53, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America's Shock Past[edit]

Yikes. An attack page on a whole people. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine (Author wrote "This article highlights the true reasons behind the USA's constant threat to the global world. Oil."). Even the title is POV. Much of this stuff is unrelated (compare rape rates to bombings). As for the bombings, we already have a List of U.S. military history events. Any redirect of this, to anything, would be POV and arbitrary. CanadianCaesar 03:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia's shock delete! Sdedeo 03:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide and merge the information into separate articles in which the data would properly belong. Sources for the data would have to be provided as well. I think this article needs to be cleaned up a lot, but not deleted. Some things in America's past may be shameful, but it shouldn't just be ignored. --TheKoG 03:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Shocking. Nobody is saying America's past is being ignored, but it doesn't belong in an article like this. It can go into various History of the United States articles in a more NPOV manner. Zoe 04:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. for the reasons already listed, plus I'm pretty sure that it is a copyvio as well. --Apyule 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source for the article text, and have marked the article as a copyvio. --Apyule 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I find most unwikified, long articles with anon authors are almost always copyvios, I think that website is a Wikipedia mirror. Either that, or it's a source for a few other copyvios here. CanadianCaesar 06:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite possibly right about the mirror, it was just the first site that I found on Google. Anyway, there have been emails with pretty much the same content floating about on the net for a few years now. --Apyule 07:24, 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) 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queenzone[edit]

  • Delete. Advertisement, should probably just be an external link from Queen (band). —Charles O'Rourke 03:09, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa rank is 112,150; not independently notable. Flowerparty talk 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dottore So 06:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Lomedae 12:44, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's not a very good ad by the way, since it doesn't even have the web address. - ulayiti (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It provides objective information and does not fit in any other article 62.238.92.181 14:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Objective information" such as Registration with the site allows access to message boards and lots of interactivity and the ability to contribute Queen concerts, demos, pictures, Freddie Tribute posts and so much more. ??? Sounds exactly like advertisement spam to me!--Firsfron 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is great to have knowledge about these certain communities as Gamefaqs also has one and I feel that this can provide info to new fans and can be mention because of the numbers of members.
  • Keep People deserve a much better Queen fan website than the heavily moderated official Queen website, QueenOnline, which allows no freedom of criticism or speech Inu-liger 04:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This vote is this user's first contribution. —Charles O'Rourke 04:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Not true. I've contributed a lot to Queenzone before, you ignoramus. So shut your mouth up about what you don't know. Inu-liger 05:57, 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 speedy delete A1. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Orchard[edit]

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

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

Canning how-to[edit]

This was recently vfd'd, with comments evenly split between transwiki and delete, and so was closed as keep. I've transwikied the article to Wikibooks, so deletion should now be non-controversial. —Cryptic (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an article detailing the history of Canning how-to, such as books, shows, films on canning how-to historically and important figures in the Canning how-to movement. -Wiffle0rz 04:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How-tos belong in Wikibooks, and I don't see anything that could be merged into canning. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:25:23 Z
  • Delete as per Markaci. --Apyule 05:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Dottore So 06:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Markaci. Kjkolb 10:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. A5. Awful call by the closer, too. Not a single vote was made for keeping the article. -R. fiend 02:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't see the place of this article in an encyclopedia. I don't think people go to an encyclopedia to learn how fix their brakes, hang wallpaper or can food. There is some information that could potentially be merged into Canning, but most of this article is empty placeholders.--Esprit15d 14:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it has been transwikied to a better life. Vegaswikian 06:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

383.Infanterie-Division[edit]

  • Delete it's in German. could someone with knowledge of German tell me if this is notable or not? --Revolución (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The proper action would have been to put a {{translate}} on it. CanadianCaesar 04:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My German is rusty as hell, but it appears that the article is about a German Army division that fought on the Russian front in World War II. I'm gonna tag it for translation. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete by WP:CSD-A1 (very short article providing no or little context). This is just a random piece of trivia. Martg76 04:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says: Infantry regiment 531, later Grenadiers Regiment 531, belonged to this division and was destroyed in Russia in June/July 1944. I say Delete Dottore So 06:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete a nigh-useless stub.
  • Delete I have not found aything specifically notable about this division, or regiment 531 for that matter. I would hope this is not the start of a flood of stubs originating from List_of_German_military_units_of_World_War_II .--Lomedae 13:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. And the original contributor did not even get the space after the number right. --DrTorstenHenning 13:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough information for a stub. Notability is also uncertain. Sietse 17:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per dottore so. Punkmorten 10:53, 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) 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phwcomics[edit]

Gets a lot of google hits, but it seems very NN. Thunderbrand 04:08, 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 speedy deleted by Geogre. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Welch[edit]

Vanity page. Delete Blings 03:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Blings[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete with a copy to BJAODN.

In evaluating this discussion, I merged the three related discussions. Given the topic, it seems to me that an inconsistent result would be the worst possible choice.

By strict vote-counting, I get the following:

  Delete BJAODN Keep Merge could not call
"against..." 8 11 7 2 1
"for..." 9 8 13 2 1
"don't care..." 13 6 8 1 0
summed 15 2/3 12 5/6 12 1/2 2 2

The last line represents the opinions if you took all three discussions and merged them, then eliminated duplication. The fractions come from 2 people who voted differently in the different discussions.

I should also note that 5 of the "keep" voters did so with comments that make it very difficult to tell if they were being serious. Their stated reasons appear to have no connection to the discussion. My hypothesis is that the discussion is about a joke and they consider surreal comments to be humorous and therefore appropriate. Not every culture shares that view, however. I was within a hair's-breadth of putting those comments in the "could not call" column.

Noting that a synopsis is already in the BJAODN archive, I am going to take the last step to delete the pages and the related redirects. Rossami (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard[edit]

Bad joke. BJAODN. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, merge all "Beard" VFD's together. Second, keep (and BJAODN) all of them. I'd like to see where this ends up if it's allowed to go on. --Titoxd 01:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Temporarily, that is... --Titoxd 01:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-encyclopedic. Elfguy 01:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Keep. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. We went over this before and it was speedy keep. They should all be merged however. Please note that these were made at a time when Wikipedia desperately needed a laugh, and they served their purpose (See FreplySpang's comment on its talk page). But now let us merge them and put it in Category:Wikipedia humor. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amusing while they lasted, but they needn't last. -Splash 02:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. *drew 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN works for me. FreplySpang (talk) 03:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN shouldn't be a wikiproject but definately deserves a place at BJAODN. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 04:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless project, not funny enough for BJAODN. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke project, has outlived the joke. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, nice parody of the censorship/countercensorship Wikiproject debacle. Radiant_>|< 08:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Merge all the Beard projects into one and put into category:Wikipedia:Humour. Thryduulf 10:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Jimbobeardcruft.--Scimitar parley 16:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- user:zanimum
  • Speedy keep, Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:08, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  • BJAODN - Mike "Mig" 23:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • GJAODN --Ryan Delaney talk 08:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, MOVE to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against Wikipedians against Jimbo's beard --Cool Cat My Talk 16:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain A comment, I think the problem with Jimbo's beard is the length. It's too short and it makes it a little stubly. He needs to grow it longer and the longer the better. Hopefully so long he needs servants to carry it. DyslexicEditor 19:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since when is humor not permitted? — Dan | Talk 23:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm violent supportive of Jimbo's beard. I'd support a move to commons though. --fvw* 00:17, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: ElfGuy said non-encyclopedic... is that a criteria for non namespace VfD's? </rhetorical> Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Matt Crypto 08:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all joke wikiprojects including specifically this one per my reasoning in the related discussion below.Rossami (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lulu. ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 21:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lulu Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all beard projects. They show Wikipedia isn't as boring as you'd think. :) - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 13:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it has run its course. -- DS1953 03:39, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. First of all it has already been through this and has been kept. Secondly, without such things, WP is like a nerds' club.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 04:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Yay! Notable! :D --WikiFanatic,formerly known as WikiFan04Talk 00:03, 5 Sep 2005 (CDT)
  • In Soviet Russia, beard grows you! Keep or Move to Mother Russia Wikipedia Project2501a 14:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: opposition to funny Wikipedia pages, if done, should be done as a policy, not piecemeal. Article has already been vfd and kept can't confirm. Possible move to meta.nevermind about thatDDerby(talk) 15:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC) edited 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was article has changed significantly, so not deleted. JYolkowski // talk 19:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Manga Corps[edit]

Not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 05:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only that, I strongly suspect the author is a sockpuppet of either Maoririder or Wiki brah. I'm thinking Maoririder. Delete as no content, not notable and a waste of time. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Lucky6.9. Hamster Sandwich 06:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Lucky6.9. --Apyule 06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Lucky6.9. --Tysto 06:21, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Central Park Media (though that's similarly microstubby). US Manga Corps isn't (primarily) an online store; they're a licensor and distributor. —Cryptic (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established, or even hinted at in a vague kind of way. CanadianCaesar 08:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above --Agamemnon2 10:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above arguments. --Lomedae 13:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I have rewritten the article to be about the North American anime distributor rather than an unknown and trademark infringing website. 132.205.46.188 22:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewrite, notable early licensee of anime in the US (were they always owned by CPM? It's an old brand if so) see list of titles. --zippedmartin 23:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Central Park Media.--Matteh (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as per the above. --Mysidia (talk) 03:06, 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 no consensus, so kept. JYolkowski // talk 19:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Sugarmann[edit]

Vanity/advertising. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not sure if this quite falls under a speedy, but it sure comes off as POV and possibly unverifiable. - Lucky 6.9 05:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should have been speedied, does not allege notability except for a false claim that he created the term assault weapon. Zoe 05:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per zoe. Dottore So 06:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Zoe. Hamster Sandwich 06:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy is a well known anti-gun campaigner, with several well known published works [3]. The article needs cleaning up, but it is worthy of inclusion, and not vanity or advertising. --Apyule 06:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided it can be cleaned up and added to, if not, axe it. --Agamemnon2 10:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim that VPC coined the phrase "assault weapon" seems correct -- at least, numerous sources from both sides of the political spectrum assert it. Sdedeo 16:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, per the other keep votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 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) 02:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing Internet censorship[edit]

See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a link repository or a HOWTO. --Mysidia (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As above. However, this may be a copyvio: the license at the top of the article appears to be incompatible with the GFDL. --Carnildo 06:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He links the original text: http://www.zensur.freerk.com/#1.4 It appears not particularly more restrictive than the GFDL, which itself provides for requiring certain information be provided with documents. I cannot be certain that they are compatible, but the GFDL does not permit attributions, copyright notices, or authorship information to be removed, either. --Mysidia (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't matter if it's "not particularly more restrictive". My understanding of the GFDL is that if it is any more restrictive, it's not compatible. --Carnildo 19:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mysidia. --Agamemnon2 10:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mysidia, feydey 12:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is now. The topic is much broader than list of websites and current page is so lousy that no one dared to touch it. Pavel Vozenilek 15:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is now. This article is a valuable part of Wikipedia, and many people read it daily.
  • Cleanup and merge information into Censorship in cyberspace. Penelope D 22:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be merged with censorship in cyberspace, and should keep an informative stance rather than a how to 195.229.241.188 10:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Wikibooks, as this would be perfect on it. --Bash 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete and move ^ Agree with above comment --Saint-Paddy 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Wikibooks, HOWTO's belong there not in Wikipedia Urger 5:11 EST 27 August 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Naconkantari 23:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFur[edit]

WikiFur was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-21. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFur.

