This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. neologism --IByte 00:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed it might also be redundant with marine pollution, but if it does turn out people want to keep this term (I'd say delete it), how about redirecting (I'm not in favour of keeping/merging the current content as it is borderline POV.) --IByte 21:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I like the word, and I actually hope it catches on, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote new concepts. At 23 Google hits, this one is not yet notable for inclusion. Johntex 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless this can be cleaned up dramatically. Jaxl | talk 02:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. Zoe 08:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete If it catches on, we can have it later. Alf 09:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see potential for improving the article with details of where the problem manifests itself and how it can be sorted out. (Previous unsigned vote by 212.17.46.2 (talk·contribs))
Please don't start a precedent of redirecting nonexistant neologisms. This would give them Google hits and indicate that Wikipedia believes they are real words. Zoe 05:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Redirect should not become the new weak delete (I wish I never suggested the similar article). --IByte 16:10, 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.
A merge and redirect to Santana Moss wouldn't hurt. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as there is so little in the article. Alf 09:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --Lomedae 10:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to his brother. Until he becomes more notable himself. --Etacar11 01:32, 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.
Nothing on Google, and I find it hard to belive a businessman would actually name his book this.Shanel 00:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My Bad, it is an actual book, but it has two reviews on Amazon. Still, this makes it non-notable. So Delete--Shanel 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Spinks, Gerard" has over 11,000 Google hits; while not all of them are him, many of them seem to be. The book is easily verifiable by various booksellers, and the author has a significant following, particularly in minority commnities. If someone is willing to create Gerard Spinks, then I say merge. Otherwise, keep: this book is significant. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 01:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Amazon.com Sales Rank: #608,099." Should we have 600,000 more widely selling books on Wikipedia too? --Quasipalm 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for listing. (~500 Google hits, low Amazon sales rankings) Johntex 01:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable -- GregAsche 02:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 02:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quasi. Sdedeo 02:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Keep/merge per Che; googling around shows this guy to be a more notable (if self-promoting) figure than his poor book sales indicate. Sdedeo 02:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Since when is that a metric, Quasi? We should throw out notable books because they sold poorly with the public recently? Will this be, to paraphrase Network, "the first known case of a book being removed from history for having low sales ratings?" Many notable books may not sell like hotcakes to the public in 2005. I spent about 2 minutes trying to think off the top of my head something that might be a good example (obviously dependent on what the top of my head looks like), and so far I've at least come up with "The Philosophical Writings of Descartes: Volume 1" and "Black Beauty" which are both in the 200ks, as well as Mrs. Lirriper by Charles Dickens which, by your metric, is HALF as important as the subject of this VfD since it weighs in at 1200k on the Amazon Cashometre. I understand the temptation to use arbitrary rankings, especially in these times of high information availability, rather than looking at the specific circumstances in each case, is very strong. But a lot of temptations are strong, so what? D.G. 03:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a metric in this sense because it can be used to measure something. I found an edition of Black Beauty at about 25K; the fact that they have multiple editions should ring bells, as well as the fact they're still in print after a century. Instead of pointing at Black Beauty and asking why it has a page, why not point out why this is notable? --Prosfilaes 08:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And, we don't have a page on Mrs. Lirriper, so if it were valid to judge a book by sales on one edition a century after it was first published, that still wouldn't help your case.--Prosfilaes 05:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that when I voted on this article, it said: "It has achieved unexpected success, eventually being accepted for sale on amazon.com and at Barnes & Noble's bookstores in the United States." So, I was voting based on its own claim of being note-worthy and found it lacking. I still say delete. --Quasipalm 14:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book's no Harry Potter, but it's also not something that's sold 10 copies out of some guy's basement (which would be more in line with my definition of not notable). The author is apparently somewhat well known, the book was featured on Comedy Central's "Tough Crowd", and it's being sold through amazon and other retailers....keep. Wandering oojah 04:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep for now, as per DG. Andre (talk) 06:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per DG, nigga. —RaD Man (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its publisher, Instantpublisher.com, is a self-publishing program, not even a publishing house. Radman, you'll have to explain why we should have articles on the top 600,000 books on amazon. Zoe 08:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have