Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

Purge server cache

August 26[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 redirect systematic element name

Untribium and others[edit]

NN hypothetical element. 9 googles. Didn't we go through a bunch of these before? ~~ N (t/c) 23:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons more: Special:Contributions/24.103.109.9. ~~ N (t/c) 00:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Unbibium - choster 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to systematic element name, unless a credible claim has been made for its synthysis. ManoaChild 01:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Wasn't this settled before? --Tito xd 01:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; Misplaced | Hatter 04:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, unless there is something to say about it beyond its obvious predictable properties (e.g. claims of discovery or island of stability properties. Warofdreams 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Others : Unbibium, Unbiquadium, Unbipentium, Unbiseptium, Unbioctium, Unbiennium, Untrinilium, Untriunium, Untribium 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: signifcant ones are the last classically stable elements, and elemtns in the island of stability, and should not be deleted. 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand this comment. What does stability have to do with this? There are a number of very unstable elements on the current periodic table. As far as I can see, the relevant distinction is between synthesized and unsynthesized. ManoaChild 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)][reply]
    - I meant to say: which have been synthesized and which have not yet been synthesized. ManoaChild 21:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Theoretically speaking, the island of stability is a very important aim for synthesizers, to prove theory versus experiment. And so are the last chemically stable elements. These are marks to aim for to test theory against reality. The other elemetns are just targets to get your name in the paper. 132.205.45.148 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. I continue to be perplexed by your argument. There are a number of unstable elements in the peroidic table, and they are very important for theoretical reasons and as building blocks for higher numbered elements. It is very likely that elements in the island of stability will be extremely unstable too. I simply don't understand your argument. ManoaChild 11:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm redirecting the votes to here for these. 132.205.3.20 16:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT one solution is to leave all the pages up to and including the last chemically stable element, plus the one just after it (the first chemically unstable, or possibly chemically non-existable element) 132.205.3.20 16:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT potential redirect destination: Periodic table (extended) ? 132.205.3.20 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These names have been systematically established and are therefore not nn. -Hmib 19:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to systematic element name. Not notable on its own. Optichan 20:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Unbibium (There has been a scholarly article written about it.) Redirect the rest until we have something other than the probable ground state electron configuration to report. Caerwine 04:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to systematic element name. *drew 21:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to systematic element name. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it's a placeholder - agree with above. - Tεx τ urε 20:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS Household[edit]

The article doesn't strike me as being worthy of an encyclopedia entry.--Hooperbloob 20:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the article was tagged by hooperbloob on August 13, and never added to the main list. Adding now, Joyous (talk) 00:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC))

A "fake household" deserves little more than a "fake article" Delete Soltak | Talk 00:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nothing relevant on google. Jaxl | talk 01:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn | Hatter 04:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Franciscan University of Steubenville An ultra-Catholic fraternity is notable wrt an ultra-Catholic college. Roodog2k 15:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --tranquileye 20:24:07, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing here worth merging. Dottore So 01:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 21:51, 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 Speedy deleted - creator blanked it. FreplySpang (talk) 01:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Advanced Placement English Language and Composition[edit]

Appears to be a chunk of someone's term paper. While it might be the basis for an article on pathos (or maybe not), it is certainly irrelevant to the stated topic. Denni ☯ 00:38, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Delete. Is there a speedy rule for "utterly irrelevant"? ~~ N (t/c) 00:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be a report on some unspecified work of fiction. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would create such an article. ManoaChild 00:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope they didn't think this was how they were supposed to submit their assignment. Actually, they probably mistook WP for a repository of sample essays - how that could happen, I've no clue... ~~ N (t/c) 01:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jaxl | talk 01:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you can Speedy that under A1 for a lack of context. I don't even think a rewrite is an option here -- aren't Lang and Comp two separate AP tests? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:11:31, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
- Nope, the other English test is Language and Lit. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:49, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Delete Amren ^(talk) 02:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to human beans. -EDM 04:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; | Hatter 04:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is just someone's bizarre and long-winded essay.IINAG 13:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this has nothing to do with APLC, and my mind can only express puzzlement bordering on awe as to how this could fit. A Shortage of Chairs 15:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Original creator recognized his mistake and blanked the page. FreplySpang (talk) 01:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biggie Heavyweight[edit]

Too bad it's a hoax - one of these bouts might be quite entertaining to watch. Denni ☯ 00:44, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax, nothing on google. Jaxl | talk 01:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biggie Hevyweight, sounds like the next size up at Wendy's. — Kjammer ⌂ 01:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Made for defacing another page. DEng 02:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Spam, hoax | Celcius 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. This isn't used in any official boxing events. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; it is just an idle joke. IINAG 13:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Too bad, too... Whatever happened to Eric Butterbean? Roodog2k 15:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax *drew 21:55, 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 wasdelete. Woohookitty 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Britannia Fair[edit]

This is an unverified 'article' with a wholly inappropriate tone. Googling the term produces 3 hits - all to this article! Eddie.willers 00:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted probably by an Australian who wanted to eulogize his own anthem at the expense of others. Delete. --Tito xd 01:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax, unverifiable. Mind you, this crap has been hanging around for almost a month now. Author probably got lost on the way to Uncyclopedia. This would have been destroyed by countdown deletion without the need for further action. :-) JRM · Talk 01:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Jaxl | talk 01:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax EdwinHJ | Talk 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even think it's trying to be a hoax. It's more of a satirical Op/Ed piece. Complete POV. -PlainSight 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Hoax | Celcius 04:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if true, I would expect BBC news to have reported it, but since it's a hoax, they didn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Despite it's assumed POV (which it has to take for the joke to work), I found this side-splittingly funny. My guess is that it's written by Cardiff Uni. student(s). Alf 12:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
>Bad jokes This seems like the fruit of some student's spare hour, too. It belongs more on Uncyclopedia than here. IINAG 13:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax article written in a horrendous tone. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Hoax article. *drew 21:57, 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. Do feel free to edit. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk :25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

David Osborne Hagger[edit]

Not quite sure what to do with this. It is clearly not an article on the person stated in the title, and appears more a collection of statements from various public agencies on the topic of bovine-sourced materials designed for use in health care. While there may be some basis for an article on BSE and bovine insulin, this is clearly not it. Denni ☯ 00:57, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

I've told the people at Mad cow disease about this page. Hopefully they'll look into it. Keep, at least until they say if this article has any mergeable content. --Tito xd 01:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lead, delete the quotes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, with re-write! Trollderella 16:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't keep. Content should be merged with "The BSE epidemic in British cattle" section of Bovine spongiform encephalopathy which is where those interested would look for it (and expect to find it). Dottore So 19:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite it. *drew 21:59, 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 Sidaway ^Talk 16:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most developed country in central america[edit]

Non-encyclopedic GinaDana 01:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-verifiable, and if it can be, the article needs a whole rewrite. I doubt it can be salvaged from this condition. --Tito xd 01:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Unsubstantiated, non-verifiable | Celcius 04:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wholly unsubstantiated and unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. as per nom Alf 12:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV Roodog2k 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as per above IINAG 13:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- DS1953 15:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with best ~~country~~ city. Optichan 20:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete until we can all agree what "development" is. --tranquileye 20:26:23, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete. POV. *drew 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV starts already with the name of the article. -Mariano 07:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 Sidaway ^Talk 16:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best city in centralamerica[edit]

Non-encyclopedic GinaDana 00:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently subjective. Gazpacho 01:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article title implies POV, and the title is badly written (not that it matters in this case) — Kjammer ⌂ 01:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; POV. Jaxl | talk 01:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; There is no question.Amren ^(talk) 02:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost should've been speedy deleted. EdwinHJ | Talk 03:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. Cnwb 04:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Unsubstantiated, non-verifiable, POV | Celcius 04:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cum Celere! This article is propaganda. Maybe it is a joke. Even by Central American standards San Salvador is a bad place.Wiki brah 05:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misspelled article on one person's opinion without any sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV Roodog2k 13:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is by the same flanneur who wrote 'most developed country in Central America', give a few dozen spelling mistakes. POV, badly-written, and unsubstantiated. I am surprised that this page is still standing. IINAG 13:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kjammmer. -- DS1953 15:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. Optichan 19:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. *drew 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV starts already with the name of the article. -Mariano 07:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. (after being BJAODN'd) Paul August ☎ 20:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Band manager[edit]

A wholly inappropriate tone for a Wiki article - a thorough cleanup would mean a rewrite so why not delete & start again? Eddie.willers 01:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJOADN. Gazpacho 01:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJOADN. Jaxl | talk 01:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODNed. Rewrite or delete, same thing. That's the funniest article in a while. ~~ N (t/c) 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on all the comments on here, I've added to Wikipedia:More Best of BJAODN as well. This is a really bloody funny article. ~~ N (t/c) 02:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Ah, no, BJAODN. But damn, I wish we could keep this for real. JRM · Talk 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Bishonen | talk 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. It would be a bit like Dr Johnson's definition of a patron. Capitalistroadster 03:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Archive and BJAODN this version but keep article and rewrite. Encyclopedic topic, can use as a central clearinghouse for articles on Col. Tom Parker etc. -EDM 04:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN; POV, humour | Celcius 04:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN. In this case a redlink is likelier to inspire someone to write a valid article. (If it's blue they may think we've got a full article on the subject). Nothing worth keeping anyway. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Two side-splitters already today. Alf 12:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
>Bad Jokes; I do not think that one has to pour one's heart out to see why. IINAG 13:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN and delete. I just can't believe there's no reference to the Arrogant Worms' song (Road Manager). sing along- "He's a big, fat roooaaad manager, big fat roooaaaad manager. . ."--Scimitar ^parley 15:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN and delete as per Eddie.willers. --Blackcap | talk 18:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Delete after. Optichan 20:08, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. --Carnildo 21:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite, but add to BJAODN. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 02:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- See Eddie.willers' comment, top. --Blackcap | talk 16:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep completely true. SchmuckyTheCat 06:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry... Is it your opinion that an article of this tone is "completely true" and should be kept in an encyclopedia? Whether or not your experiences have been like this, it's so POV it beggars belief. And to the argument that VfD is not cleanup, see Eddie.willers' comment at the top of the page. --Blackcap | talk 16:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN and delete. *drew 22:05, 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 +9/-0 =Nichalp «Talk»=

Ajitha[edit]

Doesn't require encyclopediac entry rail 01:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expand. K. Ajitha evidently (based on Google search that turned up many references to her and her organization as well as oral history interviews-- apparently her group was involved in a sting operation that uncovered a major sex scandal) is a fairly prominent activist for women's rights and more could be said than is present in the existing article.Crypticfirefly 04:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Seems fair | Celcius 04:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - --Bhadani 05:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)More comments: I would suggest the editors interested in the entry to please give some sources, if possible, to assess continuation of this entry in wikipedia. I am not doubting good faith. Thanks. --Bhadani 05:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was previously a copyvio from [1] which could be used as a reference to expand the article. Wikipedia's article should assert her notability more strongly though. KeithD (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems encyclopedic, although article could be improved, have made some minor improvements myself. PatGallacher 10:27, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Keep, if copyvio is sorted, as IINAG, at least, intends to fill it out (changed from comment). The Hindu Times remembers that she was arrested for attacking police stations in this article from 2003. Same paper also cites her as Anweshi president here in 2004. Alf 13:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand: I think that K. Ajitha is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If it survives this vote, I will try to fill it out somedeal.IINAG 13:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as above. Trollderella 16:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. *drew 22:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep She is quite famous (some may say infamous) in Kerala Tintin 05:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 20:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Florida State Road 300[edit]

I'm unsure if this should be deleted or expanded. What is the Wiki policy on roads? Is this particular road notable in any way? (I'm new to Wiki, please excuse me.) Fang Aili 01:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for merge to St. George Island. I believe the prevailing opinion is to keep national roads per se, and others according to significance. This isn't significant but we might as well merge it. Gazpacho 01:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Interstate, U.S. and state numbered highways. FCYTravis 02:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You noticed, I hope, that it is four miles long. Gazpacho
Certainly. But if every single one of the hundreds of thousands of schools in America is notable, I fail to see how any of the far-smaller number of state, U.S. and Interstate highways can be deemed non-notable. Deleting articles on state-designated and maintained highways which link communities together while keeping articles on elementary schools that are notable for "teaching things" makes no sense. FCYTravis 02:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there's a bunch of people who want all American roads and schools included doesn't mean they should be. Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 03:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiki policy, as you can perhaps gather, is very contentious on the issue of articles about roads that just describe their geography. It seems to come in phases -- sometimes inclusion, sometimes deletion wins. Sdedeo 03:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why we should keep them all, or we'll have a patchwork of some articles that have been kept and others about equally "notable" roads that have been deleted. --SPUI (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, what it means is that people who want to include individual pages for otherwise non-notable highways, as we do for schools, should try to hammer out a consensus among wikipedians before going ahead and creating thousands of articles. Sdedeo 20:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unexpandable; there's nothing encyclopedic to say on the topic. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; And for the love of God - let's reach some consensus on the matter as a whole | Celcius 04:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Road systems (networks) are encyclopedic. Individual roads are not. -maclean25 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all roadcruft. Especially this one, as it's a long bridge, and such bridges are certainly "notable". --SPUI (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the thousands of people test. Klonimus 20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brrrrrmmmmmm brrrrrrmmmm delete all roadcruft Proto t c 10:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest you all visit Category:California state highways and examine the work done there. Do people wish to VFD all those informative articles because "individual roads are unencyclopedic?" FCYTravis 11:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I can appreciate this sentiment, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If someone spent 100 hours working on an article about his belly button lint, I would feel bad about the wasted effort, but that would not change the validity of the article. How much time and effort has been spent should have no bearing on an editor's decision WRT the encyclopedic nature of the subject. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - They *are* encyclopedic, in the views of a goodly number of editors. This isn't like an article on some fan forum or a crufty screed on a Star Wars character who got 5 seconds of screen time. These are articles on important links in the transportation network of the United States, which are encyclopedic for being (relatively) permanent, publicly-constructed, widely used and verifiable. I would argue that these roads have far more impact on the nation at large than any Star Wars vs. Star Trek debate forum ever created, or any band which released two albums, sold five copies of each and then disappeared into the mists of time. FCYTravis 16:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not arguing about whether or not they're encyclopedic in this case; all I'm trying to get at is that if an article is unencyclopedic, the fact that a large amount of work has been put into it should not merit its inclusion. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the Overseas Highway serving the Florida Keys but a short stretch of road serving St. George Island, which is all but deserted in the winter. I'm afraid that it doesn't pass the bar. Delete, failing that, merge into the community that it serves. Pilatus 11:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per SPUI's arguments. Roodog2k 13:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does the road have a Florida state route marker on it? If so, keep. -- Grev -- Talk 16:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is verifiable and factual. Trollderella 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete tarmac, about as notable as sand. --TimPope 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So you should vote to keep as Sand is notable. :-) Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Gateman1997 19:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Numbered state highways are a noted precedent. Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the minor-roads-don't-deserve-an-entry-they're just-asphalt argument. Dottore So 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor road. State highways usually are major enough to get a stripe down the middle, but not always. --Carnildo 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once we get down into local street level, it's probably going to be nn in most cases, but precedent has been set above for state level roads, which I concur with. Karmafist 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, we now have to accept schools. This is not an excuse for accepting other pointless information. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Denni☯ 23:32, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
- You heard it here! Roads are the new schools. I remain utterly convinced by the suggestion that institutions that obtain state-level grants for their construction and maintenance can be described as "non-notable". When we remove neutral, verifiable information from Wikipedia, we degrade it in a small way. If we continue to do so, we end up degrading it in a large way. We have no noticeable namespace problems, we have no noticeable diskspace problems, so the only real reason for removing something from Wikipedia is the suggestion that the information could be damaging to the project. In what way does the information that there is a road leading out to St. George Island, designated Florida State Road 300, damage Wikipedia? Why is this information so toxic to Wikipedia that it must be removed? --Tony Sidaway^Talk
  - Data!=information. When irrelevant minutiæ are included the information content of Wikipedia is diluted. Pilatus 12:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it keeps people from seeing the forest for the trees. It has an adverse effect on the use of categories, of lists, and of any search engine to find information. Gene Nygaard 12:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia keeps articles on area codes and zip codes, as well as articles on numbers (one, for example.)--Rschen7754 16:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Karmafist. -- Kjkolb 06:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 07:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. R adiant _>|< 10:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Possibly make article on the bridge instead (note that it is not now in any bridges category, etc.), and link the numbered highway to that in Florida State Roads; at least describing the bridge will give more interesting reading than describing a road. Gene Nygaard 12:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful article and has encyclopedic value. --K1vsr (talk) 15:38, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As there are articles on schools in US, articles on certain roads should be accepted too. *drew 22:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable. Sam Vimes 22:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a road atlas. Nandesuka 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although short, a state numbered road and in a whole category full of state numbered roads. HollyAm 01:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. May I point you to WPs on Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington State Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky State Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject California County Routes, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Highways, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways? A state highway project for all 50 states is not feasible at this time... leave it be and it will be improved with a routebox and that sort of thing in the near future. There are also over 600 US road stubs alone. And not to mention the nearly 1,000 state highway/ interstate articles in the WPs mentioned alone. You can't just delete 1,000+ articles! They are informative- you can learn about the highway that you commute on to work or a highway that you will travel once on vacation. We keep county routes in CA which are less notable than these.--Rschen7754
Merge/Comment - Whereas I believe that state highways should be kept, please take a look at the article. Florida State Road 300 is a 4 mile long road, purely on the St. George Island Bridge. The article should be about the bridge, and the road should be mentioned within. This really should be a merge and redirect. - Hahnchen 14:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all insignificant and non-notable roads. Quale 14:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Meaning you vote keep on this road, right? --SPUI (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Doesn't make sense to me to have articles on all the other Florida state roads, but not this one--keep as part of the overall project. 68.185.16.5 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC) {User:Niteowlneils not logged in, editing from an internet cafe in Roseburg, Oregon.}[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 rewritten version. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Fonte[edit]