WP:NN Many fan wikis have been deleted for much less. Only one of the references is not from wikia.com. --Fandyllic 4:46 PM PST 1 Nov 2006

  • Keep. What statements in the article cannot be verified? We've tried to keep it to the facts wherever possible. The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is. Only two of them are to WikiFur itself, though, and one of those is an announcement that could also have been referenced to the Wikipedia edit, or to a LiveJournal post. I thought it best to make a page for it on WikiFur where it could be given in context with later posts. Wikis aren't always great secondary references, but I don't see a problem with it being a primary one for itself. This article was deleted once, and rightly so, because it was badly written and the site was one month old. I think things have improved now. GreenReaper 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is." This statement makes judging this site's notability easier. Andrew Levine 02:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true of most wikis. The documents concerning their foundation and policy are hosted on their websites and related websites. The best place to go for information about Wikipedia is Wikipedia - an article which happens to have large numbers of references to meta-wiki, the Wikimedia Foundation, and even to itself. It also happens to be the most comprehensive coverage of its topic. It's the same for WikiFur. I could link directly to LiveJournals where significant members of the subject area have said what they thought about WikiFur, but why not just point to the wiki page where they are already referenecd and tied together into an article? GreenReaper 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has been covered in almost every major media source in the world. That establishes its notability well. A notable subject needs more than just a single short mention in a free weekly in Pittsburgh. Andrew Levine 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Comparing Wikifur to Wikipedia in terms of media coverage is unfair. Wikipedia is a large, general purpose encyclopedia aimed at the general public, wikifur is not. A by-the-word interpretation of WP:WEB does not refer at all to size or distribution of the third-party source, only that it be well-known. The fact that this non-furry third-party source chose to directly quote from wikifur and redistribute its content is an example of wikifur's notability and a demonstration of it's usefulness outside the fandom. -- DeVandalizer 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't the one who originated the Wikipedia comparison. And if we allowed every fan website that was mentioned once in a local paper, we'd have to expand our definition of notable to allow thousands of fansites more. Andrew Levine 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GreenReaper. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's no worse than Divehi Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, Memory Alpha, Lostpedia, WOWWiki in the great scheme of things. Some differences, none important enough to matter for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems WoWiki got deleted already. Seems a bit hasty to me, but whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 03:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Many articles were deleted for less" is not a valid reason to delete a page. Resolute 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, but I still don't see how it is notable, I prod'ed it but in fact I had suggestions from some other administrators to speedy delete it under WP:CSD#A7 and redirect to Wikia, and I don't think this would be far off. I see no need to include every Wikia wiki here, even if it started off as an alternative to publishing Furry pages on Wikipedia itself. (And of course it does not satisfy WP:WEB).--Konst.ableTalk 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The section that mentions furry topics on Wikipedia is just intended as a explanation, not a claim to notability. (Though perhaps it's notable for being most vandalized as a direct result of its content? It was bad enough that eventually a special extension was made. :-) GreenReaper 06:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And in reply to your statement: My belief is that material that is verifiable and does not contain any NPOV violations should have a place on Wikipedia. Using other people's reports (notability) is a way to try to achieve some assurance of that, but it seems like it's just a shortcut for Wikipedians doing the fact-checking themselves, and that when it is easy to do then they should do it. I can understand that when it's a complicated question of law or science which is hard for laymen to understand (which is why there is NOR, to avoid that uncertainty), but I don't really see the application to this particular article, which makes reasonable, referenced assertions about the mission and history of a wiki that has existed and operated for over a year, and which is well-known within its sphere. GreenReaper 06:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks sufficient coverage by reliable published sources per WP:WEB. Sandstein 05:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:WEB or WP:V. No non-trivial coverage. Wickethewok 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination). Havok (T/C/c) 09:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: What exactly does the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) have to do with discussion? I fail to see the relevance, other than the fact that the article was for a wiki about a particular fandom. Also, I'm curious as to why you'd vote for deletion on an article with similar scope as the article you fought to keep. Do you believe that because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) came out in favor of deletion for that particular fan-based wiki that it means that no fan-based wiki can ever be on wikipedia? Please expand your reasoning. -- DeVandalizer 10:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I feel that Wikipedia has spoken about fan wikis, and that a simple list would suffice for all of them. WoWWiki was simply the AfD that got me to rethink my stance on the whole subject. Havok (T/C/c) 11:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my comment on your Wookieepedia nomination regarding this.--Konst.ableTalk 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Wikipedia doesn't take a blanket position on wikis, they are considered based on notability per WP:WEB. Also, trying to get other pages deleted after a page you supported got deleted can be seen as retaliation and a violation of WP:POINT. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One mention in a local paper is not sufficient mainstream press coverage to establish notability. Also, it is annoying when they do not define in the article what the hell they are talking about. The article has a click link to a dictionary definition article Furry fandom which is unencyclopedic as well. Edison 16:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't find a lot of the reasons cited for deletion here to be that compelling. Just because the wiki isn't covered in Time magazine doesn't make it non-notable; I realize major media coverage makes a handy shortcut to deciding what deserves space, but it shouldn't be used as a crutch either. The article should be improved, rather than deleted before it has the chance to get better, as I can't think of any serious reason it can't be made better or more referenced. --ToyDragon
  • Delete per WP:WEB or WP:V. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Levine, Sandstein, Wickethewok, WP:WEB, WP:V, etc. --WillyWonty 18:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why it fails WP:WEB. It's sources are Wikipedia, Wikia, Wikimania wiki, a something awful forum post, and the only media reference here is not about Wikifur, but about furries and only mentions Wikifur as a reference. It is basically no more a source than this reference to a different wiki and that wiki article got deleted. I've seen articles full of sources and even gotten on television by MSNBC and they've been deleted. Basically one vague mention in a newspaper article doesn't cut it for most articles and I see hundreds deleted each month with similar sources and they all just aren't notable enough. DyslexicEditor 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Hate the topic, but that doesn't change that this is a decent article on the subject. Unfocused 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Not entirely convinced it's notable, but having an article in a printed newspaper acknowledging it as a "Wikipedia-like" source for its particular niche is a step up from many articles as far as WP:RS goes, and the article itself is well cited. Shimeru 07:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to a full keep... seems like a noteworthy wiki, especially for one devoted to a niche topic. Also am beginning to suspect that some of the delete voting is driven either by that topic, or by previous AfDs for other "fan wikis." Shimeru 00:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Eh... it's one of the most notable wikis in Wikia, and appears to have had media/wiki community exposure that's not entirely trivial. There's no major problems in the article that would warrant much controversy. While it's not exactly a household word it probably barely passes WP:WEB in my opinion. At very least this is xlink-worthy material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It fails all points of WP:WEB and there is no significant coverage meeting WP:INDY to think that we should override the WP:WEB guideline. There is no evidencce that the content of WikiFur has multiple independent coverage. The UrsaMajor award is not well known, and it is an award from the fans of furrys so it may not even be independent as the WikiFur editors are also fans of furries. There is no evidence that the content is redistributed by an independent site. As all criteria of WP:WEB are not met, an article on it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria. GRBerry 19:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever I wanted to say, has honestly been said, so. I don't see why it should be deleted. Disinclination 03:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep ... but needs a complete rewrite; present article talks about irrelevant aspects of the site (non-notability on wiki, edit wars). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to the second paragraph, starting "Like Wookieepedia,"? The objective there was to give some context for its foundation, to answer the question "why does this website exist?" I think this is something that needs to be answered, and those are the reasons I had in mind, but there's probably a better way to put it - I'd welcome any edits, or suggestions on how to improve that section. GreenReaper 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable; doesn't really pass WP:WEB. Voretustalk 18:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no way this is notable. WIth reference to article number: I've seen articles where the info is taken from a new user's userpage, so it's no wonder the articles are as numerous as they are. Take out all the Category:People articles and you have far fewer than other wikis that were deleted for notability reasons. Also a depressingly low number of google hits. Apparently it's a favorite at Wikia:Wikia, but that doesn't make it notable. Seems very self-referencing of the "wiki universe" section of the internets, someone with no knowledge of Wikia and Wikipedia would not care. By the way, I only have like 20 edits, lol. Miltopia 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are around 2100 articles in Category:People. I do not know how many of these articles would be included in the conservative count - some are, of course, stubs, while others are highly trafficked, linked and/or featured - but I'd say around 4/5 of them, or ~1700. This is not surprising given that the chief part of a community is its people. But why would anyone want to take them out? WikiFur is not Wikipedia - it is intended (in part) as a public directory of members of the furry fandom, and it is used as such by many, who find it convenient to get a summary of facts, accomplishments, and links to further information. We do encourage users to develop public articles about themselves if they are in the fandom, because in this case much of the information that would normally go on user pages is relevant to the topic of the wiki. It is often the topic that new users have the most knowledge about to hand, so they can make a quick contribution, plus it gets them used to having their writing edited. GreenReaper 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm just saying as far as measuring WikiFur's notability by article number isn't accurate because most of those articles are written about people who, frankly, don't matter in a global encyclopedic sense any more than I do. So, number of articles probably shouldn't be used to offset the low google results, since the articles are not at all about significant people. Like, it's not like these are essential articles to be knowledgeable about the furry fandom, and many are autobiographical. This is compared to ED (might as well get that out of the way), which, while not a good article candidate in itself in my opinion, has information about famous internet people that you just can't find anywhere else, thus making it a more notable source of its purpose in comparison to WikiFur. I think the very low traffic kind of speaks for itself. I'm sorry, I'm trying really hard not to like insult your wiki and am not expressing myself well and probably insulting it anyway, but I'm doing my best here. Miltopia 22:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine, but the only person who's brought up measuring notability by article number (twice) is you. We all know anyone can make a wiki with lots of articles, usually by importing them. The link I pasted above was in reference to editors, as I see community involvement as a big factor in wiki notability. In that sense, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "very low traffic". WikiFur certainly don't get a billion hits a week - more like 120,000 - but then the furry fandom does not have a billion people in it. We're happy with our figures, as they make for a high-traffic site within its domain (especially considering we're not giving out porn :-). I would argue that this, plus the ability to verify the facts in the article from the given references (which I don't think anyone has disputed), is sufficient reason to keep it.
      ED is a discussion apart from this AfD. While I agree with Wikipedia's link policy, I think it should probably have an article. GreenReaper 20:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability beyond the fur fandom/internet -- wispywolfox 70.36.88.64 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AcIS[edit]

Not notable --Hooperbloob 05:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as above --Cje 19:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -- DS1953 17:38, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter ramsaroop[edit]

I'll change my vote to keep as well, based on below. —Charles O'Rourke 17:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'll change my vote to keep based on below.Dottore So 15:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --Apyule 06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does seem to be an active political figure in Guyana, but the article needs a lot of work. --Apyule 07:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Peter Ramsaroop is serving as a civil society activist for change in Guyana, a country of high potential that has not been realised due to political instability and racial tension. There's no profit to gain.
  • Keep The article does need work though to put him into a context in Guyana. Dlyons493 09:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with proper context. --Agamemnon2 10:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable Guyanese (+1000 Google hits for "Peter Ramsaroop", and nearly that many for "Peter R. Ramsaroop"). Keep (plus cleanup, and then move to Peter Ramsaroop). DS 12:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --Lomedae 13:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Capitalistroadster 16:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DS. Guettarda 16:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but may be a copyvio. Secretlondon 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • copyvio. Tagged and bagged. JDoorjam 22:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated. Updated page to avoid the apparent copyright violation of Peter's short bio from his RoopGroup website. Permission was given to use this material.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 03:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution (band)[edit]

Non-notable band vanity. Tysto 06:17, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

  • Delete there is an allmusic page but it's probably the barest I've ever seen, and it looks like their only release was a song on one hardcore compilation CD, so it seems they don't meet WP:MUSIC. --TheMidnighters 10:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A vanity page about an unheard of band, nuff said. --Agamemnon2 10:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't assert sufficient notability. KeithD (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable Groeck 18:04, 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) 03:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Burn(band)[edit]

Non-notable band vanity; had cleanup request since June. Tysto 06:19, 2005 August 21 (UTC)

  • Delete. Allmusic.com does list four bands by this name, but neither seem to fit the description given here. And god help me if I searched google for it. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outside ofWP:Music criteria, this is totally POV reportage. Hamster Sandwich 07:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 10:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blu Aardvark. feydey 13:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and burned at stake for non-notability. --LeoTheLion 22:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn band. JDoorjam 22:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 03:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Owens[edit]