to do anything, Beau. Being featured on Comedy Central's Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn and several other arguments made by DG and Wandering oojah sealed the deal. —RaD Man (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm biased with regard to POD/self-publishing, but I don't think a book being self-published should be used as a reason to delete it. It's sales, readers and the author and subject matter that are important. - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or merge to author if possible. Do we want pages on the top 20,000 books on Amazon? Expanded through history, there's millions of books we could have pages on that are more notable than this one. Usually, we put book information on the author page, unless the book itself is very notable, or the author and book are notable enough to have seperate pages, so put it on the author's page. (Especially since the press releases kept talking about the series of books.)--Prosfilaes 08:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 11:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the author doesn't even warrant a page, why should his really low-selling, self-published book? Selling fifty copies of a book would get it in the top 500,000 on Amazon - a rank of 608,099 means about thirty copies sold. Utterly nn. Prototc 11:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm generally in favour of keeping pretty much any book, but that doesn't include self-published, print-on-demand, vanity-press, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - we don't need an article on everything ever published --Outlander 21:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- needs expansion and verification, but the article is not just about the book but about its success. Self-publication cannot possibly be grounds for deletion if the book, or its status among its readership, is of genuine interest. -- Chick Bowen 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that its supposed success is entirely self-proclaimed and thus unverifiable. Certainly, no real success is reflected in its Amazon rank if it sold just 30 copies (as estimated above). Most people, if they "published" a book, could sell more than 30 copies just among their immediate friends and family. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I am attempting to verify the book's success; I'll report if I find out anything.Chick Bowen 00:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page on this book on Amazon does not inspire confidence in its notability. Unless its supposed success can be verified... --Etacar11 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable success and notability. --Calton | Talk 02:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Can you think of a more notable business insprational book so strongly targetted to young African-Americans? Genre and social context makes this one notable; I wouldn't be very interested in keeping a generic pulp novel at the same rank. There is more to say about this book, and it seems to say something about the world it lives in. Samaritan 08:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DG and Samaritan. -- ElBenevolente 15:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amazon sales ranks uses the total sales ever of a book when calculating its rank if below 100,000; not just the sales in the last year (10,000 - 100,000), month (1,000 - 10,000) or week (1 - 1,000). A rank of 600,000 would indicate sales of a grand total of between fifty and eighty copies sold, ever. Prototc 15:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nigga. -HX 17:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a work of importance -- Joshua Johaneman 19:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
keep this too please it seems notable to me Yuckfoo 01:30, 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
Keep. Titoxd 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sinec Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents indicates a station is notable if it broadcasts at least regionally and is not confined to a city. There would seem to be no evidence that this is of interest outside its local area. It only collects about 50 Google hits. I realise this nomination is liekly to be controversial, however. -Splash 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason this should be controversial. It fails to clear a fairly low-set bar. Johntex 01:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know the history of the comment on radio stations on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents, but a quick look at Wikipedia turned up many less powerful radio stations (as low as 1kW) which have articles, including some with daytime only licenses. Besides, a 5kW station in an area like New Orleans is certainly "not confined to a city." Whether some radio stations are too small can be answered in another test case, but this one should stay. -- DS1953 04:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per DS1953. Furthermore the website would seem to indicate that the station is received beyond the boundaries of New Orleans. 23skidoo 05:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per common sense. —RaD Man (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the station's web site "About Us" page indicates the radio targets "greater New Orleans and surrounding areas". Appears to meet the criteria for notability. — RJH 18:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Samaritan 08:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand what this criterion can mean in reference to a television or radio station. Almost all broadcast stations reach beyond the city limits of a single community, and it's nearly impossible to prove otherwise even in the rare cases where it's unclear. Radio and TV signals just do not magically stop at the city limits, and sometimes the transmitter is outside the city limits to begin with. Keep (and rewrite the precedent; it's an unquantifiable criterion which helps nothing in the matter.) Bearcat 08:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhymeless. Chick Bowen 20:35, 4 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.