I would have speedied this as vanity, but the article appears to place her on the razor's edge of notability. What say you, brethren? DS 01:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... this defines borderline. ~~Negligibly weak~~ keep. --Titoxd 01:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- After the Google Test, I remove the "negligibly weak" part. 26,100 Google hits. [2] --Tito xd 01:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  The Google Test is evil and much misunderstood. Try [3]. 225 hits, you mean. JRM · Talk 01:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most of the article (as it is) is unverifiable; Wikipedia is not a primary source. It's possible to edit this article down to only the most stringently verifiable facts (Allison Fonte does exist, she did co-found the company mentioned [4], she was a Mouseketeer [5]), but if you're talking notability, I'd say no. I still haven't made up my mind about notability, however, so I can't really vote. How annoying. JRM · Talk 01:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup. Regular actors in notable television shows are notable. Pburka 01:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite. I think information on people who someone might, someday, want to look up is good — I'm just turned off by the way this article appears to have been written as a (kinda creepy, third-person) personal homepage. (Anon editor, intimate knowledge of her own life.) If a registered user rewrites it from available sources, definitely keep; otherwise, I'd rather it be a stub or deleted. --Quuxplusone 02:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "Allison Fonte" shows 135 hits see [6] However as WP:BIO provides that: "Well known entertainment figures, such as TV/movie producers, directors, writers, and actors who have starring roles, or a series of minor roles, in commercially distributed work watched by a total audience of 5,000 or more" meet the criterion for articles, then she meets it for her role on the New Mousketeers.Keep Capitalistroadster 04:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite for reasons states by Quuxplusone. Too bad the author of the existing article didn't upload a nice picture of Ms. Fonte as a Mousetekeer.Crypticfirefly 04:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite; and keep | Celcius 04:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup as per Pburka. 23skidoo 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I rewrote this, it's probably ok now, she meets WP:BIO Rx StrangeLove 05:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was compelled to add "cast" in the first sentence so it reads as "was a cast member of The New Mickey Mouse Club". Alf 13:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trollderella 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *drew 22:31, 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 BJAODN. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suavecito[edit]

Thought this was about the song of the same name. Not sure exactly what this is. - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has significantly changed from when the Vfd started, but I still can't make much sense out of it; it seems to be nonsense. --Mysidia (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN so bizarre! -ShadowStaller 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. It's like the follow up to the Voynich Manuscript. Cnwb 04:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN; I see weird articles |04:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- LOL! I like BJAODN less the contact info. It's "heven on earth," after all. - Lucky 6.9 05:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN So mote it be. Galactic Federation Earth Wizard Alf. 13:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
>Jonsense; well, this one got me laughing in the 'slightly disturbed that someone would spend some hours typing this up and posting it on an encyclopaedia' way. Wikipedia really is not the place for this, but I give all my wishes to whichever space voyager wrote it: I hope that you do find your heaven on earth, someday: I think that one takes a left on the Nebraska state line, and keeps driving in a straight line. IINAG 14:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- DS1953 15:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not even funny Groeck 18:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN, and change the author's medication level. Grutness...wha? 08:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Vanity. *drew 22:41, 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. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bozulich[edit]

The subject of this article appears to be notable, but according to the author, has requested that this article be deleted. My vote is to keep based on his work with go, but there may be some validity to granting his request. I dunno. Denni ☯ 01:24, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Comment. What is the basis for the subject's request for removal? I couldn't find any info on the talk page. Pburka 01:38, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I have placed a request on the author's talk page for input into this discussion. Denni ☯ 02:09, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Comment. I have no problem with this article. Alf 13:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What would we do if George Bush requested his article be removed? Trollderella 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Must be a Keep. Maybe not-notable details could be removed - I don't see what his degree has to do with anything. 195.92.168.165 17:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, that's me. Grayum 17:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Trollderella. Hall Monitor 18:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Dottore So 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 21:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *drew 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bozulich is a well known figure in his field of publishing. The article should be careful about POV when it comes to past history; but I see no reason to have it deleted. Charles Matthews 15:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hoax skate[edit]

Advertising, POV, unsuitable for Wiki, balh-blah... Gnarly, dude! Eddie.willers 01:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep / Major Cleanup Article needs cleaning up (needs NPOV, Wikify, more factual info). It is a real chain of skateboarding shops. But I'm not sure if it is noteable enough for Wikipedia. — Kjammer ⌂ 01:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'll reconsider if the article gets cleaned up and if someone cites a reference for notability (i.e. they sponsor a well-attended annual skate competition or sponsor a notable professional skate team, or something along those lines). Five shops leans me heavily towards non-notability. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; We have articles about roads, schools and a number of other subjects which isn't really notable - except that it exists. In this spirit this should be kept unless clearer guidelines as to notability can be established. | Celcius 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't vote based on unrelated debates and check WP:NOT. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete per Fernando Rizo. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; is there a Wikipedia guideline on what criteria a company have to meet to be listed on Wikipedia? I think that it would be incredibly helpful when it comes to issues like this. As for the article, I personally do not think that it is notable enough for an article. I have travelled through a lot of East Anglia, and have only seen a small shop. It seems like a chain of a few local stores. IINAG 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's worthwhile. Trollderella 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is hard to see how five skateboard shops are worth encyclopedic treatment. Dottore So 19:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like it could be of interest, skate shops are often cultural centers of fringe communities, needs to be cleaned up however. Sdedeo 20:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. jamesgibbon 21:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever of notability. Denni ☯ 23:38, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Tp 06:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I asked Tp to input on this as he is a frequent editor of skateboarding/related articles, I'll follow his lead here. Alf 09:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their decks look really cool though.. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I know they're kindof basic. I can't explain why I like them... Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:40, 1 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here and there[edit]

A fine band, I'm sure, but only locally notable. With no album yet recorded and no extensive tours yet conducted, I must vote to delete. Denni ☯ 02:05, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Delete Amren ^(talk) 02:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity, no AMG entry. Jaxl | talk 03:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 04:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn | Celcius 05:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nateji77 05:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I put this down for speedy early today, but apparently we need to VfD it, ah well - nn, locally known only.
Delete; they are not notable enough, at the minute. IINAG 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:45, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Gross, Minsky & Mogul[edit]

vanity, advertisement nominated by Quuxplusone 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This firm was added to the "Law Firms" article. It is a well known law firm in Maine and New England. I will delete it if that's what people want, but it's not an advertisement, no more than the article for any of the other law firms. There's not solid reason to delete this page. I will continue to expand it and improve its quality, if allowed. I've started other articlessuch as the University of Maine School of Law and greatly expanded Searsport, Maine. If given the chance, I'll make this just as good as those. Please let me know when this is resolved so I can remove the tag and continue my work. Thank you. AFethke 02:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that this firm is in any way notable. We don't have, and IMO shouldn't have, an article on every small law firm in the world. Delete unless edited to indicte the encyclopedic significance of this firm. DES ^(talk) 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like,I can cite the hundreds of times the firm and its members have been mentioned in various media outlets, the countless appellate cases they have argued and the case citations, (meaning the firm has been instrumental in shaping the course of Miane and federal law) the fact that their members are (were) the Presidents of the State Bar Association, County Bar Association, Maine Trial Lawyers Associaiton....balh blah blah. It may be small, but all firms in Maine are considered small. In fact, Gross Minsky is condered a medium sized firm in Maine. If firms have to be over 50 peoples to be notable that knocks out every firm in Miane, NH and almost allof Vermont. That's not right. How else could I prove it its notability?AFethke 02:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will probably be the only person voting for the article, given the small legal communbity here in Maine, so delete it if you will and I won't argue anymore. I just think it would be a mistake. Just mentioning in the list of law firms on the law firms page would be fine I guess. Just think about it and don't be so quick to judge.AFethke 02:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- Ideally, find some notable case the firm dealt with that appeared in nationwide or better yet, global media. Being medium-sized or large compared to other firms in a state doesn't necessarily make it notable (due to the limited geographical scope of one state) --Mysidia (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Woah, I would have waited more than 10 minutes to put a VfD tag on. If the author can come up with something more compelling that "involved in malpractice suits", then maybe we should keep. Sdedeo 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most Vfd nominations come from people doing new pages or recent changes patrol, so they are usually made soon after the article is created. An advantage is that it keeps the contributor from investing more time on it if it's going to get deleted. Niteowlneils 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I don't like biting (relative) newcomers, I went thru the first 5 pages of google hits and they were all atty directories except a few thanking the firm for being one of many firms sponsoring events (such as "A Benefit Event for Maine Coast Memorial Hospital’s Breast Clinic Endowment Fund"[7])--nothing from findlaw or such (and no news/journal articles about cases) that one would expect if they were involved in any notable case(s). Wikipedia is not a business directory. Niteowlneils 03:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After sleeping on it, let's just delete it. I'm tired fo fighting. I do believe it should stay listed on the "Lw Firms" article, as it is one of the best known firms in Maine and is well known throughout New England,but that's it. Thanks.AFethke 10:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. Dottore So 19:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending more information. My thoughts on the inclusion of law firms have to do with stature in the legal community or involvment in notable cases. Representing plaintiff's before the Supreme Court is also intrinsicly notable. Klonimus 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we still going through this? I am in favor of deleting this, I was the one who created in the first place and no one else has said to keep it.....what's the hold up? There is a clear consensus (unanimous actually) would an administrator please do what was done 2 or 3 times already, just delete this. ThanksAFethke 23:34, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:41, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kingler's kingdom[edit]

Vanity/advertising of non-notable website. Delete. - choster 02:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only result on google is that page (minus wikipedia pages). Jaxl | talk 02:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Maybe put the link on the Pokemon page | Celcius 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, link on Pokemon page, tiny explanation, Bob's your Uncle. Pokéalf 14:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Period. -- DS1953 14:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. *drew 22:48, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Too Many "Mustangs" on Western Ranges[edit]

An unformatted rant on the Bureau of Land Management's efforts to save wild horses. There's an article in here somewhere for one brave enough to rescue it from this morass, but it needs a new title and a complete rewrite - best to start from scratch. Denni ☯ 02:25, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Delete. Paul Klenk 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsalvageable POV rant. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yee-hawww. Rant. -EDM 04:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Although I'm tempted to vote Keep on the grounds of this sentence: "A hores lover with the name of wild horse anne" | Celcius 05:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place to display opinions on current affairs or personal essays. I don't believe any of it is salvageable. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there is no space for rants on Wikipedia. IINAG 14:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal comment and rambling. *drew 22:49, 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. Paul August ☎ 20:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comparison between Star Trek and Doctor Who[edit]

Delete because it is original research. Also, many of the comparisons could apply to any two series, and there is some wrong information anyway. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, delete, and delete. We cannot allow people to make up inane comparisons out of the blue on Wikipedia. "Wood is brown! Feces are also brown! yeahwow" --Apostrophe 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other comparison articles for being original research. Yes, even similarities between Canada and New Zealand. But then, we voted to keep that. Even though it still doesn't contain any sources. :-P JRM · Talk 02:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ya could always put it back into VfD if you wanted to. --Apostrophe 02:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to assume the people who voted Keep the last time have seen the light. Trouble is that that comparison debate is at least borderline sourceable, though nobody really cares enough to do it. This one definitely isn't, though. JRM · Talk 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High hopes, I suppose. --Apostrophe 03:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Original Research, and bad research at that Sean 02:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amren ^(talk) 02:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research EdwinHJ | Talk 03:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Exterminate~~ Delete. Star Dreck. --WCFrancis 03:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jaxl | talk 03:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, plus the two series are so far removed comparing them is pointless. 23skidoo 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Non-encyclopedic | Celcius 05:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per khaosworks --TimPope 06:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these are the kind of similarities you get from comparing any two science-fiction shows. None of them interesting and most completely coincidental. Wikipedia articles are NOT lists or repositories of loosely associated topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Khaosworks original reasons -- HeyWayne ( Talk • Contributions ) 12:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless page Stevelinton 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or keep, as long as we also get a page detailing 50 reasons why Captain Kirk is better than Captain Picard.
Delete. "Both had writers, producers and directors." This stuff is ridiculous. Optichan 20:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
A reluctant delete. jamesgibbon 21:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOR. -Sean Curtin 04:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Comment, it might be quite interesting if it was written properly. Doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article, how about as a Projecct StarTrek, Project Doctor Who or User Subpage? --βjweþþ (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 22:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopaedic Drdisque 08:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tenuous and subjective comparison, with little validity here Barneyboo 17:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems fairly conclusive, but I'll chime in anyway... --Brian Olsen 03:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ditto -- Bondegezou 12:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Hannah Hubbard[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits for "Hannah Hubbard" miami or Kook Klutzes Klant-Do-Anything-Right and nothing relevant for "Hannah Hubbard" miami. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I knew there was something flakey about this when I copyedited it. Cnwb 04:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn | Celcius 05:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; This is completely non-notable. IINAG 14:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- DS1953 14:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly. Over 1000 matches for this name but none of them appear to refer to the person in this article. Hall Monitor 18:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. *drew 22:51, 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. Paul August ☎ 02:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Paul Dammsworth[edit]

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no one by that name writes for the Toronto Sun. Adam Bishop 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 05:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Adam has himself worked for the Toronto Sun, so if he says nobody of that name works there, then this is speedyable as patent nonsense. Bearcat 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 22:52, 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. Woohookitty 07:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sparrow[edit]

Vanity bio Samw 02:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 04:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn vanity. Nateji77 05:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. New user. I added a welcome and vanity notice to his talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I copied the text to User:Jools11 and left him a note on his Talk page. -- DS1953 14:55, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:53, 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 MOOT. Article was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep 03:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange proverbs[edit]

POV to declare a proverb strange in a title, the article borders on nonsense, are these even well-known proverbs? --Mysidia (talk) 02:55, 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. The article was merged and redirected during the discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOSP[edit]

Scientists estimate that there are enough IPv6 addresses to uniquely identify every atom in the universe. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said for ~~unreleased~~ now-defunct open-source software projects. This just isn't notable. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:59:59, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

The game was released obviously, just not the source code, that has nothing to do with deleting the page or not. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean many people didn't enjoy playing it.. Keep Yonir

I would generally interpret Alpha as unreleased in any meaningful form. For that matter, Google doesn't see any relevant reference in the top 100 apart from the developer's personal page and the project host. I did see the League of Ordinary Shuffleboard Players, though. If notability can be established, I'll be happy to recant. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 03:09:43, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Well, The name "Alpha" doesn't represent it well, if you want to find more relevant google results search "losp liero open source project". ~~Can I remove the VfD status now.. ?~~ Yonir

That string you suggest gives 27 hits before Google lapses into similar pages. Seeing correct results for the full version of the acronym does suggest that, if it survives, the article should be renamed. Regardless, the VfD needs to run its course. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 04:02:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

I realized that I'm not supposed to delete VfD status now reading in the "Guide to Votes for Deletion".. So you're saying that a page must be named after the search line that will make google give the most relevant results.. ? If the League of Ordinary Shuffleboard Players want a wikipedia page they can make a "ambigouty" (sp) page.. (well, they don't "deserve" a wikipedia page I guess though :p) Anyway, I don't think that "LOSP Liero Open Source Project" is the best string for results, as it is usually reffered to as LOSP, this just gives only relevant results. Yonir

~~btw how do you add the "personal info" line (such as "— Lomn | Talk / RfC 04:02:09, 2005-08-26 (UTC)")~~

Since LOSP is pretty much a thing of the past, cant it just be moved in under Liero just like Joosa was? Wikipedia is suppose to have everything right? But now it doesnt if things get deleted. So at least put it somewhere else. Either with Liero or with Gusanos. Ulvbot 06:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow i copied all the stuff here to Liero Wiki so nothing will be lost. Ulvbot 06:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

hmm, sounds like a good idea. Yonir 11:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

though both Liero and gusanos refer to "LOSP", that's what made me create the article on the first place.. Yonir 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gusanos deserves his own page on Wikipedia, since it's actively being developed. LOSP however, can be moved under Liero or (even better) Gusanos. -- Sander 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC) (yes, still alive ;) but not on GU recently)[reply]

Merge with Liero. Defunct, incomplete game with no significant following: the "official forums" have been averaging one or two threads a month for several years now. --Carnildo 21:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of talking. Non-notable computer game. Sdedeo 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I merged LOSP into Gusanos (I think it's better there, since the games are merging too, makes sence to merge the articles ;o) and changed the links for LOSP to the gusanos section on LOSP (gusanos#LOSP). I guess this article can be deleted now :<. Yonir 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

btw LOSP should still redirect to gusanos I guess. Yonir 00:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the help page on merging.. already changed the page to redirect, I hope it's ok to change it even though it was in VfD status. :S Yonir 00:33, 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. Woohookitty 07:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Traks[edit]

ad for Trek parody web site. WCFrancis 03:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fanfic, sorta. Promo for site, certainly.-WCFrancis 03:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete--inks 03:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Kjammer ⌂ 08:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 22:55, 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. There was small support for delete, some for redirect, but no overall consensus. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To discuss this closed discussion, please use Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Brian Corridan.

Brian Corridan[edit]

Apparently a contestant on Survivor 11 (although the article states nothing of this), judging by a quick googling this may also be a copyvio (unless other sites mirrored this article already), not really notable IMO, you decide ShadowStaller 03:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, do you have any examples for copyvio? I did a quick copy/paste search and didn't come up with anything. Second, he is a contestant on a popular reality TV show. Regardless of whether he's notable in the smallest way, or the largest way, he is notable for that at least. I think there will be some people looking for the information when the show starts. --Wolf530 05:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge to the Survivor or Survivor 11 article.
Comment: By the way, according to this site the show doesn't even start until September 15. He hasn't even been on TV yet! - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know if there is a precedant for reality show participants but it's way too inclusionist for me. Marskell 09:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a precedent. Redirect to the appropriate show. Proto t c 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, this is an A7 speedy with no assertion of notability. Given that he is a contestant on Survivor, merge with the show until notable people from the show identified. Capitalistroadster 10:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Capitalistroadster. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable on his own. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or possibly merge. Trollderella 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per User:MacGyverMagic. Hall Monitor 18:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Although before the show has even been aired, it seems dubious. Current content is cobbled from this article and might be a copyvio. Dottore So 20:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We have not yet sunk so low that we are keeping articles on non-notable game show contestants. Denni ☯ 23:43, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 22:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 22:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Failing that, redirect. (And, of course, copyvio would take precedence.) Rossami (talk) 02:12, 3 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 delete. Woohookitty 07:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chirp_software[edit]

Advertising, just barely, what do you think? inks 03:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Comments by page creator, batsonjay)
Keep - I intend to make it less an advertising page, and point out more *pedia concepts. lnks just reviewed the page after I'd made my first editing/creation pass but hadn't finished the process.