Vanity --Ryan Delaney talk 06:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. Hamster Sandwich 07:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a nn professor, reads like vanity. --TheMidnighters 10:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insipid vanity, most likely by the subject himself. --Agamemnon2 10:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The dude seems happy, good for him. But nn vanity for the rest of the world. --Lomedae 13:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. His website [4] includes a rather impressive CV, but I wouldn't want to pass judgment, not knowing the field. Martg76 14:46, 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) 03:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck69.com[edit]

Unnotable website. Unranked by alexa [5]Zeimusu | (Talk page) 06:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn website. Zoe 06:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — It appears to be little more than a vanity page for somebody's low-traffic personal Web site. Maylett 06:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insipid ego-pampering. --Agamemnon2 10:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. Alexa rating of "no data (down 100,514)", only 4 pages link to the site. --Lomedae 13:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain Chuck is a candid and on target observer of Michigan media, especially radio User:anon02:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain The web site is significant on a micro level in discussions of Michigan radio, especially stations on the west side of the state. User:anon 19:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain This site has actually effcted change in Broadcasting in West Michigan. It has valuable content for radio listeners. User:Peter Strong 19:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Save- DONT DELETE

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete or Merge. I'll probably merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sestren[edit]

a single character form a video game, and there is little or no useful info included in the article. Delete or merge into Panzer Dragoon. DES (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. --TheMidnighters 10:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if possible, delete otherwise. -- Kjkolb 10:37, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origenxbox360[edit]

Nonsense? Gibberish? At best, something in the future. Though there is no link to whatever page the article is talking about. Neither Google nor Yahoo searches get any hits for this word. Zoe 06:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This might be about an important event or project, but right now, it is completely incomprehensible nonsense. ManoaChild 07:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the mind boggles... Hamster Sandwich 07:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are discussing about http://www.origenxbox360.com/ The site is owned by Microsoft and is a promotion to xbox360... http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=433989

  • Comment. If this is owned by Microsoft, then it is a dismal failure. There doesn't seem to be any buzz about it. ManoaChild 09:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment seems to be attracting attention quickly, but right now there is only a lot of speculation. ManoaChild 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gibberish. --Agamemnon2 10:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It IS owned by Microsoft, see the sites WHOIS. It's using Microsoft's DNS RoCKy
  • Delete, i've read fairytales, that are more non-fictional. Not encyclopedic. feydey 13:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If only for the fact that it's original research. --Lomedae 13:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It might be interesting, but it's also advertising, hard to verify and quite possibly original research. --Apyule 02:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up; if it is along the lines of Haunted Apiary or OurColony, otherwise delete. FlooK 04:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article because it was being vandalized by a variety of children. Zoe 22:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I generally frown upon articles about current events, much less for ones about obviously furture events. If it turns out to be an ARG, then it might cut the mustard for an article... after it settles down. --Bob 12:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It IS an ARG. It is only just now beginning, which is why it seems like nothing.
    • Just being an ARG doesn't guarantee anything an encyclopedia article, it would have to be a notable ARG, and not getting any Google hits means it isn't notable. Zoe 04:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, This is a known ARG. This should most definitely be protected though, since it's Microsoft it is a ripe target for vandals.
    • If you would have taken the time to read the rules, you'd know that there are requirements for notability. Moreover, repeatedly stating anonomously that something is definately notable does not make it so outside of the fourth grade. Thirdly, you are looking for the term "keep" instead of "don't delete", not dat anonymous votes are counted. --Lomedae 12:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment; Protection is the last thing that should be applied to this article since in it's current state it is useless to anyone who does not follow the subject and complete gibberish to those who aren't familiar with the company's previous viral marketing campaigns. The only reason I see to keep it is that the Xbox ARGs have been successful and notable in the past, and it's likely that this will receive a similar following. —FlooK 13:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you would bother to check the article's edit history, you would see that several anonymous vandals have been making gibberish edits to the page and repeatedly deleting the vfd header. Would you rather have it in this shape, or as "I like pooping"? Zoe21:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I can’t see anyone learning anything from either so maybe the pooping thing, more chance of some idiot finding it funny :) —FlooK
  • Don't Delete - It's a major event in the history of Microsoft/XBOX, and like all widespread riddle-based ARGs, the idea is that they start off with as little information as possible, and end up revealing more than you could have hoped for. Given the huge amount of interest in this page, I see no reason why it should not have an article on wikipedia. --CherryMay 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you get your information that there is "huge amount of interest in this page"? Zoe 21:55, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • As ManoaChild commented, it is gaining attention rather rapidly. Most game-related sites have posted news articles speculating on its meaning, and given the short time that it has been online, there have been thousands of people trying to solve its mystery (many of which can be seen in internet forums/news discussion articles). Whilst there is only speculation at this point in time, I feel that any solid news, evidence, or factual information should be listed as a current ongoing event. If the website timer expires and the entire site turns out to be a 'generic advertising ploy' after all, with no other site occurrences or 'trails', then by all means the wikipedia entry should be deleted. Until that time, it does seem appropriate to have a wikipedia entry on the subject for its current factual state.
        • As I said in my nomination, there were zero Google hits for this word, how can it be so notable? Zoe 05:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • Actually, now there are about 6000 Google hits on Origenxbox360, all speculation. ManoaChild 06:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up If the information it contains is organised properly, with external links for more information and theories (putting all the theories in one Wiki article would be silly), I see no reason for this to be deleted... it's an ARG that's only just beginning, so granted there is only a small amount of information for now... but within the next 30 days, something else is bound to come up about it. --CosmicFalcon 13:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply because this is explained briefly in the Xbox 360 article.  Thorpe talk 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up This article needs to be cleaned. I could do it, but it's protected --RoCKy 13:51, 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) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blogfolio[edit]

Neologism. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. --Lomedae 13:44, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per nom. Alf 14:36, 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) 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ikool[edit]

Neologism --Ryan Delaney talk 07:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neologism. --TheMidnighters 10:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete feydey 13:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total humbug. Haven't found even one hit in Google for the supposed meaning. --Lomedae 13:46, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dyou[edit]

Slang dictdef. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:11, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sirajul Islam[edit]

Notabilty not established, other than being a professor. Note that the name is common, so Google may return links/results to many other persons of the same name.

  • Delete: NN. --Ragib 07:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I also agree with Ragib. --Bhadani 07:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a Sirajul Islam who is chief editor for Banglapedia, the National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. This proves that the same man is also a professor in the Department of History, University of Dhaka. (I found it by querrying Google on Banglapedia, then requerrying the results on his name.) Let's welcome this article as a bio-stub, & improve on it in order to help fill one more systemic gap in our coverage. -- llywrch 18:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being responsible for development of a national encyclopedia is certainly evidence that his scholarship is highly regarded in Bangladesh. Capitalistroadster 01:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per llywrch. --Apyule 02:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per llywrch, although if multiple Sirajul Islams are deserving of articles, may in time need to become a disambig. The Literate Engineer 06:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aakarda[edit]

Advertising. - Mailer Diablo 07:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Advertising for obscure product. ManoaChild 07:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising. CanadianCaesar 07:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advercruft. --Lomedae 13:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above --Raistlin 18:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above --Cje 19:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No change in my vote. This is still an ad. If you think the theory that the product is based on is notable, then create an article for the theory and make an External link to the product. Trying to "save" this article is the wrong way to go (IMHO). --Cje 14:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save , the page has been changed to not advertise but to acknowledge the readers. Please read. --Rufioo 10:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ehm, you've only made it into more of an advertisement with your edits. You have deleted all external links but added more POV statements and sales figures. The fact that numerology wasn't wikified wasn't that important also. If anything, you have made the case for deletion stronger. --Lomedae 15:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Save , More has been added. Please read. Help me save the article. --Rufioo
    • I struck out your vote, since you've already had one. Flowerparty talk 17:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising for a completely non-notable piece of software. CDC (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Grand Theft Auto it's not. Paul Klenk 20:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete numerology software? puh-leeze! Deletion because: it's an advertisement. --WCFrancis 21:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --maclean25 23:24, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Hayes[edit]

NN + Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 07:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: yes delete now, but I wish to see the child grows to become a part of wikipedia one day. --Bhadani 07:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)--Bhadani 13:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- I had done it in a hurry without understanding all the dimensions of the contents. --Bhadani 13:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article establishes notability. Kappa 11:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the child isn't going to grow to become part of Wikipedia, for the same reason that the (clumsily-written) article isn't vanity: she's a fictional character who was the subject of eight books, and has >11K Google hits. Keep (and I'll get started on the cleanup).DS 12:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable children's book character. Capitalistroadster 16:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DS. -- DS1953 20:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but reformulate making it more clear --Raistlin 18:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE

Mark MacDonald Brown[edit]

NN, Fails to establish notability because he has no NASA experience. Vanity. :P - Mailer Diablo 07:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nn-bio - "Student", no claim to notability asserted --Mysidia (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've now tagged as a speedy delete. Notability not asserted, and not even hinted at CanadianCaesar 07:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidates for A7 Speedy don't come any more obvious than this. Capitalistroadster 10:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed the plow. I placed it for speedy deletion, but User:Mailer_diablo removed that when entering the VFD. Now, why? --Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete already. --Lomedae 13:49, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meet The Sess[edit]

  • Delete This article is about an unimportant, fake show that never existed and certainly doesn't deserve an article here. Salvag 07:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a joke from a show. --TheMidnighters 10:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Lomedae 13:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thunderbrand 15:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Adam Sessler, as that already mentions Meet the Sess.--Kross 06:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Line and Ryan Moore[edit]

Non-notable student film and its 13-year-old creator. Zoe 08:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, as the writer of thsi film I can say this movie is relevant and it is being backed by a group of investors. You have no idea wat is going on plz dont delete this cause this is going to be a movie which will be released. It is just as relevant as any other movie. From Ryan Moore

  • Delete Blood Line -- per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the undertaking does not seem to yet be notable or published in news sources as to merit the article. The last sentence of the article pretty much sums it up: The film is not being backed by a or studio and does not yet have a distributor. --Mysidia (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also see [Kitty Goddard] -- Corey.spring 08:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both Feel bad if this is a newbie but deletable per Mysidia. Hope he checks his messages. Marskell 08:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My parents are putting $350,00 towards the production of thsi film. It does exist and it will be made so plz stop it.

  • Delete both. nn production and vanity page. ManoaChild 08:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan has now created a User ID. We could userfy Ryan Moore. Zoe 08:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfr^Hy and delete. Alphax τεχ 09:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. —Cryptic (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Apparant hoax. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • IT ISNT A HOAX WHY DO YOU NOT TAKE ME SERIOSULY!
  • Delete both, vanity/nn. --DrTorstenHenning 13:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Even if it is not a hoax, it will not achieve encyclopedic notability until the film is made. -- BD2412 talk 17:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 19:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userify respectively, on grounds of non-notability above and beyond the call. He can recreate 'em next year and tell us all he told us so, after all. Alai 20:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable --Sleepyhead 20:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I understand if u wanna wait 'till it comes out but calling it vanity is rude and I would apperciate an apology

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 03:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cook Effect[edit]

Non-notable original research. The Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a mirror for dubious sites like www.americanantigravity.com, www.electrogravity.com, or jlnlabs.online.fr. Not primarily relevant to VfD, but of course it's totally at odds with physics.

  • Delete --Pjacobi 08:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn pseudoscience. ManoaChild 08:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this drivel because it's pseudoscience would be wrong IMHO. The article does have a POV problem, but this is noted and tagged accordingly. I don't particularily want this to be in Wikipedia but I feel it needs to be. --Lomedae 13:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment sounds like a "Searle Effect" rip off to me (1940s anti grav experiments). Alf 15:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it's pseudoscience, but because it is completely non-notable pseudoscience. Sdedeo 16:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable hoax Salsb 12:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio, tagged and bagged. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breakscore[edit]

Non-notable game, advertising, probably copied from a pamphlet somewhere. Zoe 08:31, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Goddard[edit]

This is one of several pages being created by 13 yr old Ryan Moore of IP 220.240.152.145 to promote a film he wants to make. Delete Corey.spring 08:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

All the stuff I written is real and relevant. It does exsist and you have you information wrong.