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was to Delete the article. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
completing VfD/PfD: text in Pilipino. No vote: is there a Wiki for it? WCFrancis 00:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally transwikied in the Tagalog Wikipedia but it was later deleted there because the article is a story and not encyclopedic in nature. There was a proposal to move this to Wikisource but the source of the text cannot be verified. Thus, it is further proposed that this entry should be deleted. See the discussions in the Philippines notice board and in the Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for more information regarding the article. --Jojit fb 08:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Take to WP:PNT or somewhere related? -Splash 00:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Splash. We already took it to the Tagalog wiki. This is a Tagalog text which we (Filipino wikipedians) find as non-notable.--Jondel 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Then delete it here as well, per the Tagalog wiki's decision. -Splash 13:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least put 'notenglish' tag on it. Groeck 01:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article would have come here anyway, as it has spent its fourteen days on WP:PNT: in fact I transwikied it as a prelude to its listing on VfD AfD. If Tagalog Wikipedia doesn't want it then English Wikipedia certainly doesn't want it. Delete. Physchim62 09:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is being considered for deletion or it can be transferred to Wikisource because the text is a story and not an encyclopedic work. See the discussion in the Philippines notice board for more details. --Jojit fb 04:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I already tagged this article for deletion because it was deleted in the Tagalog Wikipedia. --Jojit fb 08:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has had its two weeks on WP:PNT and is apparently not encyclopedic. Sietse 09:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Preferably speedy delete.--Jondel 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it was speedy deleted at the Tagalog Wikipedia. -- bluemask(talk) 02:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, deleted on Wikipedia that knows language, Phillipine Wikipedians say it's not encyclopedic. No reason to keep it. (Transwiki to Wikisource if a source is found).- Mgm|(talk) 09:09, August 30, 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 08:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some nn musician. Doesn't appear to have any releases. Allmusic.com reports someone by this name being in Gypsy Club Drivers, but that's a redlink and should stay that way since the band also fails WP:MUSIC. Google finds numerous people by this name — none in the first page jumped out as needing an article; the best was an Associate Prof, who would likely fail WP:PROF. -Splash 00:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero hits on Google for "Jason Stanley" + "Cookinghand" or for "Jason Stanley" + "Cooking Hand". Johntex 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 02:21, 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 08:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No source. Inherently POV. Based off MJ-12 conspiracy theory. --Saint-Paddy 00:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete; this is probably a hoax, as a Google and literature search for "Majestic Trust" in conjunction with the Twelve yields nothing. There doesn't even appear to be any such organization. Collabi 01:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV: Not sure. Google? Since when do we believe in google? No source? Yes, no source and therefore no evidence. Please, bring us evidence user 80.4.224.6. Cheers -- Svest 01:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Delete Hoax. Johntex 01:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Jaxl | talk 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deletehoax. DV8 2XL 17:59, 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 speedy redirected. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The VFD tag asks you please not to do that during the debate. Just hold your fire for a few more days... -Splash 02:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirected. Entire content of the original was "Phyrexians" which was a speedy deletion criterion (Just the title over again). Not much point in deleting those old versions from the history, so I won't be bothered to. In general, if you find a contentless article like this which ought to be a redirect, just be bold and do it. No need to tag it for speedy deletion, and definitely no need to have a VFD debate over it. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:50, 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 08:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need an article about a part of a book when neither the book nor the book's author has an article. -- Reinyday, 00:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The description in the article is incorrect. This is actually the second book in a series. ManoaChild 01:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 579 Google hits using the full title. [1]Johntex 01:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blatant substub. Delete unless seriously expanded. Place Guardians of Ga'hoole and author name on requested articles if this is deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Mgm, makes perfect sense that way round. Alf 09:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Mgm. --Etacar11 01:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