I intend to:

Use Chirp to point out that most Project Management Software applications address the wrong problems for most people who try to use them. (e.g. most people why try a project management package really just want to manage a flow of tasks, not "manage a discreet project" where timelines, resource allocations, etc. are studied.) Project Management is a particularly well-developed skill and art, but beyond the needs -- and skills -- of most people. Yet most Project Management Software packages studiously focus on implementing this art, and leave users in the dark about alternate ways of managing an ongoing flow of work. I can and will make this point on the Project Management Software page, but I can't do it all there. It is more appropriate to draw the full contrast on a page for Chirp to point to for more complete discussion of the issue raised on the former page;
Point at this page from SyncML. Chirp incorporates a novel application of SyncML. (SyncML is normally thought of as useful only to syncrhonize contact information between a phone/PDA and a computer. Chirp uses SyncML for application-level data synchronization.)

Finally, I know Microsoft Project is a well-known application, but if Chirp software gets deleted for "Advertising" reasons, then so should the Microsoft Project page out of fairness. Batsonjay 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jay, no offense intended, but there's no way that Chirp software (or Plum Canary for that matter) merits a Wiki article. Neither are notable yet. Even if you were to re-write as you describe, it would fall under the category of "original research" or "point of view". I wish you luck in your business and hope you'll become a Wiki contributor. -PlainSight 05:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and echo the kind sentiments of PlainSight. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete non-notable computer program. Sdedeo 19:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 20:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Perhaps the Plum Canary page should survive as a corporate stub, but until this software has a following, it should not be a separate page. Jehochman 03:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. *drew 22:57, 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. Woohookitty 07:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Horak[edit]

Delete: Not verifiable. I ran across this article doing RC patrol, and attempted to verify it via Google to no avail. I left a message on the talk page with no response on August 10. Given that, I'm bringing it here. Wikibofh 03:51, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your delete, Wikibofh; Horak is neither listed on Google, nor on Chortle, which would have included him had he been 'revolutionary.' IINAG 14:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established per Wikibofh and IINAG. -- DS1953 14:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 22:57, 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 speedy delete for inappropriate use of namespace. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Project management software/Chirp[edit]

This page should be deleted because it was created inartfully. I tried to create it hierarchically under the "Project management software" page for two reasons: 1) The product name (Chirp) is the same as an existing page for the word Chirp which deals with a completely different subject. In order ot create a disambiguation link, I first created the Chirp page "under" Project management. 2) I then decided to create a page called Chirp software that was NOT under Project management software, and point the disambiguation link there. I think this is a better placement. Therefore, this first page ("under" Project management software) should be deleted. Batsonjay 03:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hellsatan[edit]

Not a notable individual; apparently a vanity page. 24.34.190.187 04:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Seems like vanity - are any of the sites specified notable? | Celcius 05:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Grayum 17:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity Denni ☯ 23:48, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:58, 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.

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 Deleted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Sex in Brasil[edit]

Not quite nonsense, but close; I don't see how this can become a worthwhile article. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am just pointing out (no-one else has) that anal sex is pretty much considered totally normal and done a lot in Brasil much more so than in places like Argentina and the U.S. You should try it sometime. We even say in Brasil that if you dont do anal on the first date you are doing something wrong thank you Obrigado!Wiki brah 04:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anal sex. --Apostrophe 04:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Apostrophe. Nateji77 05:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; with Anal sex. - and we appreciate the effort but it's a bit too specific to really be practical in an encyclopedia of this proporion. I would also like some documentation of some sort as the article seems to be based on the authors subjective opinion. | Celcius 05:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Is such an entry going to open a pandora’s box for “similar entries? --Bhadani 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the term "opening Pandora's box" a bit inappropriate in this context ;) Aecis 09:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do agree. --Bhadani 09:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds very POV. I'd like to see it backed up with some supporting evidence. Wait, that didn't sound right... -PlainSight 05:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect unless sourced. Zoe 05:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. There's not much that's factual or verifiable here, thank God. There may be some valid points about relative prevalence of different sexual practices in different places, but without references it doesn't belong here. Trollderella 06:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have book sources for this statement plus my own personal experiences growing up in São Paolo and besides i think the girls in Rio do it more than here even thank you Wiki_brah (talk · contribs)
Delete not backed up with anything. LOOK AT THIS USER'S CONTRIBUTIONS -- a lot of nonsense.unsigned hysteriacalism by User:Paul_Klenk
Strong delete. Verifiability is a necessity in this and similar cases, "own personal experiences" simply isn't good enough. I don't want to see a number of articles on sexual practices in different parts of the world based purely on personal experiences. If the statements can be sourced, they could possibly be merged somewhere - if they are not, they should just go. / Alarm 08:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Anal sex or delete if not verified. This is too granular for a seperate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for various reasons noted above. --Bhadani 09:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified. Uppland 10:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and send author to Siberia for six years. I do not agree with the suggestion to merge with Anal Sex as this page has zero content to contribute to that page. Contains several unverifiable gems
- The percentage of Brazilian women practicing anal sex is much higher than the United States. Who says and how can you verify this ?
- "While this is all good fun" is not the tone of an encyclopedia.
- Hetrosexual spread AIDS is much higher in Brazil than in Argentina. How do you know it's because of anal sex ? Manik Raina 11:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here, and, practically speaking, nothing ever will nor should. I'd call it "original research", except that there's no research. --Calton | Talk 12:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and book flight to Brazil. Proto t c 14:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Merge implies redirect. If someone believes that the topic is not adequately covered in the main article, go edit that article. But don't leave this page. -- DS1953 14:44, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per ~~Proto~~, uh sorry DS. Dottore So 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are added. Thue | talk 18:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and nuke Brasil. They will suffer the same fate as Sodom!!! No worthwhile content addition, highly unencyclopedic, unverifiable, 'nuff said. -Hmib 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. "Granular," that's the word I was looking for. Thanks, MGM. Paul Klenk 21:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Pls. note that Klenk has voted twice for some reason thank you.Wiki brah 04:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Noted. Have you also noted that many people have asked you nicely to take more care creating articles, stub categories, and I'd add anything else? No change of vote (below). Andrewa 18:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research/unverifiable. --Carnildo 22:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Groeck 06:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No merge. Gamaliel 09:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Nandesuka 22:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no merge as something between original research and patent nonsense. ESkog 22:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. *drew 22:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as banal analysis. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing that could be merged as there is nothing cited by references as being factual. Rossrs 14:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of referemnces DV8 2XL 16:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short unattributed essay, no useful content. Misspelled name despite several users discussing this issue with the creator regarding previous articles (also up for deletion). The creator has been the subject of a great deal of comment in various places, generally good natured and assuming good faith so far, but we are close to having a more confrontational discussion IMO. Andrewa 17:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending references. This is a known phenominon, that anal sex is somewhat more widely practiced in Brazil than elsewhere in latin america. And it has lead to slightly higher rates of m2f HIV transmition. Klonimus 20:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not verified, very POV, and pointless. I do not suggest merging.
Speedy Delete via IAR - This ought to be a CSD. Speedy delete and use IAR as an excuse in the ensuing RFAr. Seriously though, think about it. How the hell is this encyclopedic? --Phroziac ^(talk) 03:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine use in Brasil[edit]

Unexpandable stub consisting of one datum and a bunch of unsourced speculation. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources on the talk page did you check themWiki brah 04:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Specifying topics like this is not practical and would on a larger scale make searches in the database difficult. Merge with Cocaine or Brazil - or make an article about the drug use in various countries - not just Brazil. | Celcius 05:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - May account for the rampant anal sex there. Note to self: Visit Brazil. -PlainSight 05:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, opens the door to too many subarticles on the use of every drug in every country in the world. Zoe 05:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Vote changed to Keep. I'm not worried about these articles on every drug in the world if there is something factual and verifiable to say about it, there might well be, but this article doesn't contain it as it stands. Trollderella 06:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Like i said before i have two sources on the article talk page one is from the O.A.S. and one is from the Washington Post what more do you want thank you Wiki_brah (talk · contribs)

Actually, this may well develop into an interesting article - cocaine use in Brazil is obviously rampant. I would suggest renaming it to Cocaine in Brazil, or perhaps something broader on illicit drug trade and use in Brazil, but with a bit more referencing, and some cleanup, this could be a good article. Trollderella 07:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Brazil or Cocaine until such time there's enough material for a seperate entry. This is too granular for such a seperate entry at the present time. (BTW, if an article is as short as this, you need to wikify Brazil only once.) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and give author a crash course in logic and proofs : More unverifiable or unproven hypotheses. I am however inspired by this article to write more like Causes of low usage of Dildos in Indian households. Manik Raina 12:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on Causes of low usage of dildos in Texas households might actually have some content, since dildos are illegal there. Note: NOT an invitation to create the article. --Calton | Talk 12:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I had a crack at it anyway, since I think it's a legitimate topic. Let me know what you think. Trollderella 15:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the editor who brought you Template:Hot Jewish Actress-stub and Template:Scarface-stub. Delete. --Calton | Talk 12:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, stupid. Proto t c 14:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Dottore So 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. DEng 19:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above Groeck 06:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for above reasons. --Bhadani 15:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nandesuka 22:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speculative and probably not uniquely notable. ESkog 23:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 23:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- DS1953 01:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. MWOT. Andrewa 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyons & Lyons, Solicitors[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement for non-notable law firm Cnwb 04:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per submitter. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- DS1953 14:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. *drew 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed - Content has now been changed - 09:24, 29 August 2005

Comment - The article still doesn't establish notability for this law firm. Its founder, John Lyon, might just scrape in, but the article isn't about him, it's about Lyons & Lyons. Cnwb 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the only particularly notable Australian legal firm would be Slaters & Gordon. This is just some suburban firm. NN.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very vocabulary and VeryVocabulary.com[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've gone through nn web sites, nn blogs, and now I guess we get nn podcasts. Inevitable. MCB 06:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. -- DS1953 01:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sacre Bleu![edit]

Vanity and advertising Scott Davis ^Talk 05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mysidia (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nn | Celcius 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambi 07:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, musical vanity. IINAG 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dottore So 18:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vain, non-notable. Avalon 04:25, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Cabbage[edit]

vanity and advertising Scott Davis ^Talk 05:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nn | Celcius 05:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ad. Nateji77 05:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scott Davis. --maclean25 06:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambi 07:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, musical vanity. IINAG 15:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dottore So 18:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 23:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quickly Avalon 04:26, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Freestylefrappe has taken up the subject of the splitting of the article on Talk:Judiciary Act. There is also a discussion there about renaming the article and restoring the previous equal-weight disambiguation. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants an administrator to delete this article. (The only help from administrators that may be required will involve moving an article over an edited redirect and a history-only undeletion, for which Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Deletion review are the places, not here.) Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Judiciary Act[edit]

This page says nothing about what a Judiciary Act is. Each individual act should be split into individual pages. Please Delete and Split. freestylefrappe 05:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep for the moment. Important legislation in the US. Any discussion about whether it should be a disambiguation page should be conducted on its talk page. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep This nomination is nothing but patent nonsense. How precisely does one delete and split? If you delete, there's nothing to split; if you split, then delete, you're destroying the edit histories and blatantly ignoring the GFDL. CanadianCaesar 05:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously and rename to Judiciary Acts (United States) or something like that. -EDM 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As capital. Trollderella 06:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but a little comment I'm fed up finding articles (and particularly legal ones) that assume, but don't state, that they are refering to the US. No problem with lots of US articles - lots of problems with the assumption that the US is the default subject matter arround here. If it is a nation specific article, it should always say so in the title, or failing that in the first line. --Doc (?) 09:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I substantially revised this article back on January 6–8. Back then it was named "Judiciary Acts (US)", and there was a disambiguation page at Judiciary Act. On January 26, User:Neutrality deleted the disambiguation page, moved "Judiciary Acts (US)" to "Judiciary Act", and put a disambiguation link to the Australian Judiciary Act at the top of the page. I would be perfectly happy if the original situation were restored. — DLJessup (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That restoration would be a good thing. -EDM 15:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have no problem with the disambiguation situation as it is now. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:07, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
rename to something better. Roodog2k 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. fwiw, I think the disambiguation works as is. Dottore So 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The correct template for this is {{split}}, not {{subst:vfd}}. Nobody wants an article deleted here. Indeed, what is desired by some editors is for content to be undeleted. Wikipedia:Pages for deletion is not the place for this. DLJessup, EDM, and Doc glasgow: Please discuss renaming back to Judiciary Acts (US) and then undeleting the original disambiguation on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Freestylefrappe: Please discuss your proposed split on Talk:Judiciary Act. Uncle G 19:04:26, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
- There's no need to wag fingers at particular participants in this discussion and direct them to take comments elsewhere. Those who care about this subject are here and reading it; it's useful to have the discussion in context, here provided by the unbroken string of keep votes. Hall-monitoring is unhelpful. -EDM 19:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was unaware of the Split tag. Uncle G is correct; I dont have a desire to get rid of the info, I just see no point for this to be grouped together on one page. freestylefrappe 20:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  - On the contrary, showing people where the forums are for what they actually desire to be done and what the actual various tools are that are available is helpful, as you can see. ☺ Nominating an article for deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. But sometimes editors don't know about the other tools. Uncle G 01:03:42, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crushi[edit]

Not notable. Delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also, see Crushi.com by same IP. --Finbarr Saunders 05:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --tranquileye 13:46:52, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete. nn. *drew 23:03, 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. (one probable troll vote and one anon vote discounted) Rossami (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Harp[edit]

Non-notable "model and actress" known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly. 190 unique Google hits, her website gets an alexa ranking of 1,139,850. Zoe 05:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Model and actress known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly. Trollderella 06:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's an encyclopedic article how? Zoe 06:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's factual, and verifiable. Trollderella 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So are a lot of things that aren't notable and aren't encyclopedic. --Charles O'Rourke 07:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but 'notable' and 'encyclopedic' are not deletion criteria. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You keep claiming that that is somehow a keep criterion, when it is not. Where does the deletion policy say that everything that ever existed in the world which is factual and verifiable is a candidate for keeping?

I am not, there is no 'keep criteria' as far as I can see. If it does not meet the criteria for deletion, I do not see the issue with my voting to keep it. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trollderella, as I said yesterday on a different VfD, notability as an inclusion critereon is clearly inferred from the following section to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.". If I own a cat, and take a picture of that cat, then I could make a factual and verifiable article entitled I have a cat, and you would vote keep for it because it is both factual (one can look at the picture in the article) and verifiable (if you don't believe the picture, you can come to my house and the cat will be there). Your inclusion criteria makes does not take into account whether a subject is encyclopedic or not. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"verifiable" means "verifiable without doing original research", unlike the case of your cat. Kappa 10:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Fernando, WP:NOT is not deletion policy, and I am choosing to try dilligently to assess articles against deletion policy. It may well be possible to find things in all kinds of bits of policy that depreciate one thing or another, that does not make them deletion policy. As Kappa points out, with your cat, you are doing original research, there is nothing to reference except your photo of your cat. Trollderella 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC) PS. I'm sure it's a wonderful cat - we could probably benefit from a picture of it on your userpage! ;)[reply]

It may not be deletion policy. But it is very basic Wikipedia policy like WP:NPA. It supersedes the Deletion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You'll forgive me for attempting to make a joke; apparently it failed. (Note to self: Kappa and Trollederella do not dig cat jokes). Outside of the specific cat example, I do believe my point still stands. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I can't see how, you're constructing a strawman about a silly article that can't be verified without conducting original research, and trying to make the argument that articles that are referenced and do not need original research to verify are not valid because you might write one about your cat. Am I missing something? Trollderella 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're missing a joke. Relax. I was trying to point out what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning by means of a light-hearted example. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry! I am sure it's a great cat! Trollderella 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an entirely hypothetical cat. :p Now back to your regularly scheduled VfD. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Yes, Fernando, I totally agree, but why did she appear on the Today Show and The Insider if she's not notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Mgm: Fair question, but lots of flash-in-the-pan celebrities appear on the Today Show. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. --Charles O'Rourke 07:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly" i.e. known. Kappa 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, she's been on TV & stuff, and there's just about enough to justify an article, although emphasise to Trollderella that something being verifiable does not justify an encyclopaedia article in itself. Go read WP:NOT. Proto t c 10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not notable IMO. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she's had her fifteen minutes of fame but by the proverb so do we all. R adiant _>|< 10:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into GoldenPalace.com, who have done a string of strange ad placements. android 79 12:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn. -- DS1953 14:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. The ten-year rule: will people care about these accomplishments in ten years. Not terribly likely.--Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Heck, nobody cares now. :) Zoe 07:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep as per User:Proto. Hall Monitor 18:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zoe, etc... Dottore So 18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her most significant achievement is having a logo painted on her stomach, with ancillary TV appearances to maximise its subsequent exposure. This doesn't make her notable. Sliggy 21:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares? Denni ☯ 23:55, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 07:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her 15 minutes are over. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many people have become human billboards for goldenpalace.com. That alone is not enough to meet WP:BIO requirements. Quale 14:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any tart who can generate this much argument over a scribble she's had done on her belly (pregnant or not) deserves an article, if only to serve as a demonstration of the stupid things that people can find to argue about. 212.101.64.4 14:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please trollerella is right and this article is factual and verifiable Yuckfoo 17:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic in scope, content or notability. Hamster Sandwich 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly useless information, it seems like she's the one who wrote it about herself, for a singles page or something.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crushi.com[edit]

Not notable, and probably spam. See also Crushi. Finbarr Saunders 05:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. Site gets an Alexa rank of 900,431. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn and advertising. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. IINAG 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. *drew 23:05, 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. R adiant _>|< 08:24, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

FilePile[edit]

First attempt at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/FilePile closed as hopeless. Abstain brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for these reasons:
- it has over 8000 members. WP:WEB mentions a lower limit of 5000 for notability. "Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members"
- 7000 sites contain the site's URL.
- Point of Rocks, Wyoming has an article (population: 3), so an 8000 strong website surely should.
- The site has even inspired a parody.
- the fact that dozens of FilePile members have defaced the article makes it more notable, in the same way that the Sollog article was made more notable by it's repeated vandalism by Sollogites.
- it has even been mentioned in the same breath by Jason Kottke with Wikipedia and Firefox [8]
- It is currently active [9], despite what the FilePile defacers would say. FilePile gets websites to remove their links to FilePile (see the current version of that page here)
  - Both of those links generate "404-Page not found" Eo 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The site appears to be the source of many internet memes and discussion on other sites, therefore it conforms to WP:WEB in the sense that "the website has had some impact on people beyond its core user base"
- Nearly all of the website's peers (see here) have articles.