OK then I understand if u wanna wait 'till it comes out but calling it vanity is rude and I would apperciate an apology BTW it is not several pages it is 3 relevant pages

Comment. You might want to check our definition of a vanity page, and reconsider your demand for an apology. --DrTorstenHenning 06:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to demand an apology

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 03:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ChromePixels[edit]

Non notable website with no Alexa rank and a dismal 14 unique Google hits. Article makes no other claim to notability, and was created by someone who claims to run ChromePixels itself (incidentally, he's now been blocked for suspected sockpuppetry and an offensive user name). Vanity, advertising. CanadianCaesar 08:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. ManoaChild 09:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- Corey.spring 09:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. --Lomedae 12:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomnintar. --Optichan 21:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:52, 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) 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Eugene Hendricks[edit]

Article does not establish notability, in my opinion. Sietse 09:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. --KFP 10:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I tagged the entry as nn-bio. It makes no claims to notability. --GraemeL (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like a really nice family, not an encylopedia entry. Alf 15:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temple of the Sith[edit]

No, it's not Star Wars fancruft as the name would imply (or Trekkie-cruft, if Doc Glasgow were doing the nomination). It's a non-notable forum clan. I thought you had to be doing something competitive to form a clan. Regardless, non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 10:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, article doesn't assert notability. Martg76 14:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with above. Dottore So 19:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this makes my skin itch. Nandesuka 00:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete; Clans can indeed be purely social. No way is this notable though. FlooK 04:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It also looks like an anonymous user just removed everyone's votes from this page. I've reverted it. Optichan 21:56, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no concensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

California Institute of Technology trustees[edit]

This text is of dubious encyclopedic nature, and shouldn't exist by itself. Long lists of people who donate lots of money to institutions don't really belong in university/college articles, as it is somewhat arbitrary and often information on the trustees themselves already exists separately on WP and on official instution websites. Delete Bumm13 10:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to me like it would be useful documentation. I would delete only if the information is duplicated somewhere else on WP -- Corey.spring 10:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not understand the reasoning behing this nomination. The list of trustees of an institution is very well defined. This nomination seems to equate the trustees to major donors, when, in fact, the board of trustees of an university is like the board of directors of a corporation. ManoaChild 10:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the article can demonstrate a reason for maintaining this list (which will change from year to year and will always be public record.) Notable trustees can have their own articles. Sdedeo 16:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Too long to merge into California Institute of Technology. -- BD2412 talk 18:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Corey.spring --Apyule 02:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the article is kept, it think it would be preferable if it was not just a list of current trustees, as that will soon be dated unless maintained, but a historical list, including all trustees in chronological order from the foundation of the school with years for their election and resignation. There seem to be enough people around here interested in Caltechcruft to make such a list. BTW, noting that the list was uncategorized, I just added a new Caltech category to contain this and other Caltech-related articles. Please categorize any articles I missed. Uppland 04:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC) (Changed "weak keep" to just a neutral "comment", not convinced either way. Uppland 07:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete My feeling is that the encyclopedic nature isn't dubious, it's non-existent. The Literate Engineer 06:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is just a list of people copied from the Caltech website. Since the Caltech webpage will always be the more authoritative source, that page should be an external link in the Caltech article, and this page should be deleted. Iff the article is changed from just a list of names, to an explanation of the duties and responsibilities of the trustees of Caltech, and the list is pared down to only the most notable names (plus notable trustees from the past), then my vote would change from delete to weak keep. BlankVerse ∅ 10:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem known as latency in software engineering; duplicating a list maintained elsewhere risks getting out of date. I vote for deletion. Pdn 15:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (PhD Caltech 1960)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phelestia[edit]

To the original author: I'm afraid this article, though interesting, isn't encyclopedic. Encyclopedias are supposed to contain information, not whole stories.

I'm voting delete as per Wikipedia:No original research. Kel-nage 10:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --KFP 10:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some sort of story, of unknown origin. Original research. ManoaChild 10:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks provided it's not a copyvio. Alphax τεχ 10:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as test page or patent nonsense. --DrTorstenHenning 14:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do not transwiki; Wikibooks' mandate is textbooks, and they specifically don't take fiction. —Cryptic (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Contains no intelligible content. -- Visviva 01:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axis Mile[edit]

A band which is "relatively unknown and have not released any albums" according to the author. There were pages created for each member: Tom duffy, Nick campbell, Dave beadle, Neil Curran. Delete all TheMidnighters 11:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. NN Marskell 12:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Useless. This vote applies to all articles mentioned by nominator. Punkmorten 20:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The milton experiance[edit]

Delete, nn teen band Punkmorten 11:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 18:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do they really spell their name that way? Zoe 23:14, 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 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amarna Letters EA 19(Tushratta) plus ...[edit]

Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1, Amarna Letters EA 205(Mayor of Tubu), Amarna Letters EA 245(Biridiya,No.4), Amarna Letters EA 296(Yahtiru), Amarna Letters EA 299(Yapahu), Amarna Letters EA 330, Sumerograms, No.1, in EA Letters and Category:Transliterations.

This clearly has something to do with the translation of ancient Egyptian documents - or at least one ancient Egyptian document - so I'm loathe to speedy it as nonsense. However, it's way too incoherent to be salvaged as an article. At best, it would contain the translation of an ancient Egyptian document, and notes on how it was translated; if anyone's interested, it could go on Wikisource instead. DS 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The background is explained in Amarna letters. -- RHaworth
  • Keep. Just needs cleanup. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 03:02
  • Transwiki. (By this I mean move to another Wikipedia project, & delete.) I appreciate the work the original contributor is doing, but it's unfortunately not appropriate for Wikipedia -- but these contributions would be very welcome at Wikisource, Wikibooks or split between them. -- llywrch 23:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one do a gentle delete? Certainly we must wait until the author, Michael McAnnis has copied his work off and notified us here. I have put a note on this talk page encouraging Michael to go independant with this stuff. It has very much an original research feel which would make it unwelcome on Wikibooks/source. Sadly the quality, although it is improving, is still not very high - all the articles look and read as rather chaotic. It should not make any difference, but Michael's reluctance to create an account also weighs against him in my view. -- RHaworth 11:25:42, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
Notes. I have only today put VfD tags on six of the items, so I am moving this debate forward a week. Also we need to see a few more votes. Strictly the Category should go through CfD but since no-one else has used it, I think we can list it here. -- RHaworth 11:25:42, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
  • Comment - if transwiki is not an option (and it seems that it isn't), then why not userfy for now - on the understanding that this cannot be a long-term solution. It gets it out of the article space without immediately destroying well intentioned work --Doc (?) 16:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC) OK, just delete then --Doc (?) 00:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do we userfy to? He has not created an account. -- RHaworth 00:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is disconcerting lack of context, making it hard to know what to make of this. I will vote Delete if the original author is unwilling to provide explicative justification for this entry. Dottore So 19:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is original research without citation to any authoritative source in the field. I'd like ot assume good faith here, but that does not change the fact that the editor has been unable to communicate clearly with RHaworth after several very clear and helpful exchanges. -Harmil 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Harmil, and delete. Expand the main article instead. Radiant_>|< 10:21, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now (for people a little into the thing, it's notable enough). I too would opt for userfy and left the {{anon}} template on the userpage, and I especially don't agree with the OR mentioned above; he's just trying to make (literal)translations. The problem is that the author picked some of the less important letters/treaties (the hittite/egyptian peace treaty after the battle of Kadesh would have been a better start). It reads just so awkward because it's difficult to translate cuneiform and hieroglyhs into modern languages. E.g., the name Hattusili (thats hittite), if written in cuneiform and literally translated would become somthing like gispasidingirlim (so you write gispasidingirlim and read Hattusili) Lectonar 12:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantic, OT question for Lectonar. A long time ago, I took a class on Hittite, & from what I remember your example about "Hattusili" actually being "gispasidingirlim" doesn't make sense. Are those the original Sumeric values of the cuneiform characters? If so, wouldn't it be more accurate to represent "gispasidingirlim" as (guessing here) "GIŠ-PAS-IDIN-GIR-LIM", or something similar? But I do agree with your point, that the spelling in these ancient documents can be problematic; it is fascinating to compare how the names of well-known Egyptian pharaohs are transliterated into cuneiform with their spelling in the native Egyptian texts, e.g. "Wasmuaria satepnareya" (cuneiform) with "Usermaatra Setepenra Rameses" (Egyptian), suggesting that the scribes fossilized Egyptian spelling much as has been done in modern English or French. -- llywrch 19:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At a second thought, as he has created no account so far, could we just move it into temp articles to let him work it out a little. I'm very reluctant to have this deleted, as it's so very difficult to come across someone who likes to devote energy to the these topics Lectonar 12:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in trying to use anon user pages - he is using AOL and will come in with a different IP address every session. He has commented on Talk:Amarna Letters Dictionary Global, No. 1 in the past. Let us hope he does so now. -- RHaworth 09:33:33, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
  • You're obviously right here, I used the wrong approach. BTW, how do you know he's using AOL?If push comes to shove, I would be willing to take them in on user-subpage(s) to be created (that leaves the problem: How does he know I've done this? Plus, it's not really my area of expertise (or I would have done something already). And I know about at least 50 books in german translation which incorporate the Amarna letters, so he's got way to go. If all else fails, I would rescind my keep vote, but for the moment let's just give him a little more time....Lectonar 09:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do I know? I use NetInfo which you need to download. But the whois article has links to online services. -- RHaworth 17:07:37, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not delete for now, the info will still be available to you admins - so nothing is irretrievably lost. If the user returns and wants his work, it can be e-mailed to him. If he is willing to supply context, then we can VfU. Delete, without prejudice to a later revival. --Doc (?) 09:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might belong in some other wiki, if author or authors want to start it there. Gene Nygaard 20:54, 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 keep. No consensus to delete this one. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Nozuka[edit]

Degrassi-cruft, non-notable actor with 14 Google hits. The reason I am bringing it here is to draw attention to User:Jenngonemad who has made several similar articles. Punkmorten 11:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs to be cleaned up and wikified badly. We might just as well put this page out of its misery, but since I think that actors in televised shows are notable, and fondly remember the original Degrassi series, I say Keep and mark for cleanup. --DrTorstenHenning 13:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A guest actor in two episodes? Come on. Punkmorten 20:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Pa-shaw. Get the ants out of your pants. He's going to be more of a major cast member in the new season. I don't like him. I think his Eskimo character is a major dick, but when he is a regualar cast member an imdb page won't be too far off. --Boycottthecaf 19:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't even have an imdb page, as far as I can tell. That's basically a bare minimum for any claim of notability as a screen actor. -R. fiend 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed the user's other contributions, and they were all legitimate (albeit badly written and formatted.) But a two-episode guest shot by an actor with no other credits to his name does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete this; the rest are fine. Bearcat 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character is recent to the Degrassi show as the resident token Eskimo, and will be more prominant in the upcoming season, starting next month in Canada. There will be more content to add before the year ends. Besides, when he does become as prominant as any of those other Degrassi actors, this article will probably be created again if it gets deleted now. --Boycottthecaf 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reference to confirm that he's a regular cast member in the fall? I'm willing to withdraw my vote, but only if it's independently confirmed by a reputable source. Bearcat 16:25, 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 17:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Ross[edit]

Nn, possibly definitely vanity. Ngb 12:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete me, I am a young artist who just wants to be known by more people. (Sorry If I put this in the wrong place) -- (prevoius unsigned contribution by AKLR, 12:12, 21 August 2005)
  • In Wikipedia, we don't delete people, we delete pages about people. Wikipedia is about people who are known, not for people who want to be known. There must be some place in the Internet where Mr Ross can turn - but not here. Delete nn/vanity. --DrTorstenHenning 12:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aidan, to gain recognition over the internet your best strategy is to start your own website, and to get recognized & listed by notable professional art/literature organizations, in my opinion (I'm not an artist, so I'm not familiar with the business). This is an encyclopedia for historically notable people, places, and events. You'll likely end up here if you get famous. :) --Cheese Sandwich 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and suggest you put some of the info (but not the urls) on your own user page, which is blank at the moment. Alf 15:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable yet. feydey 18:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Dottore So 19:15, 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 Delete. HappyCamper 13:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Berman[edit]

Non-notable, maybe vanity.Zander 12:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Page that provides no context, nn-bio, we might even have speedied this. --DrTorstenHenning 13:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy No assertion of notability Dottore So 19:16, 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 17:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest-selling female musician[edit]

The article Biggest-selling female musician has been nominated for deletion. A record of a previous vote on the matter can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Biggest-selling female musician.