completing VfD entry. Crystal ball for artist listed on VfD. WCFrancis 00:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When they become famous enough to keep their article (currently a unanimous delete VfD), this can be merged into it. -Splash 01:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOT a crystal ball. Non-notable artist. Jaxl | talk 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:NOT a crystal ball Sliggy 08:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, artist fails WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for albums that will be released in 6 monts by such artists. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete future event --Outlander 21:06, August 30, 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. Homey 18:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteVanity, not notable, and I don't need to know when the bbq is. --Kennyisinvisible 01:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, totally non-notable elementary school per Schools for Deletion. Has no potential for any notable future growth. And the BBQ is irrelevant, wikipedia is not a BBQ directory either. Keeping stuff like this is continuing to set a bad precedent. Gateman1997 01:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gateman. Johntex 01:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. correct name is Yorkhill Elementary School, and it's not notable. Gazpacho 02:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Sunray 03:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Substub. Gamaliel 04:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Thornhill, Ontario. There isn't much verifiable information to hand on this school and it should probably be covered in the town article. I don't see any point in just deleting it; it's a public institution. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Very little information. --Carnildo 06:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or keep. If that fails, then keep. —RaD Man (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Elementary schools? No way. NN per definition. --Lomedae 09:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge into Thornhill, Ontario. This article is near a substub and the only interesting bit of info is the Herbrew Kindergarten thingy. which means it would get a WP:BEEFSTEW score of "1". - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete after merging. BlankVerse∅ 11:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Someone will say that merge and delete is not a compatible vote with GFDL. So just mention the name of the school in Thornhill, Ontario, and delete this. Prototc 12:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my usual reasoning.--Scimitarparley 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this school looks notable but the name is off Yuckfoo 16:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's not even anything worth merging. --TimPope 17:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Kappa 17:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please! Pilatus 18:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely not notable. Dunc|☺ 18:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial school for pupils up to about 14. Osomec 19:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keepis notable, and several individual articles exist for individual schools in Wikipedia. D. J. Bracey(talk) 19:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "several"? This is close to becoming Edupedia or Schoolopedia. In a few months we won't have a serious encyclopedia, but we will have a comprehensive webguide to all schools in the UsA. Until now I thought even the most rabid school inclusionists drew the line at elementary schools. Alas. --Lomedae 19:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not, we actually had two articles on preschools on VfD a few weeks ago. Bafflingly, they both got a few keep votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the deletionists carried the day on the preschools, however eventually well-written articles about preschools will be able to survive the barbarity of the VfD process.--Nicodemus75 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's odd, I put my local Albertsons grocery store up, and when it was VFDed it actually got keep votes. Some people will keep anything as long as it has four walls.Gateman1997 21:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We keep high schools, but this is too much. Sdedeo 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As many user above point out, this is a notable school. It is notable not only for its multiculturalism, but most strikingly for it's hosting of a religious school - a notable rarity in Canadian public schools. Also, it is a school. I simply cannot afford to vote Bicycle on this nomination because it looks like it might be close.--Nicodemus75 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is that bicycle nonsense anyway? And yes it's a school, a non-notable one. Check Google and alumni... it has few hits and no alums of note. This school is no more notable then my house and is taking up valuable server space.Gateman1997 23:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not taking up any signficant amount of server space. Kappa 23:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's taking up too much by taking up any. As I said it's no more notable or ethnically diverse then my house. Gateman1997 00:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have young Jewish children, East Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs and Caucasians all in your house????