- Xed 08:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The site is so secretive that very little about them is verifiable. Even at best they do not appear notable. If they want to remain a secret then I say, "let them". Also, I note that the admin who closed the last VfD defaulted to 'keep' simply because of the "circus" that resulted. He suggested that "this discussion may be reopened later" and I see no reason to wait longer. This information does not enrich humanity in any way. -Willmcw 09:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, too secret. If they don't want an article about their site, so be it. Plus they'll end up getting shut down when the RIAA or MPAA or whoever catches up with them, anyway. Then we could recreate the article and detail how they all got fined, *giggle*. Proto t c 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears to meet WP:WEB, but is a private site. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after more research. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, private, reportedly offline website. Difficult to verify information (e.g., there has been much controversy over whether the screenshot is even legitimate, or whether it has been edited, and there is no way to verify this). Jason 11:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

And to look at the some of reasons given by Xed to keep: first, we have no idea how many members the site has, it being private. Re: Points of Rock, the criteria for maintenance of geographical location stubs has no bearing on the criteria for maintenance of pages about non-notable subjects (i.e., my house has seven residents in it, should I put a page up on Wikipedia?). Parodies don't make a site notable in an of themselves. And mention by Jason Kottke doesn't make a site notable (or if it does, we have a lot of work to do cataloging all the sites, memes, people, places, and other subjects he's covered and adding those citations and references to those articles). Jason 11:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn. R adiant _>|< 12:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, quick plainly non-notable. The actual number of active users of the site has been estimated (by FilePile members) to be around 600, which is plainly less than the five-thousand required by WP:WEB. The article fits neither of the other two heuristics for website inclusion, nor any other others. Xed's case is flimsy at best. — Adam Conover † 12:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete too secret, non-notable. While quite a few blogs linked to the site prior to 2003, there is no academic literature on the site and it has not been archived at the Internet Archive. What is known about the site does not indicate that it is notable, and File Pile does not meet the WP:WEB impact criteria for Web sites. --tranquileye 13:44:23, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete, unsubstantiated article about non notable private site Townbully 13:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn --Flaunted 14:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page was already deleted once.
Delete. impossible to produce encyclopedic article or to demonstrate notability under WP's requirement for verifiability and prohibition of original research. If File Pile merits notice, it will get it somewhere else first. Dystopos 15:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in your nomination, you don't actually give any valid reasons to relist the article. That an article failed VfD previously is not grounds for immediate relisting. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last VfD saw an overwhelming number of Delete votes, but the process itself was a train wreck that ended with an admin decision of no consensus. After further discussion and a RfC on the page, there developed a near consensus that the subject was non-notable and unverifiable, and the article was re-nominated. --tranquileye 16:21:38, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This VfD seems to have happened because of pressure from sockpuppets and filepile users for another vote. Wikipedia should resist such pressure. - Xed 17:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can figure out a way to make it verifiable. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn PugAchev 16:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obscure and unsubstantiated. Not notable. - EurekaLott 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too secret, haven't changed my opinion since the original delete vote. ZviGilbert 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, not of general interest zadcat 17:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information inherently unverifiable Sliggy 18:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with the above comments about being unverifiable. Carbonite | Talk 18:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons cited above about notability, verifiability and lack thereof. Dottore So 18:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Site seems notable only to its members. Perhaps if public interest could be shown it would be worthy of an entry, but that has not been documented.--Ceart99 20:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my last VfD vote. Xed, Point of Rocks, Wyoming, was generated by Rambot, not a human, and I think we've agreed that Rambot's articles are acceptable. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 20:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entry is only notable to ex-members and alleged members. Compare/contrast recent VfDs for Digg, with many more users and is a public site. The only significant contributes seem to be ex-members with an axe to grind and are as reliable as relying on Pat Robertson or Oral Roberts to provide verifyable information on God. See this version for an example of the axe-grinding, unreferenced/unsubstantiated, and misleading/apparently false information that Xed provides. Massive problems in Wikipedia:Verifiability such as author's record, conflict of interest, not encyclopedic because of threshold for verifiability (truth aside), extensive original research. Not a place for original research. Unreferenced/unverified/unsubstantiated/inflamatory information put to the side, it makes for a non-notable topic. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy lists WP:NOT as a problem that may require deletion. Specifically, Propaganda and advertising. Should also be prevented from recreation until site is notable and meets other criteria. --Jmccorm 21:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable, and original research. 8000 members for a forum isn't really that many: my standard is 50,000. --Carnildo 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per my previous vote. Not notable, original research. Eo 22:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable and contentious. thewittyname 23:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 23:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I called for the first nomination VfD that ended in a mess. This site is first and foremost a private site. Nothing about it can be verified. More so, if it wasn't private, based on what we do know, it still would not be notable. — Linnwood 23:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jmccorm above. I also run a website with more than 8,000 unique members, but I am not going to tell you where to find it or how to log in. Kwh 20:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Any notability is non-verifiable. All that is verifiable is its existence which in itself is not notable. --Sut2000 21:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe that this page is still around. Unverifiable, not notable, private web sites shouldn't get their own Wikipage. Jmccorm pretty much nails it. --Grum0613 01:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable and not notable to boot.. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn Matt Yohe 14:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable private site. Aquillion 02:00, 2 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 Speedied as a recreation of previously-deleted content by Zoe. android 79 15:02, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Kelly Penguin Girl"[edit]

Kelly Penguin Girl was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-31. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kelly Penguin Girl.

Seems not to qualify for notability, unless her podcast is heard by 5000 people. Can we quantify the number of listeners of podcasts? Zoe 05:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and merge into the Linux show. Trollderella 06:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Trollderella. Nateji77 07:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't vote to merge to a nonexistant article. And a podcast is also nn. Again, the criteria is 5000 listeners. Zoe 07:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Zoe, is it really necessary to have a running commentary of what you think of every vote I make? I think we should create the article, kicking the subject up a level, and keeping the factual and accurate material, as per the deletion policy. You disagree, that's great, you voted. Let's leave it at that. Trollderella 07:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's necessary to comment on every incorrect vote, when the vote is in opposition to deletion policy. But then, you think every road in the world should have an article, so why am I surprised that you think that every podcast in the world should have its own article? And I have to ask again, what article do you want to merge this into? Zoe 07:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
    - I'd like to merge it into Linux User Show, as per deletion policy. I don't think I want to spend any more time discussing this with you, I don't think it's very productive. Why don't we both go and spend some time writing articles? Trollderella 07:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - How can you "merge" into a nonexistant article? And I have to ask again, how many people hear that podcast? If it's less than 5000, then it fails WP:CSD. Zoe 07:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
        By creating the article, and moving this information into it, along with more, if possible. If it were not likely to lead to more dogged pursuit by you, I would do it myself. I have no idea how many people hear the podcast. Leave it alone - we've both voted, please let others with different opinions to yours be. Trollderella 07:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Despite the name, VfD is a discussion, not a simple vote-tallying. Zoe is doing what's natural – attempting to further discussion and figure out your point of view. Also, I feel compelled to remind you, again, that moving or copy-pasting content from a VfD'd article is not wise. android 79 18:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kelly is the quick-witted, funny, counterpoint to Jon's geek-oriented presentation of the Linux operating system for new users. is a complete POV statement and without that all that's left is the fact she's a co-host and the external link. I've got nothing against reviving it and merging if the article on the show is ever created, but right now, I'd have to vote delete based on CSD A1. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established Sliggy 18:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as recreation of previously-deleted article. Not notable. Merging to a non-existant article is a nonsensical vote; I think you mean "move" or "rename". android79 12:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Uncle G, could you tell us if the previously-deleted article had substantially similar content to this one? android79 18:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  - For you to decide for yourselves:
    - Kelly Penguin Girl: Kelly Penguin Girl makes regular appearances on the Linux User Show, a fantabulous podcast. Popularized the term ...
    - "Kelly Penguin Girl": Kelly Penguin Girl is Jon Watson's co-host on The Linux User Show podcast. Kelly is the ...
  - Both articles are 2 sentences long with the same external link. Uncle G 19:31:43, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Create Linux User Show, Merge, and then Delete "Kelly Penguin Girl". CAPS LOCK 18:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not possible. That would require a redirect from "Kelly Penguin Girl" to Linux User Show. android 79 18:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Clarification: you can only merge and redirect. Merge and delete is incompatible with the GFDL (see Guide to Votes for deletion). - Mgm|^(talk) 07:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per android. Dottore So 18:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the notice at the top of this page indicates that this is a recreation of a previously-VfD'd article, I am going to be bold and speedy delete. Zoe 19:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- That CSD criterion only applies to substantially similar re-created articles, which is why I asked Uncle G to check the old page's history. If you would be so kind as to do that, we can avoid having this article end up at VfU. android 79 19:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Based on Uncle G's response above, I believe this was an appropriate speedy deletion. android 79 19:35, 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 delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy on jeff[edit]

Classic band vanity. No Googles. Sigh... - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Delete from me. bandcruft. --DrTorstenHenning 08:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No All Music entry and no Googles seems to indicate the claim it's got some serious radio air time is also wrong. It would show up on radio websites if it was true. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Heavy on Delete PubLife 15:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete. *drew 23:07, 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oft[edit]

Move to Wiktionary and delete. Zoe 05:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I Agree. Delete --inks 05:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See wiktionary:oft. Bovlb 06:09:29, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete, already on wiktionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictdef already on wikitionary. Proto t c 14:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. IINAG 15:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef already on Wiktionary. Optichan 20:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 23:07, 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa baryan[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For a famous child prodigy, she sure doesn't have any Google whatsoever. Neither does her father. Aussies/Kiwis, is this for real? - Lucky 6.9 06:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not: pure Vanity. should be speedied--Porturology 06:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
reading the discussion page this has to be a joke. i think its quite good and deserves a place in BJADON--Porturology 06:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Get rid of it. The same user has made Amber Baryan, which smacks of nonsense also. Dysprosia 06:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if true, nn. I speedy deleted the article on her mother because it failed to allege notability (note that her mother's article didn't even mention these supposed books). Let's not fill in all of those red links, please? Zoe 06:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep--Figgleeeeeo 06:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is the article's author, who also claims to be the mother of the subject. Zoe 06:13, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete That information would be better on their userpage.--inks 06:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Tara Undercliff and Dance under the pretty trees. Zoe 06:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

delete non-verifiable, and, probably, non-factual. Trollderella 07:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable/vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Also delete all related articles, Tara Undercliff is a pseudonym and should be included in the soon to be deleted page on the author in the first place. And Dance under the pretty trees is a self-published book no one knows about. Last statement in article is pure advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and the related stuff, per Mgm. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm an Australian and I've never heard of her or her Dad. A Google search on her came up empty handed. I can assure you that if a four year old child prodigy daughter of a TV celebrity had written her first book, there would be rather more interest than shown in this search [10].

Capitalistroadster 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Dottore So 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 23:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. HappyCamper 06:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rigmare[edit]

Neologism. Zero relevant Google hits. Bovlb 06:13:02, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, i've added it to speedies as well. Non-notable, wikipedia is not a dictionary --Werdna648 07:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-confessed neologism. Andrewa 11:31, 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. The m/r votes are clearly towards the news network, but they are significantly outnumbered by simple keepage. -Splash 00:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Linder[edit]

Non-notable hatemonger. I would say userfy to User:Amalekite, but he already has a user page. Zoe 06:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep the fact that we may find him personally offensive is not a good reason to try to remove a factual and verifiable article. Let's try to get over our own POVs. Having said that, I notice that the information on the page is not verified. We should probably remove it until it can be, and, if it ends up being a stub in the meantime, redirect to Vanguard News Network. Trollderella 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Get over yourself, troll. His nomination is for his lack of notability and the fact that he's a Wikipedia user and shouldn't be writing an autobiography of himself, not because of his disgustinginess. Zoe 07:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I, for one, would appreciate it if you could try to remain civil. I don't think it costs anything to refrain from personal abuse, and it certainly improves the likelihood of reaching agreement. Yours, Trollderella 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, troll, I, for one, would appreciate it if you could try not to ascribe motives to me which are not correct. Zoe 04:31, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zoe, I think the only motive that I ascribed to you was that you were trying to reach agreement. Sorry if that is not true. Trollderella 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. —Charles O'Rourke 07:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Linder is notable for Vanguard News Network. --Gramaic | Talk 08:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. I personally am happy to have an article to know who this person is. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely and thoroughly disgusting, but weak keep- notable by association, plus the references suggest he is someone who is a concern. Zoe's concerns that it's an autobiography are now moot thanks to SlimVirgin's rewrite. And although his/her username made me nervous at first, I am now convinced Trollderella is not a troll. CanadianCaesar 09:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vanguard News Network. Context is better. R adiant _>|< 10:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per the ever sensible Radiant. Proto t c 10:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the sensible Radiant. Hipocrite 12:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slimvirgin's rewrite. Much as I dislike his politics, he seems to be notable enough. Capitalistroadster 16:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please do your best to assume good WP:FAITH whenever possible. Hall Monitor 17:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently notable hatemonger. I couldn't find any evidence that this was autobio in the edit history BTW. Sdedeo 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable hategmonger as above. Also monitored by the anti-defamation league.--Nicodemus75 18:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Vanguard News Network. Dottore So 19:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That he's nn is a pipe dream. Tomer ^TALK 00:28, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Voltaire Sam Vimes 22:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *drew 23:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.*DaBomb I think it provides notable information on a man that advocates the murder of billions. Linder is a slightly different topic than VNN, but a merge could work.

Merge and redirect as per Radiant. Andre (talk) 18:27, August 29, 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.

Keep He is a well known white supremacist residing in the United States, though obviously not someone we would want to emulate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was ~~keep~~. Inconclusive. No VfD tag or any other notice was displayed on the article at any time during the discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 17:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cayden Boyd[edit]

Speedy keep. WP:POINT. See User talk:Figgleeeeeo. Zoe 06:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is in her right to vote for the article (or have the rules changed so new users can't vote?) Dysprosia 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dysprosia 06:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- New users can nominate but their votes can be discounted by the closing admin. And this is clearly a retaliation nomination as clearly delineated on "her" talk page. Zoe 07:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
They can vote, and their votes should be discounted only if bad faith can be proven. Of course, here, it can be. Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. Proto t c 10:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, child actor with lead role in recent film and an important role in Mystic River and several others plus his IMDB entry make him notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Roodog2k 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seeing as there never was a proper VFD header placed on the article and the unanimous consensus is to keep, this discussion should be closed. Agreed? Hall Monitor 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Comment: the thread at User talk:Figgleeeeeo strongly suggests a troll. Admins should consider banning the user based on this action. Dottore So 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. -- DS1953 01:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbable[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Charles O'Rourke 06:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless we can just redirect to Wiktionary. Trollderella 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki if it's not there already. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per above. *drew 00:25, 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 delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carey y Cía. Ltda.[edit]

Delete. Vanity, advertising, non-notable company. —Charles O'Rourke 06:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio. Listed on WP:CP. Bovlb 06:49:38, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 00:28, 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 dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SFTPPlus[edit]

Advertising. I suggest to remove the article. Prikryl 06:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also would-be comparison at List of SFTP clients.

Moreover there was considerable number of ad-like insertions into various pages from the same IP (82.153.185.73) refering to the SFTPPlus. Most of which were removed as vandalism.