  • Delete. This article is superfluous, proves nothing, and leads only to inflated fan figures as partisans of one singer (not "musician") or the other "compete" with each other for highest sales figures. The article violates all three of Wikipedia's basic policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There is nothing on this page that could not be, or is not, better said on the individual artist pages. ProhibitOnions 13:49:10, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
  • Abstain. The reason this article exists is to keep this "debate" from wrecking the individual artist pages, which it was doing before. In a better world, no one would care about this "title" and the article would not need to exist. Wasted Time R 15:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Useless. This article can not even tell for certain who is the best selling female singer. Some of the singers on this list could not possibly be the best selling female artist. For example Whitney Houston and Alla Pugacheva, whoever she is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.117.175 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 20 August 2005
The article used to have a conclusion, but an admin took it out on the grounds it violated the no-original-research rule. Wasted Time R 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The constant edit wars between fans of each musician are troublesome, yes (today I caught two anons, most likely overzealous Mariah Carey fans, removing content from other artists' sections), but I'm worried that the disagreements will spill over to the articles of the artists mentioned if this article is deleted. As a regular contributor to Mariah Carey's article, I'd prefer if that didn't happen. Extraordinary Machine 15:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to be an interesting and well referenced article on a much disputed issue. - SimonP 14:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable fluff. There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. --Madchester 14:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful and plenty of references. A notable topic. Cleanup maybe? Christopher Parham (talk) 16:34, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an interesting article. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has valid references, plus it helps to keep the debate off the main article of these singers. Journalist (talk · contribs)
Comment. WP is not a discussion forum. This page and List of best-selling music artists is just a battleground for fans to duke it out with unverifiable sources. There's no universal counting technique for records sold, let alone a universal body for giving global sales certifications. --Madchester 18:35, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The numbers may be "unverifiable fluff", but the debate itself is notable. -- BD2412 talk 18:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Leave fans to bicker on messageboards, not on Wikipedia. You can't verify the numbers, since there is no universal body to tabulate these figures. Fans will obviously use estimates to suit their own POV.For example: "According to Dion's Wikipedia article, she has sold 184 million albums and 28 million singles, making her total worldwide sales 212 million. Her record company is not as certain about the sales of her singles. They state that she has sold 28 million singles, but they are not sure about the sales in other French-speaking parts of the world." That's cringeworthy for a suppoesdly encyclopedic article. --Madchester 18:43, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What is the point of this? If fans want to bicker, why should an 'encyclopedia' accommodate them? I am not even sure how this will prevent boosterism on individual entries. Besides, Anita Mui isn't even listed on the page making it highly suspect and euro-centric. Dottore So 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, topic is obviously of interest and can be handled in an NPOV way. Kappa 21:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, This is a bad faith nomination. It has already been voted on a month ago, and what is worse, the issue itself had at that time already was on VFD see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Best selling Female artist. --Nicodemus75 21:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons why I nominated this are: a) List of best-selling music artists has been nominated for deletion for essentially similar reasons; and b) the significant problems with this article have not been resolved in the six weeks since it was last nominated. Note that the majority last time supported deletion. ProhibitOnions 20:18:24, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article's a platform for fans to promote their favorite artist(s). Looks like propoganda from a studio press junket or a bad episode of TRL. --LeoTheLion 22:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping the garbage and fighting out of individual articles isn't a good enough reason—we should be trying to keep the garbage and fighting out of Wikipedia as a whole. —Charles O'Rourke 00:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article describes a notable debate. The media often toss around the phrase "best selling female artist," and do not always refer to the same person. HollyAm 01:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment. We should have this, even if it is just to help protect other pages from vandalism. --Apyule 02:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biggest-selling? Oh, for the love of grammar, rename this to "best-selling". Radiant_>|< 10:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename as per Radiant. --Apyule 12:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't possibly be covered as effectively in the individuals' articles. Osomec 14:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that there's a lengthy disclaimer at the top of the article does not bode well for the validity of the article's contents. The article was created with good intentions, but it's just not wikipedia material. --207.236.66.194 19:29, 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. HappyCamper 13:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5knuckle studio[edit]

Non-notable, little content Cheese Sandwich 13:58, 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 HappyCamper 13:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koment[edit]

Stub about a website which does not establish notability. About 40-50 Google hits for the name of the website, depending on syntax. No Alexa ranking. I see no reason to assume that it is notable. Sietse 14:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Cheese Sandwich 14:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Sietse wrote, nothing in the current article explains why this website is worthy of note, & no articles link to it. A glance at the site suggests it enjoys middling to low traffic, based on the dates of the articles on the front page. Sietse's Google-fu is far stronger than mine: I couldn't single out any hits for this specific site. -- llywrch 19:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per llywrch. - Introvert talk 19:42, 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 HappyCamper 13:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

808Talk[edit]

Non-notable, looks like an advertisement. Cheese Sandwich 14:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete walks, talks, and sqwarks like an advertisement. Alf 15:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • More advertising. What fun. Delete! Optichan 21:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Clearly an ad. Delete.---Mihoshi 20:17, 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. HappyCamper 13:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunkmania[edit]

I wish commercial products such as this could be speedied.

lots of issues | leave me a message 14:13, 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 18:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Nordström[edit]

Non-notable. Cheese Sandwich 14:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. While no editor's articles should automatically get a pass, this article was created by User:Angela, who must certainly understand the Wikipedia concept of notahility, so I would check closely before I decided Henrik Nordström was not notable. In addition, the term "Henrik Nordström" gets 133,000 Google hits. -- DS1953 19:40, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, my apologies to User:Angela, I'm new here & haven't gotten the review proces down very well yet... When I read this I thought "resume of a company VP", so I put it up for VfD vote - I didn't think to research the name further. --Cheese Sandwich
      • <Just read User:Angela's homepage> Yikes - could I have picked a worse person's page for VfD??? --Cheese Sandwich 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes. Angela is a darling, and would not smite you even if asked. Denni☯ 01:13, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
--Cheese Sandwich 02:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, technically 133,000 google hits, but google actually only gives you 16 -- the rest are explained as duplicates, [6], presumably from duplicated documentation with his name on it? Sdedeo 22:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Strange indeed - there actually seem to be 133,000 indexed pages featuring his name in the mail archives of his Internet domain. Also, note that Henrik and Nordström are not uncommon Swedish names (the Swedish online phone directory lists 76 persons). This Swedish-American Henrik Nordström seems almost as notable as the developer. But both are borderline at best. I'll abstain for now. / Alarm 13:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. --Sleepyhead 20:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With all respect, I don't see notability here. He is the CTO of a company he founded himself in 2001, and is a contributor to open source projects. Do not zap me with the flames of the wiki ancients, Angela! Sdedeo 21:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is verifiable, and is worthy of a page IMO. --Apyule 04:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sdedeo, notability not established. The fact that Angela created the article should have no bearing on the vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't really mind. I can't remember why I wrote it; perhaps it was linked from somewhere at the time, but now it's orphaned, which makes it more deletable. It's always been in the back of my mind as the least notable person I created an article on though, so it's probably no bad thing to get rid of it. As far am I'm aware, this is my first VfD'd article ever. :) Angela. 11:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is orphaned. Fred-Chess 13:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Proto t c 09:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We all need at least one red-linked title on our "Stuff I wrote" list. Denni☯ 01:12, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
  • comment I would've voted 'keep' if a google search turned up any biographical info. As it is, I'm abstaining because I have no idea if 'MARA' is signifigant/notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 18:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U-Turn (song)[edit]

Musical singles are/should be unworthy for an encyclopedia entry. Cheese Sandwich 14:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep very new article that appears to form part of discography, some of the articles in the discography have been worked and are more than this stubbete. I say give it air to breathe. Admittedly not my kind of music so I don't know how much this has affected our culture, so if anyone wants to persuade me their sales are so abyssmal as to be total flops, I might change my mind. Alf 15:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The bar for articles on individual singles should be set very high. Sdedeo 16:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Top 10 single by one of the most popular artists of modern times. Article needs work but I can work on that. As for singles, we have articles on hundreds of them so why should this be an exception. We possibly need criteria for inclusion but that is a different story. Capitalistroadster 17:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we could push for single/album articles to be merged into artist articles... --Cheese Sandwich 19:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The articles would then be way too long. Punkmorten 20:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, charting single, from an extremely notable artist. Kappa 21:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. Notable artist and top ten hit. --LeoTheLion 22:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless it is made into an article, rather than a sentence. A good rule of thumb is if you have nothing to say about something, don't write an article on it. -R. fiend 02:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As promised, I have expanded the article. Capitalistroadster 09:33, 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. HappyCamper 13:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4yourparty[edit]

Non-notable web site Rx StrangeLove 14:38, 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. HappyCamper 13:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Galaxy and GamingG[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable website, Alexa indicates ranking >100,000; Google test indicates 42 hits. If the site is non-notable, then neither is a pseudonym for its webmaster --Mysidia (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Erwin Walsh
  • Delete both. Badvertisment hell today. Alf 16:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn Sdedeo 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them. Optichan 21:59, August 23, 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. HappyCamper 13:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runetips[edit]

No good. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete (changed from Reserved - as no further improvement to article has been made Alf 14:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)) needs wikifying badly, I havn't a clue how famous any of these 'Massive User Dungeon' and 'Scapes' are, and will prob. change to delete if the article isn't improved. Alf 16:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reasonable claim to notability. Sdedeo 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - RuneScape is notable. A forum about it is not. ESkog 17:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good nomination, Erwin, but try to use a more descriptive.. description when you nominate. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:29, 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 11:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MADCom[edit]

Delete posthaste. Erwin Walsh

Delete - non-notable internet troll --Mysidia (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America. Notable notorious troll. 82.165.235.161 15:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gren グレン 16:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thoroughly uninteresting, unencyclopedic, net group user junk again (can you tell I'm feeling a bit worn by these today?) Alf 16:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Joolz 22:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mysidia. —Charles O'Rourke 00:17, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete HappyCamper 13:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B/w[edit]

Ambiguous, dictionary esque. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete would suggest wiktionary but I thought it primarily meant 'Black and White'. Alf 16:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone makes into list of verified abbreviations. Pavel Vozenilek 19:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article. It is mainly aiming on people who've asked this a dozen times in various internet forums, as they could not find what it means. - andy 80.129.122.72 12:53, 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 03:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westlawn Cemetery[edit]