--Nicodemus75 01:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How many men made of straw do you have boarding in your house? —RaD Man(talk) 01:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I have whites, vietnamese, african americans, and a mexican jew living with me.Gateman1997 01:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous arguments to do so. Hamster Sandwich 21:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this good faith addition of good content from a welcome, probably new and as of yet unregistered Wikipedia editor. Schools are notable enough topics for articles. If we give new users this kind of welcome, far fewer of them will stay. Unfocused 18:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. I got the same kind of welcome and I'm still here.Gateman1997 19:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I didn't say "none" would stay. Unfocused 19:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they're only here to add non-notable elementary schools then I won't shed a tear if they leave. And the last thing this project needs is more unregistered editors... --Lomedae 21:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment The last thing this project needs is more of the same rhetoric from elitist, exclusionist, deletionists. Being registered (especially for only a month) does not a good editor make.--Nicodemus75 01:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tsk tsk tsk. Big talk :-D Calling someone names whilst yourself are trying to push a religious agenda is quite iffy :-)--Lomedae 08:44, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, borderline notable. 24 at 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very few elementary schools are notable and this one is not. Jonathunder 00:43, 2005 September 3 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, per nominator. --Metropolitan90 06:41, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
completing VfD links. Is Backyard wrestling appropriate for an encyclopedia? WCFrancis 01:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrestler known for his monstrous non-notability and ability to be deleted. Of course, it does document the year in which he started watching WWF. --DavidConrad 03:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, Backyard wrestling is definately not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Lomedae 09:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only wrestlers than do not have the "ability to move" are dead ones surely. Alf 09:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable --- Paulley 14:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. McPhail 20:29, 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 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So we're having lots of fun with B-roads at the moment. This is just a route between buildings on a campus. -Splash 01:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sign of notability. grenグレン 01:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every street does not need an article. This street needs to go. Johntex 01:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. --Lomedae 09:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nothing interesting happened on this road and it's nearly a substub. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, August 30, 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 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badvertisment.Alf 09:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calmly delete. --Zetawoof 16:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to a concept similar to calmness, such as relaxation or peace --Icarus 17:56, 5 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 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a band which, as the article says has released only one EP. WP:MUSIC asks for at least two albums. First couple pages of Google don't indicate that they meet any other part of WP:MUSIC either. "Their songs are catchy and danceable". -Splash 01:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything WP:MUSIC is too generous. Any band that fails to meet even the low bar at WP:MUSIC is non-notable. This one fails to meet the bar. Johntex 01:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable mholland 01:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They could qualify for WP:Music if the EP made the charts. There is no evidence presented for this so delete. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not meet WP:MUSIC. Jaxl | talk 02:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (changed from 'comment') Alfmelmac 06:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC). And will need to amend Synth pop as appears as link there. Alf 10:01, 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 08:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fancruft/self-promotion - even the game this refers to has only "hundreds of players" according to its front page Ziggurat 01:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable fancruft. Johntex 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -Hmib 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Not even the game itself has an article. Martg76 02:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of nn. V.Molotov 22:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthless. nn. PredatorX 21:57, 31 August, (GMT+12)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was
speedily deleted CSD A6. FCYTravis 08:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
completing VfD for discussion. No vote. WCFrancis 01:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJohn F. Long seems worthy of an article.Johntex 01:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - they're not the same guy. Delete the pool article as non-notable. Johntex 02:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under A6 — the page consists almost entirely of highly insulting remarks about various individuals. --DavidConrad 03:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Token delete of the day. —RaD Man (talk) 08:02, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting of material already removed in dozens of previous vfds, consisting of Rktect's original research. See