Copyvio from www.sftpplus.com. tagged and bagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 00:28, 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 delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linux blogs[edit]

A chatty definition of Linux, and a list of three blogs "of repute". Not encyclopedic it its current form, and I'm not sure it has the potential. Bovlb 07:18:29, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Delete. WP:NOT --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Linux already has an article. Any useful links can be proposed there. Not worth a seperate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Whatever it is, it's not Wikipedia worthy. Optichan 20:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. *drew 00:29, 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 delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turla[edit]

Long-winded advert for a Yahoo group for people who share a specific surname. Bovlb 07:21:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Delete. nn/unenc. --DrTorstenHenning 08:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrTorstenHenning. -- DS1953 16:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising & vanity. *drew 00:32, 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 delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Squodge mcdodge[edit]

When I cheked this out I originally listed it as a speedy delete as I was unable to find any reference to Squodge mcdodge anywhere. This was removed later. Later after I asked for references the blog link was created. The blog was created in August. There was also three email contacts. One was not valid and eventually I got replies from Steve Harris <[email protected]> "If this is about the wiki thing, then Squodge wasn't really a major thing, surprised it was put on wikipedia. Suppose i could get pics and stuff if you relly wanted" and Chris Sawyer <[email protected]> "i can provide images. blogs arnt good enough apparently". Even if this stuff is true then it's non-notable as it's only available in Northern Ireland. CambridgeBayWeather 07:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Google hits at all. Does it even exist? Who knows? Who cares? Andrewa 11:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. adspam, nn, unenc. Would probably qualify for speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 13:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrTorstenHenning. -- DS1953 16:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable; no reference on IMDb. *drew 00:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Looks like its been cut down a bit
- Comment: Please sign your votes, user 84.68.150.94, otherwise they risk not being counted. Yes, you have now cut it down to a deletable sub-stub. Still no evidence it's encyclopedic. No change of vote. Andrewa 10:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. 2 deletes (including nom) vs 7 keeps. Adding {{cleanup}} per several recommendations by keep voters to do so. Tomer ^TALK 07:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas[edit]

It's a minimally-informative essay on the use of electrical equipment in areas where hazardous vapors may be present. I'm sure we've already got a better-written article or two on this. --Carnildo 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and it smells like a copyvio, but I can't find the source. Bovlb 08:04:39, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Keep seems legitimate, unless people can actually show the better written article, or that it is a copyvio. PatGallacher 10:34, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Keep as per User:PatGallacher. Roodog2k 14:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:PatGallacher. Dlyons493 15:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Trollderella 16:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, as above. Needs to be rewritten to encyclopedic style but valid topic. --WCFrancis 16:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Needs to be cleaned up, expanded to cover other standards than the UK and references provided. Capitalistroadster 00:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *drew 00:37, 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 Delete title+moved =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Air-India passenger airliner hijack by Taliban from Kathmandu to Kandahar[edit]

I object to the title of this redirect. Where is the evidence that the Taliban was responsible for the hijack ? It is true that the Taliban seemed to be a far warmer host than many countries for the hijackers but that is not sufficient to imply the Taliban did it. Manik Raina 08:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maik is right Bluezy 09:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest moving to Indian Airlines Flight 814 hijack, so edit history is retained per GFDL. Then delete this useless redirect. Name is too long, no one's going to look for that and it fails naming conventions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree to this proposal, since moved. --Bhadani 10:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
clearly this should be kept at it's new location. Trollderella 16:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete specualtaion. Optichan 20:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 00:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who's gonna type all that into the seach box anyway? Drdisque 08:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- support's MGM's rename. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:43, 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 speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assmonkey[edit]

While it boasts a whomping 5000+ results on Google, I wonder if Wikipedia really needs this. Acetic Acid 08:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - not encyclopedic. I'd have doubts about even including it in a dictionary. Colinmac 08:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that this article has been deleted before. Acetic Acid 08:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's been deleted twice before, but I don't know if we can speedy it because it's not the same article: Previous content (both times) was "Assmonkey: A general insult for many occasions. It basically means that the reciever of the insult likes ass, is a monkey, and possibly homosexual." CanadianCaesar 09:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bad dictdef. Speedy if possible as recreation of previously deleted material (words are different, but content is the same). Proto t c 14:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's close enough for me. --Carnildo 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- DS1953 16:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Optichan 20:50, 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. -Splash 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical musicology[edit]

This article has nothing to do with the academic discipline of historical musicology

Delete - as stated, this information does not relate to historical musicology. Suggest that the text is added to the entries for Techno music and Rave party (note: some of the information is already included in the Techno music article). CLW 08:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article has now been re-written from scratch and the information is now both relevant and useful CLW 09:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Jahsonic 11:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current article is irrelevant. However, there is scope for an article on this topic as it seems to be a valid academic discipline. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have rewritten the article to refer to the discipline of historical musicology. Capitalistroadster 05:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although my knowledge of musicology is limited, this looks like a good article. In fact, this article should not have been vfd'd, but just "emptied". I even removed the link to the subject from the music page. My apologies and thank you Capitalistroadster. --Jahsonic 07:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *drew 00:38, 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 REDIRECT to DIAMETER. -Splash 01:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DCCA[edit]

DCCA has now become RFC 4006, the draft doesn't exist anymore. But it contains so little text, and I don't think it can be expanded anymore. It should be folded back into DIAMETER.

Redirect. Sdedeo 21:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. *drew 00:39, 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 delete. Woohookitty 08:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helicopter use in Brasil[edit]

Delete This user is also posting articles such as, Cocaine use in Brazil, Anal Sex in Brazil. Paul Klenk 08:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this one is rather interesting. I have no opinion on the other articles. Should be renamed to 'Helicopter Use in Sao Paulo', and I was about to do so, but will leave the existing title until this VfD is finished.-gadfium 08:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to Delete. Paul Klenk can put any relevant information he wants into the Sao Paulo article, but there's no need to keep this.-gadfium 04:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Oh Klenk, why the raw feelings about a lifestyle you obviously dont understand i doubt if anyone would care what you say about me as I have always been friendly and willing to learn while a quick check of your comments about me and your past dealings and blocks for personal attacks speak for themselves.Wiki brah 08:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good article. ~~Needs sources.~~ Needs more sources Kappa 10:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~Unsure.~~ Neither the São Paulo, São Paulo nor the helicopter articles seem to mention this interesting phenomenon at all. We'd be a lot better served if the information were in one of these two places and linked from the other, IMO. The information here is scanty, the article doesn't actually say what the ratio of helicopters to people is, even approximately, it just baldly declares that it's the highest in the world, and offers no figures or references to back this claim, which is therefore unverifiable and arguably therefore unencyclopedic. So the article if accurate may have potential, but as is it would be no great loss if deleted, and it's not obvious to me how to fix it. Andrewa 11:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, reference doesn't seem to back up the claim the helicopter/inhabitant rate is the highest there. Should be merged in city article and mentioned in Sao Paolo article once it is. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep unexpected gem - who would guess Sao Paolo has the highest helicopter per capita? maybe a rename of article as others have suggested as seems specific to Sao Paolo. --KURANDO 13:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to São Paulo. Would be worth mentioning as trivia in the helicopter article as well. Though I would like to see a citation for the "highest per capita" claim.Roodog2k 14:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claim that makes this a noteworthy subject is unsourced, and apparently original research/commentary. Monicasdude 16:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but spell Brazil correctly. Trollderella 16:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely dependent upon one source; its essentially a summary of the Wash Post article with a couple of other unreferenced claims. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The single source quoted as supporting this article is itself entirely unreferenced and full of anecdotal evidence, in part speculative, and is achingly POV. Just because it's got numbers in it doesn't mean it's true. Delete. Sliggy 18:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Summary of newspaper article. Suggest information appear in Sao Paolo article instead. Sdedeo 19:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only relevant content is about Sao Paolo, so that's where this peculiarity should be noted. Agree with Sdedeo, Sliggy, Fernando Rizo.

Dottore So 19:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the single interesting fact can be verified, it should be noted briefly in São Paulo. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sao Paulo. Zoe 20:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a useful redirect. The meagre encyclopedic claims this article makes and the source now provided can be copied (the information, not the text) to the São Paulo, São Paulo and/or helicopter articles if someone thinks they are sufficiently impressed to do so. I'm not, it seems a throwaway line in a sensationalised article, and I'd want better sources than that. Andrewa 21:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merges are done so the original author is given credit. If copy-pasted the user's name or IP needs to be included in the edit summary to comply with the GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:11, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: Exactly. But IMO it's easiest if what is added to the recipient articles is not the text, which is subject to copyright, but just the information, which is not. Merge and redirect is fraught with danger when the redirect is of doubtful value. For example, if the redirect later comes up on RfD, then GFDL impacts will be fully considered, but if it's converted to a stub in good faith and then subsequently renominated on VfD, they may not be. No change of vote. Andrewa 15:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful. Groeck 06:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Kjkolb 06:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Great band name, bad article. Gamaliel 07:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Anal sex in Brasil is a much better band name. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for reasons given above. --Bhadani 15:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sao Paulo as above. ESkog 22:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim is unverified. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, does having anal sex in a helicopter admit you to the "Pile High club?"
- Comment: Please sign your posts, Dpbsmith. Very funny. No change of vote. Andrewa 17:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 00:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- DS1953 01:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Sao Paolo and Helicopter. This is not unverified, the article has a reference (as of the time of this vote). Martg76 23:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Washington Post report now given as a reference does not support the basic claim of the Wikipedia article, that helicopter ownership is the highest in the world. The WP report neither makes this claim, nor provides the number of helicopters, only the number of helipads. So I disagree, the claim is still unverified. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This has just undergone an extensive rewrite and is no longer an article but a factoid (see its talk page). I stand by my delete comment above and vote to ~~Merge~~ copy and paste the contents to another page, but only if the facts can be verified. Paul Klenk 17:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC) + Do not hang on to the redirect page -- get rid of it. Paul Klenk 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A good try, but why? The still unverified claim that São Paulo, São Paulo has the highest per capita helicopter ownership in the world can be merged to the other articles without leaving a redirect, so long as you rephrase it into your own words as you have done. There is no merit in keeping this as a redirect, nor its history (nor IMO this claim, based apparently on an inaccurate reading of a sensationalized newspaper report, but that should be discussed in the talk pages of the articles concerned). No change of vote. Andrewa 20:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the article was written before link was added. Kappa 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly right, and possibly added partly in response to my first post (unsure, above). However note another has subsequently commented This is not unverified, the article has a reference (also above). The point several of us have made is that this reference does not actually support the claim. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (on the addition to the NOTE above): Merge by copy and paste without leaving a redirect seems to me to risk GFDL problems, and to actually be a vote to delete. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion. No change of vote. Andrewa 07:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced; claims not supported by ext link. If the 'highest per capita in the world' claim can be verified, it should be a note in the helicopter article, at most. 68.185.16.5 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC) {User:Niteowlneils not logged in, editing from an internet cafe in Roseburg, Oregon.}[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: The opinions of many anon and sockpuppet votes were steeply discounted during my decision. However, the facts presented by the new users were considered.

Rossami (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 139 club[edit]

Not sufficiently notable This is just one student club at Glasgow University, there are a few dozen such clubs at GU alone. Some of the more important student bodies e.g. Glasgow University Union are encyclopedic this is not. I suspect an attempt at POV-pushing in relation to the historic mixing isse, this is reasonably dealt with in the GUU article, anything legitimate should be added there. PatGallacher 10:10, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Merge to Glasgow University Union Roodog2k 13:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Roodog2k, leave a redirect. Proto t c 14:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is legitimate and official. Ask the GUU Board of Management for authorisation
- This last comment is from an anon user. PatGallacher 14:46, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

The 139 Club has no official links with the GUU and is completely independent. I think the GUU management would prefer this page to be seperate as not to confuse the issue. It would be best to contact their president. Thank you Robert Marrs

That is excellent information to add to the atrticle assuming it is merged!Roodog2k 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT MERGE This club is an entirely separate entity from the GUU and as other 'affiliates' such as the GU Dialectic Society have their own section so to should the 139.
- I would regard Glasgow University Dialectic Society as borderline notable, but looking at its article it does go back to about 1861, may go back further, it has played a significant role since then, so I'll let it pass. Wikipedia is not paper, but that does not mean every student club at every university should have an entry. PatGallacher 19:33, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
Delete. A small club founded in 2002? Not-notable. Sdedeo 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Roodog2k. I'll change my vote to Delete since a redirect would imply a relationship that, per above, does not exist. Dottore So 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, as the anon keeps insisting, a redirect to Glasgow University Union would not be appropriate. Zoe 20:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Vanity. POV. 62.252.128.18 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I do apologise if this is causing consternation. I was under the impression that the whole point of a "live" environment like Wikipedia's was that so quirks like this might have a place.

Delete Not notable. ucsb1984 00:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Dialectic has history from before 1861. The earliest paper records show somewhere before 1770.. although it could be older still, and no doubt is (i.e. it is unlikely that the first ever record would be kept etc).

2) On the Dialectic page, it should be 'Reftable Debate' not 'Refutable'.

3) I think student societies should be separate from unions they may or may not be affiliated to. They are, after all, separate organisations.

4) If someone created a page for the Hawks Club (i.e. the sporting blues assoc. at Cambridge) there wouldn't be such an outcry. I am surprised there isn't a page for this historical society.

5) I would also point to the TCD Phil and TCD Hist societies - why do these have separate pages, when they ostensibly do the same thing - why not merge the pages? I don't think mere 'age' is a good enough reason to keep some things, and remove others - it is somewhat arbitrary.

6) The 139 plays a very distinct role, one clearly different from the student union it might happen to use for it's dinners.

R Marrs

R Marrs is running several issues together, some of his comments about other pages should be dealt with on their own merits, not dealt with here. There is not yet a page for the Hawks Club, I reserve judgement on whether to treat it as notable. I can't find the pages for the "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" societies, could he point us to them? The crucial point he is missing here is that if the 139 Club is notable, then every student club at every university in the world is notable. PatGallacher 23:26, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Keep Why shouldn't every student club at every university in the world have a place? My understanding of Wikipedia was that these quirks and idiosyncracies made it unique. ("Trinity College Dublin" contains the links to TCD Phil & Hist)P.S. I am currently President of the Glasgow University Union and no sock puppet! --Niallrowantree 17:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This last comment is by an anon user, I suspect some sockpuppetry. I have had a look at the Trinity College, Dublin article, it says "Trinity College has a vibrant student life with 96 societies and 50 sports clubs", are we really going to have a Wikipedia article for all 144 clubs, and the same for all other universities? TCD Phil and TCD Hist are the only 2 student clubs at TCD who appear to have an article, they and GU Dialectic have a lengthy history and organise some sort of significant intellectual activity, not just a booze-up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that. PatGallacher 17:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hawks Club - from my understanding it is a club for all the Blues at Cambridge. This would include some sporting stars such as Rob Andrew, Gavin Hastings and some not so sporting stars such as Hugh Laurie. I presume this would be dealt with separately from say the Cambridge University Sports Association, although they are obviously linked together.

The crucial point PatGallacher is missing is that there is no reason as to why every student club at every university isn't notable. Will The 139 be allowed on here if one of their alumni becomes a Captain of Industry or a politician etc? I would argue such arbitrary distinctions are nonsense. If people are arguing for it's inclusion, surely that alone nearly makes it worthy of inclusion?

Would it not make Wikipedia a more vibrant encyclopedia to include quirks such as The 139? I don't think we have heard good enough arguments from PatGallacher - and surely, it is for the 'deleters' to prove their case.

Moreover, the real fact of the matter is that not all societies will fill up the pages of Wikipedia. For example, Eton College has it's own entry but is really only an educational establishment which happens to have had a few old boys go on to do a few things. Would you object to this because every school in the world might want an entry? No clearly not, because clearly not every school in the world wants a page on Wikipedia.

Sock Puppetry? I'm not exactly sure what that is being relatively new to the Wikipedia phenomenon. Niall Rowantree is the current president of the Union, and I think was the person behind the original 139 entry. I would get in contact with him, his details are readily available on the GUU website.

I think this comes down to simple snobbishness. 'GU Dialectic has a lengthy history and organise some sort of intellectual activity, not just a booze up once a term, several student clubs at GU do more than that'.

If The 139 held debates, political rallies or brainstorming sessions would a page be approved? If PatGallacher had any contact with either the Dialectic, or the Phil and the Hist, he/she would know that rather a lot of their activities are based around 'booze ups'. The fact that something is new should not preclude it from entry, and the fact that something is not 'intellectual', and I don't know where that allegation comes from whether it is true or not, should preclude entry either.

Robert Marrs

Robert Marrs (acting as an anon user) deleted the whole of the previous discussion to enter this, I had to retrieve the previous version and add his comments. This smacks of vandalism, but it may just have been a mistake by an newbie. PatGallacher 18:39, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry didn't mean to delete the entire thread of the debate - I was just trying to clear the screen so I could type. I didn't think it would actually delete the whole thing from wikipedia. I hope my incompetence doesn't count against me! Robert Marrs

Keep --RobertMarrs 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I notice the Glasgow University Shinty Club has it's own page. Neither particularly historic, promotes drinking far more heavily than The 139 (which bizarrely seems to be a criteria) and probably not particularly noteworthy under most people's definitions. I'd keep it, but I think we have a precedent for University Clubs at Glasgow getting their own page.--86.130.145.220 21:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Robert Marrs's points are not persuasive. He gives reasons why a "Hawks Club" entry would be suitable: the prominence of members, the international name recognition it has. "The 139 Club" has neither of these attributes.

Equally his argumentation regarding "Eton" is self-defeating. Arguments against the inclusion of other schools would clearly be if they were "not sufficiently notable"; the very same charge being leveled against "the 139 Club" entry.

His points regarding "booze-ups" and linking "Glasgow University Dialectic Society", "TCD Phil" and "TCD Hist" are unconvincing. While drinking may occur in those other institutions that is not their primary activity nor constitutional function. Their role is a public one, which "the 139 Club"'s is not: to debate.

Despite Mr Marrs's comments: newness should preclude entry, unless the institutional is unusually notable.

There is no "right" to be included in "Wikipedia". Instead there are criteria which make inclusion worthwhile to a global community. A primary one being "sufficiently notable". Brown27 11:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) I've had rather a lot of experience of TCD Phil, TCD Hist and the Dialectic, I wonder very much whether you have? If not, your opinion is somewhat valueless. You are assuming things that might not actually be true. 2) I would say a decent definition of encyclopedia means 'A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically, usually dealing with the entire field of human knowledge'. Surely including The 139 would make Wikipedia more 'comprehensive' and such articles would meet the criteria of a 'wide range of subjects'. Limiting things on somewhat arbitray bases such as 'newness', 'fame' and the 'activity they do' is somewhat snobbish and prescriptivist. Why is boozing any less valuable than some students debating, if this is what The 139 actually do? Why is the relatively new (and non-historic, non-famous) GU Shinty club allowed a page? 3) The 139 isn't even particularly new, as it is based around a historical event - highlighting how important that event is to some people. However, as they are independent of the GUU they should not be lumped together here. --RobertMarrs 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information it says somewhere. I would regard Glasgow University Shinty Club as only borderline notable, but it has been in existence since 1901, represents the university at a recognised sport, and has had some significant successes over the years. Merely commemorating a notable event does not make you notable, I suspect POV pushing. We already have the "average professor test" i.e. to be notable you have to have done more than the average professor, I suggest we add the "average student club test". PatGallacher 16:44, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

But if this test was to be brought in, you would have to delete GU Shinty as they aren't terribly notable - 103 years old, a few successes, hardly Kingussie Shinty Club. Surely POV pushing is what this is all about - you think it should be out, I think it should be in. POV pushing by using the page itself is nonsensical, there is no point of view pushing on the page it merely relates facts. Unless, you think that the club itself has an agenda - which would make nearly every club in the world not worthy of inclusion.--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On another point who actually makes the decision here?--RobertMarrs 17:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. GlasgowUni 22:24, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

SAVE This is very much a note worthy club because of its relationship to the critical shift in membership status for women at the last all male student club. If this event and the club it created is not note worthy what is? --ViaVeritasVita 11:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the interest that this has ignited is reason enough for keeping it!--Niallrowantree 11:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not notable The 139 club is certainly not worthy of note. It is only a few years old and amounts to drunken boyish tomfoolery. The original 139 (who voted not to accept women in 1981) have never been at or even associated with this club- if you can call it that. Infact they would be disgusted at the behaviour of some of the members at this dinner. All this amounts to is vanity. 62.49.29.190

Um, do we accept votes from people with no name? Because surely that is more likely to involve sock-puppetry? On the last post, it seems to me we have a classic example of POV pushing. 1) No name 2) Allegations that, let's face it, cannot be upheld. Debate the issue on it's merits (which on the whole have been widely sidestepped) not on whether you like the club or not. --RobertMarrs 07:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 139 may be there, ostensibly, to commemorate a past event but the fact that the club is only a few years old speaks even more against it. That there was no previous club, from what I can tell, or even if there was the fact that it was discontinued (if it did exist at all a continuous existence since the vote has not been mentioned on this site), implies that this event, whilst of note in the history of the Glasgow University Union, seems not important enough even for a "society" to be formed in its honour, let alone to have a seperate entry dedicated to it (in the form of this nascent club). If those around at the time did not feel strongly enough about it then those, twenty years later, cannot claim to be maintaining any sort of grand tradition of note. It's a bit sad really

Furthermore, I can vouch for brown27's remarks as to these debating societies. Mr Marrs' argument, such that it is, that "I have considerable experience- do you!" is not only pathetically childish it is also exposes the duplicitous nature of his whole approach here. Perhaps to Mr. Marrs debating at Glasgow University is only about gettign drunk, but to the vast majority there is a higher purpose, as exhibited in the Constitution and in the long, long, honourable traditon and history of the Society. The fact he refuses to admit this- despite his great experience- is quite scandalous and undermines his case. The argument, at any rate, was not about whether there is drinking but if that was the primary purpose. It evidently is not in the case of the Dialectic Society but is in the case of the 139 Club.