Doesn't deserve its' own article, possible merge candidate. Erwin Walsh

  • Comment there are two articles which currently have links pointing to it.Geni 15:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Are we going to have an article on every graveyard/semetary that has a famous person buried there? My God. Erwin Walsh
  • Delete. I hope we won't. Pilatus 16:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the said dead dudes articles. Alf 16:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WC seems non-notable (in contrast, e.g., to Highgate Cemetery. Sdedeo 16:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know how to vote on this one. Google offers only 12,300 results. If it could be expanded a bit (maybe a few pictures of the cemetery), I would vote to keep. If it can't be expanded, I'd say probably delete or merge. Acetic Acid 17:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There are dozens of encyclopedic cemeteries already in Wikipedia. See List of cemeteries in the United States. This should be another one. It can and undoubtedly will be expanded. -- DS1953 17:52, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acetic Acid 21:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As per DS1953. Also note that cemetaries are often listed in traditional encyclopedias due to the notability of persons buried there. As time goes on, we will see more and more cemetary entries due to the notability of such deceased persons. At present, such entries are often the only record on Wikipedia of final resting places of notable persons.--Nicodemus75 22:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have lots of cemetery articles, this is a rather notable one, with two famous people buried there. It would be nice if it were expanded to include things like size and such. See also List of cemeteries. It would' be nice if somebody would volunteer to include all of the blue linked articles there into Category:Cemeteries ... :) Zoe 23:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not this cemetary that is notable, it's the stiffs buried there, and two is not much. Pilatus 12:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable enough. —Charles O'Rourke 00:18, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DS1953. --Apyule 04:02, 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 03:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steffan "Mr. Wiggles" Clemente[edit]

NN. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete. No good claim to notability. Sdedeo 16:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sorry, I was hasty in my judgement there. Sdedeo 22:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of his fame. Needs major cleanup because of NPOV dispute. - Wintran 21:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, really is famous.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 11:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Mora[edit]

How vain. Erwin Walsh

  • Delete. Too young to be notable, no major shows in notable galleries. Erwin, I recommend you try to be more polite in your nominations. Sdedeo 16:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Over 130,000 results on Google. How can someone be too young to be notable? Lindsay Lohan is 19, and she got her own page. Jeremy Mora is five years her senior. Acetic Acid 17:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment. Hi Acetic Acid, you may want to regoogle and reconsider your vote. I find "Jeremy Mora" (in quotes) gets 47 google hits [7], very few of which actually refer to the man in question. Sdedeo 18:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the link you provided gives 72 hits on google...
  • Delete Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I never realized putting it in quotes keep the words together. Sorry for this. Acetic Acid 21:36, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Maybe Userfy to user:Qthinker if he wants to contribute to the project. Dunc|☺ 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from the Wikipedia Vanity page: "As explained below, vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion" and also, from 'Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies' - "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." Qthinker
      • You well explained why he doesn't make the cut. 213.78.124.163 19:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not exactly sure how you made that conclusion based on what i just provided. Anyone else??? Qthinker
  • Delete Always use quotes on a google search. As above, I also get 73 results, making this a nn, possibly vanity page. Dottore So 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable. His portfolio looks reasonable, so he might make it, but it is interesting to contrast with Tom Friedman (artist) who was also edited by a related anon. Friedman is also unknown to me, but his article shows that he has exhibited internationally and the Bienale link gives external validation. -- Solipsist 20:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got a slight advantage given that I work in the arts, but I have heard of Friedman and he is moderately well known. Mora? Maybe one day, but not now (delete). Grutness...wha? 09:49, 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 11:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netstalgia[edit]

Erwin Walsh

  • Delete, 13 googles. NN neologism. ~~ N (t/c) 16:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, but censure nominator for not providing rationale. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Wahoo5. Sdedeo 16:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wahoofive --Apyule 04:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wahoofive, with note that nominator has an active RfC over VFD trigger-happinesss. (Is that a word?) Abb3w 07:09, 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 REDIRECT to Scott Tenorman Must Die. -Splash 03:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead (South Park)[edit]

Another stub like Phil collins (south park) and Mr. Garrison's Father (South Park). I'd say delete unless someone is interested in creating and article on the relevant episode. Soltak 16:39, 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. HappyCamper 13:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Walter bruce[edit]

One of the more unusual biographies I've run across. A high-school musician, and later possibly arrested for getting too friendly with a dog. Probably skirting CSD. Joyous (talk) 16:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN and my attempts to verify it have been unsuccessful. Does skirt CSD (for patent nonsense and not claiming notability) but I think falls slightly short on both. David | Talk 16:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First part of the article is nonsense mentioning a time machine. The second part is a copyvio from the Miami Herald about his arrest for bestiality. All in all, should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 18:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like it could be viral marketing for the movie to me; even if it is not, it is still patent nonsense and no notable as far as i see -- Corey.spring 18:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment copyvio as well Corey.spring 18:50, 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 keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua reeves[edit]

vanity Elfguy 16:55, 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 speedied. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

George Presura[edit]

Vanity page. --Ian Pitchford 17:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedied this article because it does not make an assertion of notability. Sdedeo 18:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Niteowlneils 21:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Marren[edit]

Non-notable lawyer. Full text: "Martin Enda Marren, a highly respected Dublin barrister, is descended from one of the famous County Sligo Marren's. The Marren's are an Anglo-Irish Protestant family well known in both Ireland and Britain for their involvement in the arts, academia and the law." Rl 17:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep (only if the article gets substantially expanded). He's quite well-known in Irish legal and political circles and at least as notable as some political candidates in various countries who are currently in wiki. Dlyons493 18:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. Currently a senior officeholder in Fine Gael, one of Ireland's largest political parties. However, the article should explain his significance. Capitalistroadster 19:15, 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. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ovo-lacto vegetarianism[edit]

  • Merge are re-direct into vegetarianism. Content already covered in other articles. Article is only a definition that should be moved to wiktionary and has no hopes of ever being more than a sub-section of vegetarianism. --Vizcarra 19:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete I agree, nothing new here, no possibility of non-duplicate content with vegetarianism. IreverentReverend 19:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - wtf are you on about? This is encyclopedic and a perfectly good stub. Dunc|☺ 18:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keeep per Dunc.Jobe6 19:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into vegetarianism, per Vizcarra. Acetic Acid 19:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - invalid VfD posting. Merged articles should specifically not be deleted because the history must be maintained under the GFDL. In addition, merges do not require admin intervention. Guettarda 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to vegetarianism--topic already covered there, and is more useful in that context. Niteowlneils 21:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and allow for organic growth. Kappa 21:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if not, transwiki then redirect to vegetarianism. --Apyule 04:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Vizcarra. Also, I agree with Guettarda, this needn't have been VFD. FlooK 05:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Vizcarra should note that this is votes for deletion. Could have easily been bold and just merged it himself. If article is merged (as it should be), a redirect should be left to preserve GFDL. Proto t c 09:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Business Records[edit]

This page and all pages created by the user are nn and fail WP:MUSIC. Delete this for sure. I'm not sure how to actually nominate all of them, though. We can discuss it on the talk page.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mostly agree. But two of the bands do have allmusic entries. Punkmorten 20:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with related articles. The article is so vague it's no big loss anyway. Wikipedia is not a publicity portal. The JPS 15:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Seems to be insufficiently notable, although I didn't check very extensively. Consider also listing other pages by same author to VfD. jni 06:14, 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. HappyCamper 13:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word On The Street[edit]

I've cleaned up this page a bit, but I don't believe that a 600 hit/day bulletin board turned online magazine is considered notable. A search through Google only reveals one hit, a press release from the magazine on a public press release database. The magazine's website itself isn't even listed. -D. Wu 18:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 600 hits/day is definitely non-notable for an electronic publication without something else going on, unfortunately. (Not the case for a print pub, however, which can be very notable at that level.) Sdedeo 22:51, 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. HappyCamper 13:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Chadwick[edit]

Non-notable editor in chief of a non-notable magazine (see Word On The Street vfd above). Search through Google reveals no hits in the first two pages. -D. Wu 18:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sdedeo 22:52, 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. HappyCamper 13:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goosi Softworks[edit]

Vanity page Nemonoman 18:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Nemonoman. -- Kjkolb 04:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in Russia subects[edit]

What is this? Why does it make no sense to me whatsoever? Francs2000 | Talk 18:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary abstain. It looks like a list of local election results, which would be encyclopedic. I added the cleanup-context template. Martg76 19:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the elections may be encyclopedic, but this is not even close to being an article. --TheMidnighters 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if they are election results. We have lists of election results. This needs confirming, parties linked to, and other work. Secretlondon 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's this? What's the article name? Where are references? This is just useless dump of numbers. Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not election results. Bad title and meaningless content. Niteowlneils 21:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are indeed some results for regional elections. I can't grok some of the abbreviations but UR is United Russia, KPRF are Kommies, SPS is Union of Right Forces and so on...  Grue  18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an automatic translation of the russian page introduction. Notice The maintenance, to clean on the bottom.
Elections under party lists in regions Russian Federations
Material from Википедии — the free encyclopedia
Elections under party lists in regions Russian Federations
Elections are spent to a regional legislature of the Russian Federation by the mixed principle: half of deputies is selected under party lists, and half — in one-mandatory constituencies with a different through passage level. Thus the information presented below, concerns only half of deputy case in each separate region. Some parties are united in selective blocks. Participation партсписков since July 2003 is obligatory.
The maintenance
[To clean]
-- Zanaq 00:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the info - and some more - to the page. Zanaq 02:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonia[edit]

Its a good site but its still spam, spam/vanity. Nifboy 18:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Dottore So 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A site that I happen to visit fairly regularly, but alas- not notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Home of the Underdogs has an article, why not this one?  Grue  18:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep*This site is completly notable. its the second best to underdogs and this site is updated every day. By Punch999
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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) 22:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultiees[edit]

It is a dead-end dictionary definition and is unveriable-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:11, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben dickman[edit]

Possible vanity. The article only mentions his uninteresting childhood. If he did found a cult, it has yet to do anything notable. Acetic Acid 19:17, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have speedied it after moving the page to User:Bendickman. Note that this user has already blanked this vfd page once; I don't think we need to give him any more attention than he deserves over this. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:39, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:55, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Brah Records[edit]

del promo of a record label with no releases. mikka (t) 19:24, 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) 22:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poesybeat[edit]

Neologism; Google search doesn't indicate a widely established term (voters - please confirm). Cheese Sandwich 19:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Niteowlneils 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Kjkolb 04:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- L. Lounsbury 01:08, August 23, 2005 -- as a poesybeater, I'm not sure what newness has to do with whether an artform exists and merits definition. The fact is, poesybeat is a niche artform practiced by a growing number of artists. How many Google hits does it take to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia?preceding comment by Special:Contributions/63.171.106.25
  • Keep. -- J.Stacy 01:08, August 23, 2005 -- There are over one hundred and fifty members at the site poesybeat.org who use the term and make the art form of poesybeat. When did "dada" become "real?"preceding comment by Special:Contributions/209.7.38.7
  • Keep. -- G. Holub 04:38, August 23, 2005 -- This movement is real and there are over 150 people who are making it real. This is a new art form, and it will only hinder progress if we pretend it does not exist.preceding comment by Special:Contributions/24.131.110.181
  • Comment for poesybeat folks: No one is claiming it does not exist, we're just trying to enforce a certain standard of notability to merit an encyclopedia article. In my opinion this has the appearance of a relatively new and non-widespread artform, so a vote on the topic is appropriate. --Cheese Sandwich 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair enough -- it is indeed a "new and non-widespread artform." If that causes it to fall below the standard of inclusion for Wikipedia, then so be it. It seems to me that one advantage of Wikipedia over the long-standing, non-democratic encyclopedias is its ability to pick up on innovations. I don't pretend to be well-versed in Wikipedia's mission, however. -- L. Lounsbury 2:44 pm, 24 August 2005.preceding comment by Special:Contributions/63.171.106.25
  • Delete. The movement still appears to be too new to meet verifiability standards. Please come back after the mainstream press or an academic journal prints an article on the movement. --Allen3 talk 22:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Spoffle[edit]

A dictionary definition of a non-word. Google mainly recounts the same Fry and Laurie anecdote. Secretlondon 19:29, 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 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario provincial highway 140[edit]