[2] for a sample of reposting. And see [3] for a list of many vfds already deleting this. Per WP:CSD criteria G4: Speedy delete -- (drini|☕) 01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per poster. Johntex 02:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - I took a closer look and the reference does not actually seem to be to a VfD. Am I missing something? Johntex 02:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you look at the edit history on the pages listed as vfd'ed at that place, you'lll see that this is the same info that has already been deleted. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Egyptian rope stretching is significant in the development of surveying, engineering, and mathematics. The small number of Google hits reflects badly on the web, not the article. Gazpacho 02:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article definitely needs work. It meanders from rope stretching to milestones. But although I'm not an expert on the subject I tend to agree with Gazpacho that it deserves an article. --DavidConrad 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup so that it is no longer than this state and protect. Rktect's verbal diarhhoea must be curbed somehow. -- RHaworth 14:02:48, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Total rewrite - Get rid of all the Mille Passus stuff by Rktect. Concentrate the article on the art of rope stretchers only. The Mille Passus stuff may be correct, but it has been written in such a confusing form that only someone who studies ancient measurements would be able to understand it. Please, Rktect, if you're reading any of this, could you not use the abbreviated form of ancient measurements, and please include their current day metric equivolent. Also, what is 3kr? You say it's some ancient god, but surely, they didn't give him a name beginning with a number did they? - Hahnchen 00:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is an attempt to represent an IPA symbol in ASCII. I think that what is intended is ɜkr (Aker?). In the Oxford Essential Guide to Egyptian Mythology (ISBN 02519096X) they show ka (life force) as kɜ and ba (soul) as bɜ and the goddess Isis (Aset) as ɜst, as well as using the symbols ḥ, ḫ, ṭ, and ḏ, among others. (Hope people can see those unicode characters.) But the convention is to mention these forms of names once initially, and then use a more common form (like Isis) throughout. Rktect should indicate more clearly when such a form is being used. --DavidConrad 08:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At last! The simple short explanation that Rktect has not managed to do in all his wafflings. -- RHaworth 10:34:02, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
The majority of the material in this article is totally irrelevant for the subject, and is a just a copy of other pages on VfD (e.g. [4]), exactly as stated by Drini, so the speedy delete criteria is fullfilled. The surveyors of ancient Egypt and other cultures played an important role, so the subject is definitely worthy of an article. In my opinion it would be best to start from scratch, but if some Wikipedian declares that they are willing to do the major rework and trimming necessary to fullfill Wikipedia criterias of quality, and prepare to take the burden of keeping it that way, then the article can be kept, probably after a rename. -- Egil 08:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Rktect cannot refrain from filling the article with irrelevant nonsense, even while this vote is under consideration. At times it has been a decent article. But unless we can keep the irrelevant stuff out I see no crying reason to keep it. Gene Nygaard 18:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep irrelevant stuff out. Gazpacho 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So show me! Gene Nygaard 22:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: cleaned up by Rktect, Gene, and me. Gazpacho 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon re-write. I'm sure much more verifiable, quality material can go here, as well. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:18, 7 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 (4D to 2non-deletes). Redwolf24 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting of material already removed in dozens of previous vfds, so Speedy delete under criteria G4 in WP:CSD. See [5] for a list of many vfds already deleting this material. -- (drini|☕) 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm not tagging it it's because it is a controversial entry, so I wanted to go for sure with vfd. -- (drini|☕) 01:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I followed the link you gave [6] I see links to stuff about an edit controversy, but no links to actual VfD votes. I may be missing it. Can you provide a more specific link, please? Johntex 02:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you look at the edit history on the pages listed as vfd'ed at that place, you'lll see that this is the same info that has already been deleted. But given Rktect's particular style of editing, it becomes a puzzle to reconstruct the info. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Carnildo 04:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Drini. -- Egil 04:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --Lomedae 10:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to PEZ as a common mis-spelling. Grutness...wha? 04:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am casting my vote to keep this page in its revised form. Having listened carefuly to your constructive criticism I have edited the page and removed some material. The article continues to focus on the role of the Roman foot in the establishment of the Greek Orders of Architecture and their incorporation of many ancient standards of measure into pleasing canons of proportion. This is not original research but represents research that goes back at least to Palladio and Viruvius. It is not a mispelling of PEZ. It is not a reposting of material covered elsewhere. It is just some stuff you may not have learned yet. Rktect 17:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious why when other encyclopedias have this article, Wikipedia doesn't need it. Rktect 02:28, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Homey 18:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable day elementary school. Very few Google hits. Has little chance to ever be notable. Also per my reasoning at Schools. Delete. Gateman1997 01:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gateman. Johntex 02:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, schoolcruft. -Hmib 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Sunray 03:12, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Thornhill. This is a private religious elementary school. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Non-notable school. --Carnildo 06:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I strongly disagree with the nominators general bias against elementary schools. Many are highly significant to a community, and are often a source of educational innovation. A reader, wishing to learn about the education system in a place, will do much better to read a few good school articles, than read the inhrently spotty and vague coverage of education done in typical town's article (if any coverage exists). However, I'm as opposed to mass stub creation, as I am to mass deletion. Nothing in *this* article demonstrates current or future value. --rob 09:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rob, a reader wishing to learn about the education system in a place should use relevant sources. It is highly unlikely they would consult an encyclopedia. And that is what we're making here. --Lomedae 11:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The same arguement could be used to delete every article on every place. In general, an encyclopedia is a starting point of research, not an ending point. A traveler may read about a country they knew nothing about in an encyclopedia to get the basics, but they won't use it as an actual travel guide. Same deal with schools. They might research schools of a certain type in a certain region, but won't use an encyclopedia as a guide in their final school selection. We're not travel guide, or a school guide; but we can still have places and schools. You're comment about "relevant" sources could be used to delete literally every article in wikipedia because every one is *supposed* to be based on reliable verifiable external sources, which serious researches will look at directly. --rob 14:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let us agree to disagree cheerfully :-) --Lomedae 15:14, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete elementary schools are not notable as a rule. --Lomedae 10:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete after merging. BlankVerse∅ 11:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prototc 12:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 15:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please why should this be erased can someone explain thatYuckfoo 16:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because its a totally non-notable religious elementary day school stub that has no chance to even be notable no matter how long it exists as the school has no notable alumni, has had no notable events take place in it and has almost no Google hits.Gateman1997 16:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important to the Jewish community in Thornhill. Kappa 16:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth merging. --TimPope 17:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pilatus 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Gamaliel 18:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lsrge school for pupils up to age 14. Osomec 19:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sdedeo 19:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Kappa. Looks like we'll lose this one simply because it is religious and elementary. Eventually all schools will have a place <sigh>. --Nicodemus75 22:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now why do you have to draw religion into it? That has nothing to do with this procedure. The fact that it's a non-notable elementary school and that whe're trying to build a encyclopedia here does. --Lomedae 21:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Primary schools are rarely encyclopedically notable. This one is no exception. Quale 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per previous arguments to do so. Hamster Sandwich 21:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this good faith addition of good content from a welcome Wikipedia editor. Schools are notable enough topics for articles until the great Wikipedia paper shortage strikes. Unfocused 18:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator as nonnotable. --Metropolitan90 06:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder 15:31, 2005 September 4 (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. - Mailer Diablo 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article is just vanity material. Almost all of User:Sean Bonner's contributions (under his name and IPs) appear to take the form of advocating himself, or his sites by inserting links to his name or externals to the blogs he runs. In the vast majority of cases editors have simply removed his additions without paying attention to the systematic nature of his changes. Because of the nature of interlinking blogs, I feel I am not qualified to judge the merit of this article (I can't gauge the site's popularity because its linkspammed all over the internet), but Sean's pattern of self promotion make me strongly suspect that this article is just more vanity material. Gmaxwell 02:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: Sean has put out a call to the blogosphere effectively asking people from his community to come vote on this VFD. Gmaxwell 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the call for votes moved to the talk page