The reasons to delete it are so numerous. The reason to keep it seems to be based on the merits of non-existent entries. Perhaps that tells us something. The 139 cannot claim anything to the public good, the public interest, the public knowledge- it is the definition of without note.

--Brian Roberts 12:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, ok good some actual arguments. Thanks Brian. Firstly, my points regarding my experience with the societies (GUD, TCD Hist and TCD Phil)were that I had direct first hand experience of those societies, I doubt very much whether 'Anon' does. If they don't have experience of these societies, how on earth can they claim to know what they do or how they operate? They cannot - surely? Moreover, my point for the Hist and the Phil was that there was a precedent for two linked societies having separate pages (i.e. they do the same thing at the same university), and I also pointed out the precedent of The GU Shinty club - which would also meet your criteria of being without note. I think my knowledge of the society in question is shown above, where I've tried to correct factual errors on the GUD page... On drinking - ah reductio ad absurdum, the old classic. My point about GUD drinking stands. 45 people speak in a GUU parliamentary, double that number (at least) go to the after debate drinks. Moreover, for many of GUD's members are there primarily for social reasons - only between 8 and 10 debate competitively outwith the GUU. So for many members, as these examples show the main point is the socialising. Nothing wrong at all with being a social member, I am happy to say while I was at university I enjoyed both the debating side and the social side.

On your point regarding the original 139. Many refused ever to set foot in the building after the mixing issue, so it would be a bit difficult to keep things going. Moreover, there are other societies that keep such traditions at Glasgow alive but aren't quite as public as the 139. I point to 'The Lion and Unicorn Club' amongst others, so the spirit has indeed lived on.

I think the encyclopedia definition that I gave is a more compelling argument than your definition of 'without note', but at least you have been good enough to give one.

TTFN--RobertMarrs 13:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Rob's post. There are numerous all-male societies around campus for undergraduates and graduates, and many of the original 139 attend these dinners. The Diners Club (I think now defunct) operated for a good few years; The Winers Club (still in operation); the LAMB Club (still in operation, standing for Last All Male Board); The Lion & Unicorn (still in operation although numbers are drastically down); The Jolly Rodgerers (now defunct, ran by a board member throughout the 1980's and 1990's); The 139 Club (as discussed above, relatively new although admittedly thriving); The 21 Club (rather unsavoury even by University drinking standards, I think now defunct)the Monkey Steakers (I think disbanded, but ran for many a year).

Also, of some importance, is the Girlie Dinner. This dinner is run by girls in and around the GUU, and has been running for over 10 years. However, it does seem to have taken a nosedive in recent years and does not have the 'fervour' of The 139.

A number of those clubs appear to be defunct. However, of course if students are offered a chance to get drunk for very little money people are going to come. The other clubs mentioned are old boy clubs- which are different entities. But none of this undermines my point- the purpose of these "societies" appears to be to drink. However many people who ATTEND debates go for drink, that is not the point of debating. And if it is then that is truly sad. I will also add that the number of people who can go outside the university to debate competitively is rather limited due to places available and funding. I would 10 was a very high number indeed.

Secondly, as to other pages like the Shinty club. No-one has claimed that this society is the definition of a club of note. We are not discussing the nerits of the Shinty club entry, rather the merits of this entry. The fact there are other illegitimate entries uncontested does not mean this illegitimate entry should be allowed.

--217.43.198.2 19:18, 2 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Causes[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standardsZeimusu | Talk page 11:14, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Delete Vanity Roodog2k 13:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Allmusic.com suggests they have an album, but WP:MUSIC rightly asks for two. There is no evidence available that the meet any other of the criteria. Googling for "Natural Causes" phatchance gave 4 hits, not all of which seemed to apply and none of which contribute notability. -Splash 16:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band. Sdedeo 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band. Dottore So 19:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. *drew 00:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Waters[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity. The assertion of notablity made, but seems weak. see also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Natural Causes Zeimusu | Talk page 11:13, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity Roodog2k 13:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete that I can see. Trollderella 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of encyclopedic value CDC (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Sdedeo 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason to keep that I can see. Zoe 20:54, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. *drew 00:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedy.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Rosi[edit]

Delete - Non notable musician. One relevant Google hit, which is his own Geocities site. PubLife 11:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn-bio. --DrTorstenHenning 13:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete please, per A7. Dottore So 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:43, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thesubmachine[edit]

Secret society of 30 members, on the internet you say?!. Delete PubLife 11:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored that I've been invited to vote. Delete! --DrTorstenHenning 13:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Also non-notable, vanity, etc. Plus, don't we have a rule that any page containing the word "prestigious" is a valid candidate for speedy deletion? We don't? Are you sure? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cabal? No. Never. -Splash 16:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I belong to the secret society of Delete, which recently decreed to eliminate this article while sacrificing 100 goats to Xenu ;-) Karmafist 19:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A highly secret, extensively vetted, and gentlemen only vote to Delete. Dottore So 19:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's going to be unverifiable and secret, it should at least be more exciting than "an orgy of food and drink". Boojum 20:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, icky. Zoe 20:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's unverifiable. Although, I am not sure what's wrong with "an orgy of food and drink" ;) Trollderella 22:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:44, 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 delete. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Russell[edit]

Suspected vanity or advertising page. The anon creator of this page first added link to website on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, then created this page, then added a comment on the discussion page that the subject is notable because his website is listed on Wikipedia's H2G2 page. In any case I think the community should be asked for consensus on his notability. RobertG ♬ talk 12:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. At best, the website deserves an external link in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, without reference to its creator, which is already there. android 79 12:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable dog breed... wait, sorry, that's Jack Russell. Delete webmaster and replace with hyperspace bypass. DS 13:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Roodog2k 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and feed to the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant vanity. Hall Monitor 17:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I think even the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal draws the line at webmasters. Dottore So 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 00:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I'm the original author) -- The entry has been accused of vanity, which may seem the case. (I'll be the first to admit that I'm a little vain.) In any event, each of the sites mentioned are, in fact, the "largest on the web in their particular genre". While other editors of this fine site may not personally be aware of these particular sites, this does not change the fact that when I say "the largest", I do so based on unbiased numbers. I did not claim that they were the best (etc.), as this would be mere opinion, but "largest" is a term used to define a measurable statistic, which in these cases, refer to sheer volume of information. At any rate, the Jake Russell article has been signifigantly modified to better "fit in" with the encyclopedic nature of this site. One other issue that I should mention, as it concerns editors involved with the original article re: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I don't mind that my entries are moved, as this is the very nature of Wikipedia, but the reasons given is that the link to HHGTTGOnline.com is "suspected vanity". This is not the case. I reordered the sites in a legitimately fair order. HHGTTGOnline.com is the largest fan site. DouglasAdams.se is the largest fan-forum. ZZ9 (while a worthwhile group) is a fan appreciation society, and not as relevant to the majority of surfers simply looking for information, pictures, merchandise, etc.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Sidaway ^Talk 17:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antimaniax[edit]

"Antimaniax is a four-piece skacore band from Austria." ~~That's all the article says, no evidence of WP:MUSIC or anything. R adiant _>|< 12:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)~~ Keep as rewritten. R adiant _>|< 12:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep I rewrote it a little adding some material that should satisfy WP:MUSIC I think. Rx StrangeLove 18:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm pretty well versed in ska and ska-core and such and I've never heard of them, however, touring as support for Leftover Crack is very close to notability, as LC is most def notable. -HX 19:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two albums meet WP:MUSIC. Cyclone49 08:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group appears to meet the touring requirements of WP:Music according to RX Strangelove' edits. Completing a national tour is a criterion of WP:Music and this band appears to have completed several apart from its discography. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. *drew 00:45, 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 delete. Woohookitty 08:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Hossain[edit]

Non notable politician. Finished 5th out of 8 candidates in the only contest mentioned. Delete. 86.131.78.149 12:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry - I thought I was logged in! I am the nominator. --Cje 12:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Groeck 15:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Dottore So 19:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 22:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:46, 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 delete. Woohookitty 08:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabelle Gish[edit]

Unverifiable. Two Google hits, both of which also feature Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Given the shortness and overall quality of this article, Delete seems to be the least painful remedy. --DrTorstenHenning 12:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Buffycruft (or merge somewhere) --Doc (?) 13:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Slayer (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). — RJH 18:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Dottore So 19:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considerably more than two Google hits, but this is fanfic. Zoe 21:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is one of several articles on pre-Buffy slayers, and it does not merge well into the main article. I tried. Personally, I think pre-Buffy slayers are inherently notable anyway :) . Denni☯ 00:37, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
- This is not canon, it's not even approved fiction. It's somebody on some website making it up and getting it propagated. Zoe 04:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete fanfic. -Sean Curtin 05:01, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft. Nandesuka 22:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. *drew 00:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the other random slayer articles, like, Xin Rong, India Cohen and Nikki Wood, into a List of Other Slayers. Jack Cain 19:36, 1 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 delete. Sasquatch讲看 03:38, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Halfhide, Amsterdam Songwriters Guild, Reaganesk, Arthur ten Cate, Robin Block and Selma Peelen[edit]

No evidence of notability. The search term "Halfhide" gets 13,000 hits but few of them are him. His blog is titled "When will Halfhide be famous?" and says "Producer, musician, labelmanager... Eventually I'll turn these words into careers." I think he is jumping the gun here. -- DS1953 12:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Per the suggestions below, I am adding the other pages to this nomination.

Comment. I have greeted the User:Juiceboyy whose user page states "Juiceboyy is the login name of Halfhide" and pointed him here. Alf 17:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, likely to be Userfy. Alf 17:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, vanity page. DS1953: See the related Amsterdam Songwriters Guild, which this user also wrote; I think it should also be nominated for deletion. Dottore So 19:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And all the links from there, some stubs started in March. Alf 22:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A nod to DS1953. I formally extend my vote to delete all of these entries. Dottore So 23:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, guys. I understand why you want to delete these pages. I just don't like the hidden presumption that I'm willfully spoiling the Wikipedia. I guess I don't understand the vibe here. It seems every entry has to be interesting. Wikipedia apparently has no ambition to reflect the real world, where there are also little known initiatives. Or is it the fact that I'm involved in the above mentioned entries? How else are you getting people motivated to write an article? It's either interest or involvement. I now learned involvement is not done. So be it. But I didn't mean to do harm. Good luck with the Wiki. -- Juiceboyy 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: KEEP but REWRITE (including VFD nominator). Will add {{cleanup}} tag pending the invention of a pertinent {{rewrite}} tag (I don't think the current {{rewrite}} applies to the outcome of the below discussion)... Tomer ^TALK 07:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Asrat Woldeyes[edit]

Not-notable. Only notability assertion here is that his Father was killed during the Mussolini occupation of Ethipia. Tragically many Ethiopians have Fathers killed during the Mussoloni occupation. Delete. Cje 13:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. Groeck 15:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to Rewrite, assuming comment below is correct and the person mentioned in referenced articles is the same. Groeck 22:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one of countless others in the same terrible circumstance... so I say to delete this, unless he turns out to be a leader of a freedom-fighting group or something. Garrett^Talk 15:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite, now that notability has been established. Garrett^Talk 03:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote to Rewrite based on Llywrch's argument. *drew 23:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For me, this is a hard decision. On one hand, as it stands this article fails to establish importance -- it does mention that his grandfather was a Kegnazmatch, an honorific in Ethiopian feudal society equivalent to a baron, yet the external link given does not resolve & the paragraph that we have fails to establish notability. (Thousands of Ethiopian intelligentsia -- in this case, people who could read & write -- were murdered by Gaziani during occupation.) On the other hand, however, a Google search found this and this which show that he was the foremost physician in Ethiopia, a Professor of Medicine, & a political figure who was jailed by the Derg. Should this article be rewritten to establish notability, or even with these facts does Asrat fail the test? -- llywrch 20:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep Rewrite on basis of information provided by llywrch Cje 19:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astroknotics[edit]

Two students having a lot of fun does not establish notability. Only Google hits appear to be from band members. Non-notable band. Delete. Cje 13:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. BorgQueen 13:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not notable. Groeck 15:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. *drew 00:50, 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 speedy delete (done by Ambi, I'm closing this as s/he didn't). ~~ N (t/c) 14:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atixive[edit]

Does not establish notability. Yet another snippet of fan/game-cruft that means nothing to the non-initiate. Delete. Alright merge into the appropriate page for that game. Cje 13:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clear speedy candidate. I've done so. Ambi 13:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn ul alam Hunza[edit]

Hoax? Vanity? Googling for "alam Hunza", "alam Hunzai", "alam Sani", "alam Hun" gives nothing to support article's claim of notability. Also, claims of defence of "ethnic Pakistanis" seems suspicious, since "Pakistan" is an amalgam less than 60 years old. DS 13:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either case not notable. Groeck 15:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dottore So 19:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 00:50, 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, no consensus. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 01:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Arms[edit]

I think I've been there - nice place, as I recall - but I can't see why this is especially notable Finbarr Saunders 13:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I agree that this is testing the bounds of notability, but we seem to have over a hundred articles on British pubs, and this is one with a certain history and signifigance. The article could certainly do with expansion. How about a photo? Bovlb 14:18:39, 2005-08-26 (UTC)
Delete having been there many times, I can confirm that there is nothing of note about the place. Hvaing the odd refit doesn't give you much singificance. -Splash 16:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems factual and verifiable to me, no reason to delete given. Trollderella 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One supposes that the nominator thinks it non-notable, since he says "can't see which this is especially notable". -Splash 16:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that he does, but notability is not part of the deletion criteria. Trollderella 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, however, when something is non-notable, it is often a good enough reason for many Wikipedians for the reasons given in WP:N. I'd also recommend taking a look at Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia talk:Fame and importance. It's worth noting that in music and in vanity articles, non-notability is a sufficient reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Blackcap | talk 17:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The Eagle and Child has entry supported by it being the haunt of JRR Tolkien, have any of the said notable musicians smashed up the bar, or given and impromptu gig there? I might be biased on this one though. I think the third para about refits needs a severe pruning. Alf 16:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Just on the edge of notability. Given the admirable absence of promotional info, I say be generous. Sdedeo 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs a clearer association with something/somebody of note per Alf. Dottore So 19:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Trollderella's repeated contention that notability is not a deletion criterion is false. Zoe 21:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So you keep saying Zoe, but the word 'notability' does not occur in the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I know, I know, you're going to claim that some kind of verbal tradtion handed down from father to son, or argument from inference from some other page that has nothing to do with deletion policy means that it really is. However, in making my votes, I have tried to assess the article against Wikipedia's actual deletion policy, and in making comments, have made them about what is actually deletion policy. Trollderella 21:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- While the word "notability" may not appear on the deletion policy page, its synonyms do in the criteria for speedy deletion, to which I wish articles like this were subject. If it is policy you want, let us consider WP:NOT, which states categorically that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That something can verifiably be said to exist does not make it worthy of having an article here. The fire hydrant outside my home exists, and I'm sure I could find a great deal of documentation regarding it which would not constitute original research. However, its notability, except to the neighborhood dogs, is suspect. If you are really looking to participate in a project which collects knowledge like so much string and tinfoil, may I suggest Everything2, where inclusionists are welcomed (be aware, though, that even in that paradise, some articles are not accepted). Denni ☯ 00:56, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

I somewhat resent the fact that, every time it is pointed out that nowhere in deletion policy is 'notability' mentioned, the discussion is taken immediately to 'oh, then you must be a lunatic who wants to keep absolutely everything, no matter how stupid it is'. That's simply not true, and not a fair characterisation of my position. If there is some synonym of notability that is, in fact, in the deletion policy, then why not use that? To demolish that extremely common and frustrating strawman, again, I really suspect that there is not enough documentation on the fire hydrant outside your house to write an article that would give information about that fire hydrant that was not true of any other one, except it's location. It would have no possibility to grow beyond a sub-stub, and would be better being merged into an article on fire hydrants in general. I am not advocating maintaining a list of all fire hydrants, this is clearly one of the things that wikipedia is not. A pub is a differnt class of creature, having unique attributes that we could write an article about. Trollderella 21:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pubs on the King Street Run are notable. If you're in Cambridge, should be avoided on a Friday night however. David | Talk 21:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But like I said, I'm a bit biased on this one. I pruned the third para, severely. Alf 22:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a phone book. Denni ☯ 00:40, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
Delete I like pubs. Really, I do. And I'm inclined to think there are notable pubs out there. But a pub isn't notable just by being, anymore than the kebab van/Indian Restaurant that you visit afterwards is. Or the taxi firm that takes your wretched drunk self home is either. This one makes no real claim to notability. Sabine's Sunbird 00:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable in itself. Merge with The King Street Run, or else delete all of those too. Flowerparty ^talk 00:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for VfD, too. Pilatus 16:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it anyway. See Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/The King Street Run. Flowerparty ^talk 18:53, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gah. It says at the bottom of the VfD not to do that, and for good reason. If there were now a consensus here to delete the page, which there could be, you'd have invalidated that vote by merging it for us, The GFDL insists we keep authorship history. Being bold is all very well, but not when it cuts out half the voters in a discussion. -Splash 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, oh dear, you're quite right. Sorry about that. But since they're both up for deletion it seems sensible to point out the other discussion. Flowerparty ^talk 21:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know the place. It doesn't have an illustrious history, or illustrious architecture. If it served Mild I'd vote keep, sadly enough serving mild is notable these days. Pilatus 12:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Pubs in Cambridge or someplace. Kappa 22:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for egregious non-notability above and beyond the call of duty. Nandesuka 22:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable (WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information). --TimPope 08:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem notable on the basis of the information given in the article. Martg76 00:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jooler 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orxonox[edit]