Not sure if a highway is notable enough in its own right to have an encyclopedia article. Cheese Sandwich 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree. Also, are you prepared to nominate for deletion and shepherd through the process the 1000 or more articles that already exist for highways in all different countries, only to find that 99% of them would be kept? Courtland 20:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Consensus is emerging that "minor" roads should not be kept. See [8] Sdedeo 20:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment. The notion of "minor" is a country-by-country (perhaps a region-by-region) judgement based on the degree of infrastructure development. Courtland 21:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete cf the British roads debate. A 12 km highway in Ontario certainly does not warrant an entry. The existence of previous cruft should not be used to justify the inclusion of additional cruft. Dottore So 20:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, primary highways are verifiable and notable. JYolkowski // talk 20:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all related articles into Ontario provincial highways. This article (Hwy 140) is simply a summary of an apparantly non-notable highway. Notable highways, like Ontario provincial highway 417 & British Columbia provincial highway 1 (backbone hwys, controversial, or otherwise important - ie. those with something to write about), should have an article. This, this is just a road that connects two other roads. -maclean25 20:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect I am changing my vote because the article is now redundent. All relevant info has been summarized into two sentences and merged into Ontario provincial highways. -maclean25 22:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure if the article's creator is permitted to vote (if not, disregard the vote, but keep the following points in mind...). The highway (along with Hwy 58, to be exact) links a city of 18,000 to cities of 48,000, 18,000 and 130,000 (and onward). It's maintained by a province of some 12 million people. If we delete this, should Hwy 101 also go? Hwy 138? Hwy 69? Etc, etc? What you are proposing is a major reorganization of the Ontario provincial highways series. (As for merging, I don't think merging all of Ontario provincial highways is feasible from article length point of view.) --qviri 21:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: certainly the author is allowed to vote. Courtland 21:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment to address your concerns: The cities it links can be much better communicated using a map, not an article. Provinces maintain a lot of roads, this does not make it notable. Hwy 101 consists of one sentence, therefore notability not established. Same with Hwy 138 but it did get to two sentences. Hwy 69 is part of the Trans Canada Hwy, so it is notable and a keep. Putting two sentence summaries beside a name on a list is not a major reorganization. The article length can be shorten by sticking to relevant information and by remaining on topic. The current list goes into secondary and tertiary highways which should be placed into a sub list and noted on the main page as 'other highways' or what have you. -maclean25 22:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By major reorganization I meant changing the format from a list of links, and the separate articles being as detailed as necessary to a list and two sentences for each highway, with a link to a separate article for more notable highways. (BTW, I fixed up hwy 140's two sentences a bit.) This is changing the format of an entire category. And what exactly makes a highway notable? The federal government designating it as "Trans-Canada"? A considerable amount of people using it? In my opinion a King's Highway (forgot to mention it before) is just as notable as an electoral district. Also, I am not sure about this -- is it possible to somehow link to the highway's entry on the big page? Otherwise, the user might get mightily confused when he gets the list of every highway in Ontario rather than the info of the one highway he's looking for. --qviri 00:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important highway. Kappa 21:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important highway. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 21:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, important highway. --Nicodemus75 22:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. With no intention to troll, what are your criteria for notability? What is the advantage of having separate articles for each road in the absence of other notability? Sdedeo 22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable highway. Criterion is that people are likely to search for information on this road using the term and high level of usage as per Qviri. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not the QEW. It's not notable. Nandesuka 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: uh, pretty much every highway in Canada "is not the QEW", save perhaps for the 401. --qviri 00:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a coincidence! It also turns out that "pretty much every highway in Canada" isn't notable! Nandesuka 12:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see we're back to "different rules for Canadians" again. Unless you're seriously proposing a policy that highways should never have articles, highways in Canada are not one bit less notable than highways in the United States. Bearcat 15:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all numbered state and provincial highways - roads which thousands of people drive on daily are far more notable than Podunk Elementary, even though they're not cute and warm and fuzzy like schools are. Perhaps we need WikiProject:Roadwatch? FCYTravis 06:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a significant enough highway. I've used it myself and I don't even live in the country. Ben W Bell 08:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any problem in keeping this Verifiable and NPOV article. It's not spam or vanity and clearly someone found it notable enough to write an article about it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's like raising both hands! --SPUI (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after checking the map. Can be mentioned in a list and in the relevant location articles. Gazpacho 16:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I added some more information to the article. It's not terribly important, and we could live without it should we decide to merge the articles into a big list, but for the time being it's there. --qviri talk 18:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the definition of "notable highway", at least to me, is any highway that a federal, provincial or state government deems significant enough to be maintained and signed as a part of its official highway system. (I would not, for the record, extend this to numbered county roads, unless those county roads have an especially significant history.) Also notable within the context of Mid-Peninsula Highway and Highway 406 development plans. Bearcat 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please help out with Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom. Thanks. --SPUI (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • See [9], B-roads are local roads and since they do not form part of trunk routes they are county maintained. the wub "?/!" 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see anything saying that - from what I understand only the trunk roads (the most major of the A roads) are nationally maintained. And there are no states in the UK, so counties are next after the country. --SPUI (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is wrong, counties are not the equivolent of states. By the same token B roads are not state highways. In Britain, I would say that most state highways would be A roads. - Hahnchen 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote since I know little about the Canadian road system. the wub "?/!" 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ontario provincial highways If it ever grows to a size thats requires its own article it can be broken out from there. Pilatus 08:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insignificant road --TimPope 15:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, equal to a state highway in the US and we keep those.Gateman1997 17:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I point you to Talk:Washington State Route 900. We have hundreds of state highway articles from the US and there are several canada highway articles as well (so much that we need a new stub category because road-stub is being filled). --Rschen7754
  • Keep - Although very short in length, the road is a state highway. I'm guessing this in UK equivolence would either be a Motorway or an A road, notable enough. - Hahnchen 00:36, 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. HappyCamper 13:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Messenger[edit]

Tiny band, fails WP:MUSIC criteria Secretlondon 19:44, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Roger White[edit]

Member of Dead Messenger, non notable band Secretlondon 19:46, 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 --Allen3 talk 22:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Roger white[edit]

Member of non-notable band, see above Secretlondon 19:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Yates[edit]

Member of non-notable band, see above Secretlondon 19:50, 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 COPYVIO, without a rewritten article. -Splash 03:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance_Resort[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic and appears to be written in a way to advertise the resort the article is reporting on. Since this is a type of vanity article, I suggest that it be deleted. Solarusdude 19:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up or merge/redirect to the Sundance Festival. Dottore So 20:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. While currently an advertisement, the Sundance Resort is well known for events such as Sundance Festival, there are certainly grounds for an encyclopedic article on this place. While there is certainly grounds for an encylopedic article on this resort, most of this article is a copyvio of [10] and the remaining paragraph reads like an ad. I shall report this as a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Online Packaging[edit]

Self-promotional, non encyclopedic article EdwinHJ | Talk 20:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam advertising. Jobe6 20:32, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: +4/0 =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 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 Delete --Allen3 talk 21:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Shilavo[edit]

Hoax. There's been something about this article that just didn't feel right to me, & after a bit of research learned the following:

  • The information in the first paragraph is a giveaway to anyone familiar with Ethiopian history. (I can go into more detail elsewhere, but to say that Ethiopia had a "government protemp" in 1745 is nonsensical.)
  • A quick search in a couple of books on Ethiopia fail to find a mention of Shilavo, which include Henze's Layers of History & the Bradt Travel Guide to Ethiopia; if this was an important comercial center in the 18th century, I'd expect Pankhurst's History of Ethiopian Towns to at least mention it -- & he does discuss or mention the history of over 50 other historic population centers in the Horn of Africa.
  • Yes, there is a place in Ethiopia called "Shilavo". However, most of the hits from Google are to articles mirrored from Wikipedia, but one or two do allow us to learn that this community has an airport/airstrip (call letters "HIL"), & is located at 44 deg. 46' E & 6 deg 5' N -- the middle of the Ogaden, hardly the place to attract commercial farms, let alone industry in the late 19th century.
  • A little more searching revealed that it is also known as "Scillave", possibly the Italian spelling. Google on this, & you find this hit at fallingrain.com. Based on this, Shivalo/Scillave is a small village of about 733 population.
  • Let's take a look at the original author of this article: an anon IP, which can be resolved to a DSL account in Chicago. Am I the only one to smell the rotting fish at this point?

Please vote delete; after this foolishness is purged from Wikipedia, I'll add an article with some genuine information. llywrch 20:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete agree with above. --Banana04131 21:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Niteowlneils 21:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since Llywrch et al. can just change (massively overhaul) the article as is without having to wipe the slate clean. Also create a Scillave with a redirect. --zandperl 00:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I proposed a VfD for this material to see if enough people agreed with me that this nonsense should be completely wiped from Wikipedia -- including the article history. Regardless if this VfD passes or fails, I will put the correct info at this article location. -- llywrch 17:02, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Ethiopian Commercial Revolution[edit]

Hoax. Yes, Ethiopia did enjoy significant economic growth between 1950 to 1970; however Google returns no hits for this phrase independent of Wikipedia; this growth was fuelled by exports of coffee, not "kimavi cha kuku" (which appears to be Swahili for Ageratum conyzoides, a wild flower); I can find no explanation for "kashi-kawu" (Google provides no hits independent of Wikipedia). Another contribution from an anon editor, whose IP resolves to another Ameritech DSL router. Delete. llywrch 20:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero hits other than a WP mirror. Niteowlneils 21:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Llywrch, looks like a hoax. -- MicahMN | Talk 22:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a hoax. --Apyule 04:36, 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 --Allen3 talk 21:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Az001[edit]

Clearly not worthy. Cheese Sandwich 21:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original posting looks like very basic as for software, I would need a fuller description of what the software actually does before changing to keep. Alf 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost non-sensical, no claim to notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to become a car dealer[edit]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lao Che[edit]

Delete A silly article about an insignificant movie character, with uncited sources, that reads way too much into the movie 65.49.152.201 21:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC) Keep {The written quality of the article is done to a high degree of effectiveness and a quick IMDB.com search of Roy Chiao will indeed verify that the actor, who portrayed Lao Che in the film, did indeed die from complications and heart disease in China in 1999. The Temple of Doom was also indeed criticised for its perceived racial undertones, especially later during the Indian sequences of the movie. These facts are indisputable. To remove an article simply because it relates to a "minor film character" would be entirely counter-productive to the very purpose of having Wikipedia -- that is to say, inform the public and provide as much information as possible on an infinite number of topics and listings.} -65.49.152.227 21:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Compared to the articles that have been kept by Wiki, this is a bit ridiculous. Keep. --Tykell 21:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Any chance for a consensus soon? --Tykell 22:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How could he have survived Indiana Jones, when Indiana Jones is still alive at the end of the movie? Zoe 23:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no problem with this article. Zoe - I read it as meaning the only baddy to have survived 'fighting' Indy. Alf 00:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A minor character with one appearance in one scene in one movie -- a scene not even connected to the main plot -- with what smells like original research. --Calton | Talk 01:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Calton -Harmil 22:10, 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 --Allen3 talk 17:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Long-distance pregnancy[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "Unless we have sources of these stories being true, it reads as patent nonsense to me". It doesn't fit the definition of patent nonsense, but does look like it might be original research. Kappa 21:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ok, maybe I screwed up on the speedy deletion stuff, but I still stand by my original statement. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a candidate for speedy, but it seems like original research. -- MicahMN | Talk 22:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless anecdotes are documented. What's the name of that movie where a woman is raped and impregnated by a computer? Zoe 23:26, 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 No consensus. Will merge. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberal[edit]

I really don't think this is worthy of a full article. Merge (where?) or delete. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 21:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like it was merged. -- MicahMN | Talk 22:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened, as the merge has been undone? FCYTravis 06:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to have been anon vandalism (edit comment="typo"). Back to discussion.. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:37, 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 userfy. JYolkowski // talk 19:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jephix Liu[edit]

vanity, non-notable Dvyost 22:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My opinion is user page created in mainspace by first time user. Alf 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Delete. Look at who created the page. Move the content to user page & speedy delete right now. -- Zanaq 00:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please userfy and delete from article space. -- Visviva 01:25, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 11:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vampyric Black Metal[edit]