Still in development, not yet playable. Massive number of Google hits, mostly on their personal mailing list. Come back in a year, kids. DS 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - Smacks of crystal ball... but still, since its an open source project, I have to question the crystal ball policy on that...Roodog2k 18:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 19:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the author: I've no problem that you would like to delete this article since, I have to own up, that the contents of the article is yet weak. We will work on the topic some more years and return later. But what I do not appreciate, is that someone blames us for doing open-source software by calling us "kids" in a public domain as the wikipedia (DS 14:18, 26 August 2005). I think that judgeing over other people who write articles is nor in your responsablility nor is it the philosophy of wikipedia. It casts a negative light on the very good idea bases wikipedia. Anyway thanks for the feedback. thrawn at orxonox.ethz.ch, 00:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His Essence[edit]

Article about non-notable item; essentially an advertisement. —Preost ^talk contribs 14:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - advert --Cje 14:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 17:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. *drew 01:00, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of hosts of the Oscars ceremony[edit]

The information for this page was obtained from (and sourced to) answers.com, which in turn got it from another Wikipedia page, since answers.com uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. So this is duplicate (and incestuous, sort of) information :) Readparse 15:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with academy award. -- < drini | ∂drini > 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The list could be worthwhile, keep. Trollderella 16:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Academy Awards ceremonies which appears to be the original source. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC) Changed vote below. Mgm|^(talk) 07:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The information is all from List of Academy Awards ceremonies. -- DS1953 18:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Can this be speedied as pointless duplication then? Dottore So 19:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're right. List of Oscar hosts is a much more plausible name to redirect from. Delete as pointless duplication of other article. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 22:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplication. *drew 01:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without hesitation This data already exists and the guy doesn't know not to put spaces at the front of sentences. Or he's copied it, which is far more likely. What's the point of copying an already existing Wikipedia article? --Heebiejeebieclub 18:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of The Giant Golden Microphone[edit]

Microfaith, high school prank that got a little passing publicity. Few googles, most are dead-end, suggest few heard of it, and most are forgetting fast --Doc (?) 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~The SubGenius Must Have Slack~~ ... er.... ~~POEE~~ ... er... ~~FNORD~~ ...er... This is not notable. POV Statement: This has been done much more humerously by many more people anyways. And fuck'em if they cant take a joke delete Roodog2k 16:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with proposer. -- < drini | ∂drini > 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fix Sunsphere. Alf 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fixed --Doc (?) 17:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity and nonsense. *drew 01:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of the Giant Golden Microphone should stay! It is this type of eccentricity and humor that keeps East Tennesseans laughing at themselves and their unique architecture.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. For a non-admin, this is a tough call, so I hope I don't get called for making it...but I'm calling this one "no consensus, therefore send it back to the drawing board". I feel fairly confident in doing so, since even the nominator noted that the version at the time of closing was significantly different from the version at the time of nomination. I'm going to close the VFD, because I don't see that the later discussion was even mildly contentious, but I'm also going to add a {{cleanup}} to the article, and let those editors working on the article itself decide when to remove it. Tomer ^TALK 07:42, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

English on the Internet[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information . Wikiacc (talk) 16:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

(Note: This was the article in question at the time of its listing.) --Wikiacc (talk)

Delete, Wikipedia articles are not collections of external links or a usage guide. Thue | talk 16:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
rename, rework, and keep Article created by a newbie. So far, it appears everybody's biting his head off. Why aren't we working with him to help him create a useful article? Roodog2k 16:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~rework and keep~~ I absolutely second Rood and in fact I don't even think it needs a rename. This is a worthwile topic (none of us would be here if not). Marskell 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have re-worked the page completely. At the moment it remains a bit generic (some "I-already-knew-that-stats") but is definitely passable. Marskell 16:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gently inform the creator that Wikipedia articles are not lists of external links and help them put the links in appropriate articles. If it's a usage guide to foreigners on how to speak English it should go on Wikibooks. Subject could be interesting but it needs extensive cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed Roodog2k 18:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know why people insist on voting keep on these collections of external links in clear violation of WP:NOT. Zoe 21:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Zoe. Sdedeo 21:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I'm generally of the view that lists of links probably don't belong in Wikipedia. But I want to strongly second the comments of Roodog2k. Of course, I've definitely seen much worse stuff on this site - this for example. --PhilipO 22:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Please note, everyone, that the article has changed a whole lot since the last vote before mine was posted. It's no longer a list of external links but a real article. Penelope D 00:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator. *drew 01:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing wrong with the improved version of the article. Martg76 00:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, new version of the article makes it noteworthy and worth keeping.--John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs} 18:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on new version. --rob 11:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Sidaway ^Talk 18:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mule (smuggling)[edit]

Just a dictionary definition and an unimportant reference to some film. - Centrx 16:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Smuggling Roodog2k 16:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion--there's an encyclopedia article to be had here. I think the topic is worthy, and this is an OK (if stubariffic) start. Meelar (talk) 16:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - this has potential to grow, there is plenty to say about Mules that probably doesn't belong in the smuggling article. If it is really paining people, redirecting until content outgrows smuggling would be fine. Trollderella 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are mules widely used to smuggle items other than drugs given that we already have a drug mule article. Capitalistroadster 16:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drug mule redirects here. Trollderella 16:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. BorgQueen 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Revert drug mule and Merge this to that, redirect mule (smuggling) to drug mule. Alf 17:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine, if drugs were the only things that mules smuggled. I don't think they are, so the best thing to do is have drug mule point to the more general mule (smuggling) article. Of course, if there are any places where mules are contraband, we can always start a mule smuggling page too! Trollderella 17:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're prob right there, I was thinking from a "I'd probably type.. to find it", so redirect the other way works anyhoo. Alf 18:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of disambiguation. Move this to drug mule and then redirect there. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP muling is an interesting topic deserving of an entry, but not at Drug mule as more than drugs can and have been smuggled in this way. EdwinHJ | Talk 20:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case a move to Mule smuggling should work. Current title is not in line with naming conventions. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:19, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
CALLING ALL DRUG MULES AND SMUGGLING MULES Alf 22:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Things other than drugs are smuggled this way.
Redirect to Horse smuggling]...Sorry, I mean keep. Notable phenomenon. Sabine's Sunbird 00:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to smuggling Not a big enough topic to stand on its own.Crypticfirefly
Keep. As per Meelar. *drew 01:19, 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.

In light of the poverty of some of the countries that sponsor this kind of smuggling; these drug-mules often have no idea that what they are doing is bad. I would suspect that many of them are stupid pimps or whores who are desperate for more drugs

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

The result of the debate was delete.

Note: one probable sockpuppet discounted. Rossami (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rojo.com[edit]

NN, was originally on speedy claiming to have failed Google Test. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have greeted intial editor and asked for input as to either speedy or reason to keep other than advertising. Alf 17:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May fail Google test, but I find the result of the Alexa test, quite respectable: rank 18,415. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I can't easily grok your deletion policy. Is Rojo.com being considered for deletion because it is a commercial enterprise or because it is presumed to an advertising ploy? It is certianly a commercial enterprise, not unlike Bloglines, Feedster, Technorati, and dozens of other companies referenced in Wikipedia. Rojo has been covered by many major publications such as Forbes, Fortune, Red Herring, etc. (see: http://rojo.jot.com/Press) and has many thousands of users. The service is available here: http://www.rojo.com, the associated blog is here: http://blog.rojo.com, and the corporate site is located here: www.rojonetworks.com (also rojo.jot.com). Any questions about our true existence of Rojo can be sent to [email protected].

Original author here. Created article based on similarly intended services with wiki entries, Bloglines, RSSOwl, AmphetaDesk, Kinja, LiveJournal, Newster, RSS_Feed_Reader. After consideration, 'Rojo Networks' is likely a better page title. This is an important and emerging tool along the lines of Flickr, Technorati, Feedster, etc. Article should include history and additional academic information about the significance of the service. Alf was correct that I have not read advertising policy, which I will read shortly. However, this site was in no way intended as an advertisement. If that is the issue at hand, then I will gladly modify it to eliminate that concern. Here 20:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find no problems with the current article considering the comperable wiki entries for Flickr, Bloglines, RSSOwl, AmphetaDesk, Kinja, LiveJournal, Newster, RSS_Feed_Reader and other web services articles. Not only is its popularity on par with listed apps, but it also provides a unique approach to the service by including social networking. I am working on adding more information to flesh out the encyclopedic value of the article. Further considering no violation of the following advertising policy: (from Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine) (Not) Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Here 21:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing special about this aggregator; already appears in lists. Sdedeo 21:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The aggregator is unique in its use of tags and a social network in one web app. Here 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing convincingly notable asserted about this service. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a little biased, I'll admit (see this), but I believe that Rojo has something that sets it apart from other online aggregators. Tagging, flagging, sharing of feed data and commentary are parts of that, and currently it's not substantially different from BlogLines when it comes to those things, but Bloglines has its own wikipedia page, and I think that Rojo is going somewhere different with what it's doing as well. --Cori.schlegel 02:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment original author again , Please see Wikipedia:Websites#Guidelines_for_Websites.

Criteria guidelines.

Alexa Rank 10,000 or higher (18,762 -- fails, but close)
National Press Coverage (definitely true)
5,000 aparently unique users (definitely thousands, not sure of user base)

Here 20:12, August 31, 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: +10/-1 =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Minnal[edit]

Old-time honest cop in India who has since retired and is a minor official in a religious charity. His nickname "Minnal", meaning "Lightning", is ungoogleable, and both the spellings I tried for his full name returned barely a dozen hits that seemed unrelated. Honest cops may be rare, but they're not inherently notable. DS 16:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so long as we can independently verify this information. We have articles on minor tv celebrities in the US, I think this is analagous. I would not expect a high google count for this, nor do I think that's a problem. He is notable (for what it's worth) within his cultural context. Trollderella 17:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DS's point is that this isn't verifiable. The only potentially verifiable fact in the article is that he was a cop. android 79 17:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, not notable, probable vanity. android 79 17:47, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless verification/proof of notability is forthcoming.--Scimitar ^parley 17:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources for the first paragraph are provided. Sdedeo 18:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some cop CDC (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity Manik Raina 19:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, that link from the bottom apparently has his phone number, why doesn't someone call him and ask him? -HX 19:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Long dist call too costly. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 19:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability via the inverse-trollderella rule. Nandesuka 22:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly speaking I have not heard of this gentleman and in any case, the contents of the article do not establish any specific notability to find encyclopedic entry. Being a vice president of Ayappa Seva Sangam after retirement from police force and general comments about his functioning as an active cop does not warrant any entry here. Still, I would request some one more familiar with the person to comment further. In case, no comments are forthcoming, my comments may please be treated as a vote for Delete. --Bhadani 15:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the article in its current state does not list the accomplishments to merit a thought for an inclusion. His rank is also not mentioned. =Nichalp «Talk»=

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jambo_Networks[edit]

Advertising Grayum 17:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badvertisement. Alf 18:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 20:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. *drew 01:34, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go motorcycle[edit]

Notable? ' "go motorcyle" evel' Gets two Google hits, including the site itself.DJ Clayworth 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as linkspam. I didn't add the tag tho, as I'm not 100% sure it qualifies. Friday (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy or otherwise, badvertisment. Alf 18:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 20:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Advertisement. *drew 01:35, 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 delete. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Toad[edit]

Delete. Probable hoax which has survived eight months. Intro states: "The identities of its members are unknown to this day. The trio identified themselves only as D, Patty and Kirby. Although the band was short-lived, few musical acts have had as much impact on the underground music scene." Google gives nothing. Marskell 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ex-band vanity. Can't imagine they meet WP:MUSIC, unless Tummy Rub and The Shit Dogs are an extremely notable band? Flowerparty ^talk 17:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, nothing for combination google searches except one mirror, all music, rate your music both have nothing and nobody has any of their releases for sale on ebay! Alf 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Haven't you heard? Toads have been officially retired from band names after the reached the pinnacle of amphibian musichood by teaming up with a Wet Sprocket. Karmafist 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; probable hoax. Jaxl | talk 20:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:36, 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. No consensus to delete. Page was hacked down to remove advertising component. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for details about a post-discussion challenge to the result, and the ensuing re-opening of the discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plum_Canary[edit]

Advertising Grayum 17:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is about the material already covered on the Chirp software page, and is clearly advertising in nature. The article should be chopped back to a paragraph, if this company is at all notable. — RJH 17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn software. Sdedeo 21:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. --Carnildo 22:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up - I've deleted the advertising in an effort to turn it into a neutral corporate stub. This sofware is noteable because it is unique, and it appears to have a following. Jehochman 03:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Just a vote by the page creator.) A case has been made that the material is covered in the Chirp software page, which itself is subject to a VfD process at the moment. It's possible a reasonable path is to delete the Chirp software page and simply let it have it's information in the Project Management Software product table, then leave this "corporate stub" page (we *do* have a user community, which can justify the entry) solely for the purpose of maintaining links from that table. Note that the Grayum's comment no longer applies after the edit by jehochman. Batsonjay

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 22:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close Quarter Battle K-9[edit]

advertisement Quicksandish 17:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Material is copyrighted possibly by the person who wrote it. --Joelito 18:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Advertisement. *drew 01:38, 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 delete. Woohookitty 10:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andurna[edit]

I noticed this short stub on Special:Newpages, and was cleaning it up, when it was tagged for speedy for reason "unverifiable". As I believe WP:V is not a criterion for speedy deletion, I'm moving it here. Honestly, I don't know if it's verifiable or not, though a google search was unsuccessful. -Satori ^(talk) 18:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SaltyPig 18:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to this version of the Enûma Elish which it's supposed to be from (and the article cites!), it doesn't have any andu~ ande~ places in it. Alf 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 01:38, 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 speedy deleted. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupor[edit]

No valuable content Groeck 18:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, previously transwikied --Robert Harrison Talk 18:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If already transwikied then delete. Just a hint of nonsense, too. -Hmib 18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Marco ^✉ 19:11, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Cashin[edit]

Person does not really seem to exist; the alleged town of origin does not seem to exist either, and this article is the first hit on Google for both. --claviola (talk to me) 18:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. --claviola (talk to me) 18:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:39, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tustena[edit]

No notability established. Was an add, remains mainly as linkspam. --S.K. 18:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator CDC (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 01:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whitejay251 03:45, 2 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard Link Theory[edit]

nn personal essay Dlyons493 18:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV essay, game speculation. ManoaChild 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV essay came to mind first. feydey 00:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay. *drew 01:40, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neogeography[edit]

Delete. This is either gibberish, vanity, or an ad (hard to tell which). Whatever it is, it's worthless and not to mention is copyvio. --Blackcap | talk 18:37, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm guessing that this is a blurb about an obscure software product, but it's so vague as to be useless. ManoaChild 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:41, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Communication for Youth Institute[edit]

Lack of context; not notable Groeck 18:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google turns up almost nothing. Quicksandish 18:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 20:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:42, 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 deleted already. Woohookitty 10:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular Slinky[edit]

Vanity Robert Harrison Talk 18:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity. Only 30 hits on Google. Completely fails WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 18:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; nn band vanity. Jaxl | talk 20:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:42, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Luckabaugh[edit]

Not notable Groeck 18:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not oppose a speedy deletion (a7), as I don't really see an assertion of notability here.--Scimitar ^parley 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, clear candidate for WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 20:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per A7. feydey 23:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. *drew 01:43, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast in bed for 400,000[edit]

Not notable Groeck 18:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A movie done for a class? Besides which it does not register at IMDB. --Durin 19:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete. It might not be notable, but that doesn't really matter. More importantly, it meets actual deletion criteria of not being verifiably factual. Trollderella 19:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no IMDb page=non notable. CanadianCaesar 20:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable short film. *drew 01:43, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satco[edit]

Satco is not a commonly accepted term, found ~50000 Google hits, but couldn't find any that used this definition. johnpseudo 19:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. *drew 01:45, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentisoft[edit]

Delete - This is a non-notable company with only 104 google hits. Its description is identical to the company profile page. It looks like an AD. Marco ^✉ 19:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:45, 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. Pretty easy call here. Tomer ^TALK 07:48, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Anna Chakvetadze[edit]

del nonnotable tennis player. "World #28" IMO is hardly a distinctive feature. mikka (t) 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: World #28 I think is particularly significant. She's been on the pro tour since 2003, and has won two ITF titles, one each in singles and doubles. See WTA profile here: [11]. ITF profile here: [12]. She's won more than US$234,000 playing tennis and she's just 18. If #28 in the world isn't enough to keep the article, what # would be? --Durin 19:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article says she didn't win any titles, contrary to you claim. mikka (t) 20:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference [13]. On that page it shows she won two ITF titles as I noted above. That information might not be in the article, but it is true. --Durin 20:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please indicate what world tennis ranking you would consider sufficient to justify inclusion and your rationale behind the metric? --Durin 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC) --Durin 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep, verifiable and factual. Trollderella 19:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a dumpster for everything factual in the world. I was born in January. It is verifiable and factual. And I am World #21. Shall I write an article about myself? mikka (t) 20:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article, we could vote on it, my vote reffered to this article. I think that the article you are talking about would probably be deleted under vanity criteria, and more correctly belongs on your userpage. Trollderella 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, professional sports figure. Hall Monitor 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've significantly upgraded the article now with table similar to that found on Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova, added some biography, significant career coverage, and external links. --Durin 21:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, number 28 in the world is certainly notable. Zoe 21:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This article has been on Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports since June 5. See [14]. --Durin 21:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd consider top #100 to be notable at least. feydey 23:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her world ranking and track record make her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a baseball draft choice is notable enough for an article without even turning pro, as was voted here not long ago, a professional tennis player who is competitive but not top-rank successful certainly is. Monicasdude 01:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable tennis player. FCYTravis 01:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable tennis player. *drew 01:46, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sportsology[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:WEB in every respect. Alexa ranking is 614,817 [15] (WP:WEB suggests 10,000 or better). To check for mention in national/internaional media, I searched for sites that link to the site www.sportsology.net. Result; 210. Of the first 50, none were significant media outlets. On the third point of WP:WEB, I counted the number of forum participants. WP:Web suggests 5,000 or more. Sportsology has 320. --Durin 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Sports science. Trollderella 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Trollderella's redirect vote is nonsense, since this is not an English language word and there is no mention of the term in the sports science article. Zoe 21:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for following me around commenting on all my votes Zoe, I feel very loved. The reason I think it should stay as a redirect is that, although it is not a word, it is a term that someone might possibly search for when looking for sports science, and so there is no reason not to keep it as a redirect. Trollderella 21:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I think zoe is being polite. The proposed redirect is not just nonsense, it's totally random and bizarre. Sportsology isn't a word, or even an accepted neologism; if it were, your comment might make sense. As it is, why redirect anywhere except the rubbish bin? I vote: Delete. Dottore So 22:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be a valid redirect. Science of life=biology. science of earth=geology, etc. So some person not knowing the correct term, might look under the name sportsology. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Amren ^(talk) 22:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising for a non-notable website. --Carnildo 22:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamaliel 07:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:50, 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 delete. Woohookitty 11:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mille passus[edit]

This is the same information dumping of already deleted content on many previous vfds of Rktect entries, most of the article does not even deal with the Mille passus supposed measurement standard. ~~Delete~~ -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now Im voting speedy delete per criteria G4 in WP:CSD. [16] -- (drini|☕) 01:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - There is no reason to delete this page. It was only recently created and is still being edited. User drini regularly removes content making the page appear very different than it actually is.

His last edit removed the most substantive part of the articleRktect 02:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

It was rather a different page until you removed half the article. If you are going to slap a vfd tag on a page at least have the intellectual honesty not to remove its content and then pretend it is something it isn't. That's just slimey and its not the only page you have done that to.
- Comment Rktect, considering the article history clearly shows that the only thing Drini did was add a {{vfd}} to the page, I think we can judge relative honesty here with a fair amount of ease. Caerwine 05:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, so all the red lines that indicate content the article previously pointed to on other pages that have been deleted along with their images and references and content don't count? Take a look at his contributions and you may get a better idea of what I think he's done.Rktect 06:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Even if true, and frankly I don't feel like spending the time to check on that right now, it doesn't affect this article in the least. If the information was vital to this subject, it should have been included in this article to begin with. What I see in the article is a bunch of messy writing that takes the POV that a particular theory about how certain length units originated is undisputed fact. (Couldn't you at least spell league correctly?) The article dealing with that theory, Pseudoscientific metrology, can use the portions that can't be moved into the appropriate articles on ancient measurements that present the bald facts of how units within a particular system relate to one another without speculations into their ultimate origins. Caerwine 14:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pseudoscientific metrology (which is currently subject to its own {{vfd}}, but seems likely to emerge with a consensus of keep) as this article appears to be just a recitation of various measurement schemes fitting under that article. Caerwine 05:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now replaced some of the material which belongs in this page referencing one of the routes for which the Roman Mile markers were actually preceeded by Egyptian 10 stadia markers that date back to the late bronze age.Rktect 20:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - the same content has previously been on Vfd in more than 20 cases: User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Direct_links_to_previous_and_ongoing_VFD_discussions. -- Egil 15:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Please list the articles which contain all the information this article has on the degree.
- The mille passus and various referenced stadia are the most common divisions of a degree.
- Which one, stadia, mille passus or degree was defined first?
- When?
- If this article is deleted tell me where else in wikipedia I can find answers to those questions.
- You claim there are at least 20 places, quote an answer to those questions from any one.
- If you can't do that then your claim is false and this article should not be deleted. Rktect 12:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. *drew 01:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than argue that the page is worth reading I have added to its knowledge base a bit more

interesting and informative information and graphics.Rktect 21:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Delete as original research. --Carnildo 03:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is this extensively referenced article "original research"? Rktect 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Anything that can be salvaged should be merged with Pseudoscientific metrology, as per Egil and Caerwine above. I note that the irrelevant images have been reinstated since I deleted them. Ian Cairns 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- - comment: blank space left here for the obligatory riposte - Ian Cairns 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a single article about all this would be encyclopedic and desirable, it is abundantly clear that Mille passus is the wrong name for it and that Rktect is unable to write about it in a style that is comprehensible to others or to follow Wiki-standards of formatting and organization. Caerwine 17:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds of different ancient measures which each deserve their own article. Why don't you pick one, write an article in a style you feel is comprehensible to others and show me how you think it should be done? Rktect 18:41, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  - Why don't I? Two reasons. First, by and large, when considered in isolation, potential articles on the hundreds of ancient measures are little more that dictonary definitions that may be suitable for inclusion in the Wiktionary. It's only when considered as a system that they reach the level of being ecyclopedic instead of dictionaric. Second, I don't have access to reliable sources that would enable me to write an article on this topic. Caerwine 20:07, 3 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 keep. No consensus. Take copyright concerns to WP:CP if appropriate. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 05:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Linares[edit]

Delete as the article is not written in English. Please feel free to speedy keep if there is a more appropriate place for these types of submissions. Hall Monitor 19:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bring foreign language material to vfd. Trollderella 19:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been translated into English now and a former government minister is notable. Keep. 24.34.190.187 20:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above, except that the entire content has been sifted word for word from this obituary and as such I am assuming this constitutes a copyvio, translation or not, verdad? Dottore So 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Si, es un copyvio.Amren ^(talk) 22:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, it is not a copyvio. Both articles contain similar information because they are about the same person. Copying word for word (as opposed to paraphrasing) is a copywright violation. This, of course, includes a word for word translation. This article is neither. --Vizcarra 00:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam connon and Adam J Connon[edit]

Delete as non-verifiable and possibly a hoax. Hall Monitor 20:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amren ^(talk) 22:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. --Bhadani 13:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep James O'Connell, Connon is well known figure in the irish furniture industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.112.25 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 27 August 2005

Comment and request to author (editing anonymously) - provide references to support the article. Otherwise there is no choice because it is unverifiable. --WCFrancis 21:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. *drew 01:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Philip O'Sullivan , Reference: Irish Guide to Furniture book published by Blackwater Press. Available in Easons on O'Connell Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.112.192 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 August 2005

Comment: Despite the existence of a User:*Philip O'Sullivan user page, there is no such actual user on Wikipedia. See Special:Listusers. To the anonymous poster; feel free to create an account under that name by going to the login page at the upper right of every page you view on Wikipedia. --Durin 18:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just reverted vandalism by User:159.134.112.227. He'd changed the nominator's vote to keep. To this anonymous vandal; please don't bother conducting vandalism. It's easy to undo, and just worsens your case for keeping this article as does the other two anonymous votes. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you. --Durin 18:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite this VfD, User:159.134.112.227 created a copy of the Adam connon page at Adam J Connon. I'm placing the latter for VfD and redirecting the VfD here. --Durin 19:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David puga[edit]

non-notable person, after looking in Google, no such person of note at said university DeleteGrcampbell 20:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Real or not, with the information supplied he fails WP:BIO. --IByte 20:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IByte. -feydey 23:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 01:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable and lots of useless information Drdisque 07:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per IByte. -Mariano 08:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borka[edit]

Probable hoax, Google turns up no hits for Borka or Bacom except as last names. -- WCFrancis 20:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. Friday (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Amren ^(talk) 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, prank, borka = pork and bacom = you guessed it, bacon. Hehh, kids. feydey 23:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A sure delete. --Bhadani 12:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. *drew 01:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bacom[edit]

probable hoax, linked from Borka, also proable hoax. WCFrancis 20:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, hoax. Friday (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. feydey 23:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A sure delete. --Bhadani 12:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. *drew 01:56, 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 deleted (and replaced with {{deletedpage}}). Eugene van der Pijll 17:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hung_pork_50[edit]

It's been deleted several times already. This information is useless and unsuitable inks 20:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say the oppisite, how could it be unsuitable if something like this is really going on? People have a right to know what's happening. I find it informative and if it could be proven a true spot it should stay! Oh and USELESS? WRONG!!! If I find out where this sport activity is going on I will compete because I'm a contender!!!! - Mack Daddy

Candidate for Speedy if it's been VfD'd before. Tag it with reference to previous VfD. Sdedeo 21:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it's gone. Having trouble locating the proper formatting for properly closing this out on the VfD page. Can I get another admin to point me in the right direction? - Lucky 6.9 21:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong candidate for Speedy - already deleted, NPOV, lack of sources, vanity, etc Dlyons493 21:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as recreated content. Capitalistroadster 01:28, 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 unanimous delete. Scimitar ^parley 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Kevin's Bar[edit]

nn in itself. Anyone want to create a list of Irish bars and merge it? Dlyons493 20:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Soltak | Talk 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 01:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pilatus 01:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenn.--Play Brian Moore 22:29, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aggrepedia[edit]

Non-notable web site. No traffic. No inbound links. Vanity: page was created by User:Cochrate; site was apparently created by a Thomas Cochran, who is responsible for all 5 Google mentions. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. Macrakis 21:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amren ^(talk) 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete per nom. Dottore So 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. *drew 01:57, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

6,000,000[edit]

Delete This would be better suited to being under Holocaust, World War II or similar Grcampbell 21:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote Speedy Keep if kept as a redirect --Grcampbell 23:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the meantime, I redirected it towards 6000000 (number). If you agree we could speedy keep it. Given the already existing content of 6000000 (number), this will probably not be contentious. --Edcolins 21:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
(Speedy) keep, useful redirect. Flowerparty ^talk 00:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the useful redirect. Holocaust material needs to be moved out. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:27, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Technology Temple[edit]

nn BBS - 5 Googles Dlyons493 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. also delete the misspelled redirect Porfessional Technology Temple. feydey 23:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dottore So 00:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:58, 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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluzey[edit]

(1) dicdef (2) apparently hoax (I couldn't find anything relevant on Google or OneLook) (3) almost-but-not-quite patent nonsense. Delete. Nowhither 21:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a rare mispelling of floozy if anything. Dottore So 00:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. BorgQueen 00:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:58, 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 NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 04:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Esquivalience[edit]

Dictionary definition.TheDeletator (talk · contribs)

And apparently a made-up one at that? Delete. Friday (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't this be speedied? Delete. --Blackcap | talk 21:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, nonsense. feydey 22:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amren ^(talk) 22:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Might be worth redirecting to Nihilartikel and adding a note there, since it is one... Shimgray 20:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an entry on "Esquivalience" to Nihilartikel, so redirect. Shimgray 21:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - God, I hadn't realized that it actually existed. So that it's here for everyone to see, this is what's said on Nihilartikel:

"The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, gained media coverage when it was leaked that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry. This was later determined to be the word "esquivalience", defined as the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities, which had originally been added in the first, 2001, edition. It was intended as a copyright trap, as the text of the book was distributed electronically and thus very easy to copy."

I've checked using Google, and it seemed to come up with the same thing. I am now changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't exist, but it does, if you see what I mean. It's been in the news recently, which is why (presumably) someone put the page here... I'd actually been going to add a mention of it to the Nihilartikel page earlier but forgot until I saw this VFD. Shimgray 21:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --Blackcap | talk 22:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary. *drew 02:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merged from Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Esquivalience. Note the nominator is the same in both cases. Somebody PLEASE fix the templates. -Splash 06:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC) I made this page 2 days ago and it had 2 delete votes on it, it appears to have been deleted itself. The rationale was dicdef, neologism. I see someone has substantially expanded the article since then but I still vote to delete. TheDeletator (talk · contribs)[reply]

This is a relevant entry and deserves to stay. Not only is it interesting trivia but I thin'k it is important information regarding proprietary encyclopedias and their practices. I think the article is worthy of staying at its present state, but certainly needs more expansion. Wesman83 03:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, I think it would be best just to make an "other cases" section on the Nihilarikel article and add in both examples from the Esq. article. I'm changing my vote to Redirect to Nihilartikel Wesman83 12:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google. Paul Klenk 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting and notable. Thatdog 04:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- encyclopedic, notable, interesting... --Mysidia (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as interesting, wellwritten article. I wonder what Wkipedia's equivalent is :>)Capitalistroadster 04:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a Nihilartikel. We have a page full of examples; Wikipedia's had at least two known cases added by users, those being San Serriffe and Uqbar. Both are now corrected. There's also a lot of cases of people adding fictional articles deliberately as "tests", which is strongly discouraged; keep an eye on VfD and you see a few. Shimgray 14:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an interesting topic Actually, Redirect to Nihilartikel Halo 10:47, 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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Dublin Crew[edit]

nn admits its own obscurity. Dlyons493 21:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Soltak | Talk 23:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paul Klenk
Delete. Vanity. *drew 02:04, 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 but MOVE to Brett Buerck. Consider it done! Tomer ^TALK 07:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Brett buerck[edit]

Non-notable Congressional staffer. If we had an article on every Congressional staffer, there would be about 5000 of them, if not more. Zoe 22:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep important for his role in a scandal about redistricting, if nothing else. Trollderella 22:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that Trollderella has let us know that his boss was a state representative, he's even less notable. Zoe 22:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zoe, had you read the article before listing it for deletion, you would have noticed that in its original form it did mention that he was aide to a state representative. I'm not sure why that makes him worthy of your contempt. His role in redistricting scandals, without doubt an important topic, makes this an important article to keep. Trollderella 22:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, we should move it to Brett Buerck. ;) Trollderella 22:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as source of scandal. Sdedeo 22:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Astonishingly, I actually concur with Trollderella. The redistricting scandal makes him more important than simply a staffer. Dottore So 23:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the scandal makes him notoriously notable. feydey 01:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Brett Buerck. Sam Vimes 22:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the scandal. *drew 02:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he hadn't been involved in the scandal, I would have voted delete, but this scandal (does it already have an article?) makes him notable enough for Wikipedia. Aecis 08:52, 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 Delete (3-0). Scimitar ^parley 18:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acopa[edit]

Advertising. The website has an alexa ranking of 2,860,510, the search acopa shoes gets 173 unique hits. Zoe 22:42, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advert and dic def. Flowerparty ^talk 00:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Flowerparty. *drew 02:06, 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. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Monitor[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a poorly-written summary of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode. An episode summary like this does not require its own page, but rather should be listed with its parent article (the article for the show), if desired. Note that this request only refers to Hall Monitor with a capital M. There is a separate article entitled Hall monitor about school hall monitors that is fine for Wikipedia. Schuminweb 23:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep VfD is not clean up, "poorly written" is rarely grounds for deletion; VfD is not the place to discuss merging. Saying it "belongs in the parent article" is not grounds for deletion. There is also precedent for TV episodes in Wikipedia, and there's a whole category full of SpongeBob episodes. CanadianCaesar 23:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as I hate to say it (see User:Soltak/Views#Fancruft), individual episodes of notable series are themselves notable. Soltak | Talk 23:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Soltak stole my point. feydey 23:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I unhappily have to agree with Soltak, with the important caveat that even totally trivial crap episodes of complete and utter shite series that aired for six months on late night cable in Norway are considered worthy for inclusion. Dammit. Vox populi, Vox Dei. Dottore So 23:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all other SpongeBob episodes into lists for each seasons, in the same vein as the Futurama episodes. --Apostrophe 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I must say how glad I am that the Vox populi is able to overrule Dottoreso's POV on quality of series. Kappa 00:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am happy that Bob of Squarepants fame has an entry equivalent in depth to Sandro Botticelli. As you say, though, pov, all pov. ;) Dottore So 00:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily in the online wikipedia SpongeBob and Botticelli are not in competition with each other, so we don't need a POV on which is more valuable. The tricky part comes when they are in competition for space, such as for a limited-size downloadable version. I would gladly leave that judgement to others. Kappa 02:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I don't think that the Spongebob coverage we have is anywhere near adequate. Trollderella 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & delete We do not want/need a separate article for each episode of a TV series. — Nowhither 06:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete is, of course, an invalid vote. CanadianCaesar 07:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh huh (rolls eyes). Fine, then you leave no alternative but to say Kill it with fire and salt the earth afterward. Drowning Wikipedia in fancruft -- apparently Kappa's fondest dream -- should be nipped in the bud. --Calton | Talk 08:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not paper so "drowning" is an inappropriate analogy. Kappa 12:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the only people who will see this are people who are looking for it. Oh, and about one in 100,000 of the people who are rash enough to press 'Random Article'... They will get a... shock horror... random article! Trollderella 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE as not even Seinfeld has its episodes on individual pages. If the most talked about show in recent history can summarize its episides on a single page, so can Bob. Paul Klenk 11:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but what about the list of Will & Grace episodes, and related articles? :) — RJH 18:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CanadianCaesar and Kappa. Penelope D 00:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. *drew 02:07, 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 delete. Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intermedia Studios[edit]

Delete as advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 23:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and heavily revise. This is a notable software maker, however the article is Non-Wiki in its present form.Gateman1997 23:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let someone create this page later on if they wish to go ahead and write up something proper. For now, why waste time editing an advertisement. Dottore So 23:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-write. Trollderella 00:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. So. Sdedeo 01:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Advertisement. *drew 02:08, 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 Delete (4-0). Scimitar ^parley 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedtree[edit]

This article looks like "Advertising or other spam". It is not an encyclopedia article. Andargor 22:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC) Nomination fixed by feydey 23:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotion. feydey 23:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Quicksandish 01:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- yes, the current contents indicate promotion and advertisement. --Bhadani 12:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. *drew 02:10, 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 DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nathan Windsor[edit]

No Google or Yahoo hits for '"Nathan Windsor" NASA' or "Nathan Windsor astronaut', and a search just for "Nathan Windsor" doesn't bring up anything that verifies this entry. Zoe 23:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this looks bogus. List of astronauts by name is silent on this guy too. There doesn't appear to be a List of Canadian astronauts though... Aha, it's at Canadian_space_program#Canadians_in_Space. Trollderella 23:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone cites a reliable source. Fg2 02:02, 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.