Delete. Not only does this genre not exist, but this page only lists one example (Emperor and Satyricon are most definitely not "vampyric black metal") whose style barely has any basis in black metal in the first place. Not notable. Dysfunktion 22:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm finding a few cases of bands (or their labels) identifying themselves as Vampyric black metal, or it appearing in somebody's fansite or a record-selling site. For instance, [11], [12], or [13]. Note that the third one almost explicitly ID's the phrase as a neologism. Also, of the 396 google hits for {"vampyric black metal" -wikipedia}, I noticed a number of them on the first three pages presenting it as "'vampyric' black metal," further suggesting that this is a neologism for a particular flavor of black metal. The Literate Engineer 07:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that first link lists a number of other genres that don't exist either, although I'm guessing they're supposed to be describing the music and aren't actual genre names. - Dysfunktion 03:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete metalcruft.  Grue  18:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. The Literate Engineer 23:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism, as above.--Firsfron 00:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Talking about genres that don't exist... new genres arise every day. Look at how many exist already. It's because everyone wants to be different. I don't think this topic should be deleted because you say the genre doesn't exist... it may exist, it's just not a wide-known genre.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 17:21, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Father and Son Tuesday and many duplicates[edit]

A slew of vanity/advertising pages, created by username User:Fast films. Only Google hits appear to be on amateur video blogs, apparently self-authored, and own website. Also, many variants on the above, created by User:Fast films and User:68.23.149.212, and accompanying vanity images. -- The Anome 22:50, 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 Speedy delete --Allen3 talk 21:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The Chronic Argonauts[edit]

Fictional work masquerading as the entry for H.G. Wells short story The Chronic Argonaut (singular). I have added the correct entry and adjusted the links accordingly. ae7flux 22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this meets the patent nonsense speedy deletion criterion. I will speedy delete this as per policy, unless someone objects here in the next few minutes. -- The Anome 23:20, 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 --Allen3 talk 17:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Clown_Combat[edit]

Is this information or marketing? An unreleased niche game for an unreleased console... 193.190.253.144 23:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe just add it to some sort of category about Beta software? It seems too sparse to be any sort of plug for the game or the console. If anything it's a really bad stub... kvidell 00:53, August 26, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 11:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emo fashion[edit]

Keep - section has been removed from 21st Century Emo. --80.4.224.6 20:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would actually suggest redirecting 21st Century Emo to Emo Fashion... 193.190.253.144 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I recreated the fashion article, it was originally at Emo (that article was subject to a long POV dispute), someone moved it to 21st Century Emo but it relates to both plus others. I am working on a summary for 21st C article. It forms part of series on Emo linked by the Template:Emo. Paul foord 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC) User:80.4.224.6 has been rewriting articles to try to resolve POV issues and development of usage of term Emo. Redirect comment above may fit in the POV dispute Paul foord 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep - the issue of emo fashion needs to be a separate topic from the music itself. either that, or somehow connect it more directly with the "scene kids" article. -chadski

Redirect - most of the content is extremely subjective. for instance, i have never heard of 'refused' getting credited for that hairstyle. on top of that, when you click on the link to the 'refused' page, there is a picture of refused, and none of them are sporting the said hairstyle. furthermore, the part about weezer doesn't make grammatical sense, and anyway weezer displayed the previously-established 'indie-rock' look.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 09:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Montserrat[edit]

A list without a list. Page admits that there will likely only be ever two political parties (which does not make for a list). Note the territory has 9500 hundred people so I don't think this page will ever be necessary. Marskell 00:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weird problem where Finbarr Saunders' comment for below entry is showing up here. Cannot find it here, below or above to correct mistake. Information entropy...plz consider as below. Marskell 00:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of a worldwide series, so necessary for completeness. Osomec 14:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep idem. This proposal was months ago als raised at other lists of political parties and allways rejected. Electionworld 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You might say there are unlikely to be more parties now – but the thing with history is that it keeps changing. (Anyway, the Factbook article already lists some minor parties, so this list can be expanded directly.) QuartierLatin 1968 17:39, 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 --Allen3 talk 17:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Jacob mumm[edit]

I'm recommending the page for deletion because it's a "completely idiosyncratic non-topic", in the words of the Deletion Policy. I've Googled on Jacob Mumm and can't see anything noteworthy. To me, the page is rubbish. (Perhaps it should be a speedy delete?) --Finbarr Saunders 22:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page. A google search on "jacobb mumm" returns 40 hits. --zandperl 23:56, 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 --Allen3 talk 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Terje Laimets[edit]

No entries on IMDB, and has a very poor google score (with this wikipedia article the only one being in English), so I can't attempt to save it. If anyone else can, good luck! Created by anon IP last November, with only mop-and-bucket edits since. Delete. The JPS 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to be a vanity page. Martg76 00:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amren 01:43, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 11:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cagey[edit]

Dicdef. BrainyBroad 00:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteAmren 01:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef, not expandable. -- DS1953 04:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if this isn't a CopyVio Drdisque 09:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 03:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dutton Douglas[edit]

Article repeats content of Laura Bush, duplicative, cannot grow beyond a stub because subject is not notable. Delete Toshiba 00:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Toshiba is a verified sockpuppet of banned user Coqsportif. [14] Shem(talk) 07:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The police report image is not in the Laura Bush article. If it is added to that article, I agree that the Michael Dutton Douglas article adds nothing and should be deleted. Krakatoa 00:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection, I am persuaded by the commenters below, and change my vote to Keep. I also un-bolded the "delete" in my previous comment; as saxet notes below, I was not the person who put that text in bold. Krakatoa 19:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that it was Toshiba and not Krakatoa who (00:53, 22 August) put the 'delete' part of the word 'deleted' in bold. --saxet 08:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I believe this is a poor VfD nomination. MDD is a minor, but notable person, and the article is well written and (very) well sourced. From looking at Toshiba's multiple edits of the Douglas article this is actually a dispute over content. Also, Toshiba just deleted saxet's comment above; I have restored it. Please let's keep things civil. Sdedeo 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. There seems to be a lot of bad blood here. May I suggest as a solution that the giant honking "Main article MDD" notice be taken off from the Bush article and this article kept? Another solution is for parties involved to take a break from editing this for awhile and let the rest of the wiki figure out a consensus. Sdedeo 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I'll retire from this mess now. I never wanted any of it to begin with, felt like I did everything to try to accomodate Toshiba but even the most basic facts were ignored/deleted (e.g. that Laura was in fact driving the car, and not Judy Dyke). Problem is, I believe Toshiba has plenty of usernames and I'm afraid a lot of ‘them’ is going to vote in this Vfd. --saxet 02:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Getting killed by a pre-notable does not by any standard make you notable yourself. The personal details of this person is irrelevant in relation to encyclopedic content. E.g. biographies of victims of famous serial killers, mass murderers and such are likewise irrelevant. | Celcius 01:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: See Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman; they both have articles, and their killer hasn't even been legally identified. She was just a football star's wife, and he was just the friend of a football star's wife, right? Shem(talk) 03:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He is indeed minor and therefore not notable. In what possible respect do you assert that he is notable. He is a motor accident victim who died when 17, hardly notable. A reference to him belongs in the notable person's article Laura Bush, he did nothing notable. There is no dispute over content, the content in Laura Bush article is basically the same. Speedy Delete Toshiba 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that this is the second time Toshiba votes in this VfD, the first time was at 00:56, 22 August. --saxet 08:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is PLENTY of dispute over content from your side. --saxet 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the main issue is about the nature of the article and I refer to Wikipedia policy:
it is unexpandable (it cannot ever be more than a stub, and could never be a perfect article due to its subject matter - it may however belong as part of another article)
Sounds exactly like what this article it is. It can never be more than a stub, it clearly belongs to the Laura Bush article. Toshiba 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From my earlier comment; "Also, you seem to want to delete any information regarding the person Michael Dutton Douglas which might be one reason the article is a stub." --saxet 01:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accroding to Wikipedia:Stub, "A stub is an article which is clearly too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title. This generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." So the Michael Dutton Douglas IS NOT as stub. --saxet 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Toshiba, I would appreciate very much if you would stop deleting large portions of the article. And that the 'multiple users' that sometimes follow you around would cease to do the same. I've urged you plenty times to discuss any specifics (style of language etc) that you might disagree with on the talkpage but with no luck so far. As you are aware of, there's the police report photo (that you can enlarge) on the page, yet you seem to want to delete information that is verifiable to anyone who reads the report. You also insert a lot of information that contradicts the report. Also, you seem to want to delete any information regarding the person Michael Dutton Douglas which might be one reason the article is a stub. One of the reasons the Laura Bush segment on MDD is similar is because you do the same things to that paragraph. Of course the subject matter is notable, Wikipedia is about collecting all human knowledge and so far there's has been at least four LB biographies that discusses the subjectmatter, plenty of newspaper articles and entries on many other web resources, including Snopes. If included in the Laura Bush article the subject would simply become too dominating. --saxet 00:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why is this article up for a second VFD in 24 hours? It's already listed here from the August 21 session. A Wiki-glitch perhaps? No vote as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make an informed opinion. 23skidoo 01:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Toshiba. The event is noteworthy only as part of the life of Laura Bush. Merge any information (including police report) that is not currently on Laura Bush article. PlainSight 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because this young man was notable, and it prevents material on him from dominating the first section of Laura Bush. Plus, Wikipedia's article on Michael Dutton Douglas is the #2 result on Google for his name now [15], having transcended all the nutjob theories on him circulating the internet. Shem(talk) 02:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; What did this young man do which made him notable? Asides from getting killed by a pre-notable how does this man distinguish himself from millions of other youths around the world? Besides, Wiki's placement on google is perhaps the worst conceivable argument for keeping or not keeping articles. Celcius 02:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The incident was notable, and an article with his name is the most appropriate place to put it. Some death victims are notable, despite this new "no killing victim articles on Wikipedia" trend, especially one killed by a future First Lady of the United States. The Google link was just a "plus," clearly labeled as such, not that I consider it "the worse conceivable argument" by any stretch. Much as it bothers you, Celcius, you'll have to deal with this article being around. Shem(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm well aware of the concept of democracy and I do realize that I "have to deal" with the outcome of the vote. Still, I find it redundant to have the same information in 2 different articles. Celcius
  • Keep, this incident was notable, and having it at its own page prevents this form hijacking the Laura Bush article. GregAsche 02:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dottore So 02:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable. - SimonP 03:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Douglas' death is the opener in one biography of Laura Bush, but the story itself in all its detail doesn't sit particularly well in her article. This article has a use in keeping the Laura Bush article relatively uncluttered. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. As per all the arguments above. This is clearly a bad faith VfD nomination due to revert wars at the article itself. It is clear that user Toshiba continually deletes content in a bad faith attempt to keep the article as a stub, thusly rendering it appropriate for VfD. --Nicodemus75 05:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a good article, deserving it's own space. Alf 09:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability and verifiability OK. --DrTorstenHenning 14:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting article Inge 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would favor deletion if I could be sure that all the information would indeed be merged into the Laura Bush article and would stay there. That almost certainly wouldn't happen, though. I agree with Shem about Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, and I'll add Mary Jo Kopechne as another example of a similar article. JamesMLane 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think he is notable since it happened to the first lady. maltmomma 01:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Keep and add more content. Such content wouldn't be appropriate at Laura Bush, but is notable. icydid 21:34, 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 REDIRECT to Power (international). There's nothing to merge. -Splash 06:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World powers[edit]

This entry's topic encompasses too much information, and, since each of the topics listed within here are discussed elsewhere (and would be more in-depth in their own context,) I find this topic to be non-encyclopedic. Jolb 17:19, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_21&oldid=1081091652"