Keep. As much as I sympathise with your dealing with Sean Bonner's spam, this does seem to pass the notability test. Alexa rank is [7] 74,000, and they have notable contributors. User:Sdedeo 02:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Metroblogging is a big one-of-kind community and definitely Wikipedia-worthy. User:StabiloStabilo
Keep. Metroblogging is a great community run by real people talking about real things. It's definitely Wikipedia worthy. Removing it from the encyclopedia seems to me to be something of a folly. User:tbridge
Keep. It could use some expanding and tightening up, but it's certainly a valid subject User:josephfinn
Delete, vanity. Prototc 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs some expansion on what sort of writing it actually involves to be notable. So far, all we have is that some well-known people do it. --Zetawoof 16:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and needs expansion. By the way. There are a ton of links from metblogs to wikipedia. Are those spam links too? --Illtillwillkillbill 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. DV8 2XL 18:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first off, let me say that I'm a friend of Sean's and write for a Metroblogging site, just to be up front about it. I think that a good argument can be made that Sean hasn't added this for vanity reasons since he doesn't even have a page about himself on Wikipedia. I also think that various Metroblogging sites have become sources for up to the minute news during some disasters. The current devastation in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina and the two attacks on London's subway system are good examples. They are sites that are linked to and quoted from major publications and some of the biggest sites on the web. The page needs improvement, but it is defiantly Wikipedia worthy.--Grant 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn website, vanity. Alexa ranking is nowhere near what WP:WEB wants. Having a blog is about as notable as having a goldfish. Several of the keep votes seem to be by editors who created accounts just to come vote on this. Friday(talk) 19:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the Alexa rank stated above is for metroblogging.com which is only a hub, all metroblogging sites are hosted on metblogs.com which has an Alexa rating of 29,200 [8] - Sean Bonner 19:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Too add a bit, that is the cumulative rank for the last 3 months, the current rank as of today is 7,706 [9]. Sean Bonner 20:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm a Metroblogging author and I think that information about this blogging community should be available on the Wikipedia. Weblogs, Inc. and Gawker Media have Wikipedia pages, and the Metroblogging concept is similar, so why delete this article? - Mostlymuppet 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable vanity spam. I would hope that all votes of newbies being dragged in as sockpuppets or meatpuppets would be ignored as an attempt to game the system. DreamGuy 22:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP Metroblogging is notable. It's a large community that spans many hundreds of authors across the world. They cover most of the major cities in the western world. Users contributing are considered to be quite note worthy as well. ioerror
Keep Alexa ranking far above threshhold. --Arcadian 23:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In alexa, high numbers represent low traffic. Lower number are better. Friday(talk) 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The previous threshold was far too low. I have made it something sane. 12.111.139.2 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears (mostly) verifiable and NPOV. The participation of notable bloggers speaks for the notability of the network. Mr. Bonner's appeal to the "blogosphere" does not appear to be in bad faith. New users are to be treated with civility and their comments considered, even if their votes are not tallied (per VfD precedent). Dystopos 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Blogging, the most overrated thing ever, now everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, from other bloggers who read yours, it's like your opinion is important!. At least Sean Bonner actually cares about this entry, unlike that Cyrus guy, who keeps on claiming he doesn't care, yet constantly blogging about it all the time. But if it really has had the international attention like the article says, it's probably worth keeping. But remove the links to individual blogs, and just link to metablogging. - Hahnchen 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, though if the socks keep it up I'll change my vote. Gamaliel 01:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is to be any debate it should be on why we are wasting our time on Wikipedia, which allows anyone to goof up your words rather than on Metroblogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospheric (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity spam. I hope the sock- and meatpuppets stay around and write useful articles, instead of just showing up to stuff the "ballotbox" Nandesuka 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a question concerning notablity/non-notablity on the talk page and would appreciate some insight. Thank you. Sean Bonner 15:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Conditional keep, under the condition of reducing the linkspam. The list of links in the article is as long as the article itself, certainly such a notable blog must have its own link list page that could be referenced here? The Hokkaido Crow 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links to individual blogs. They are all, in fact, linked from the home page of the main metroblog site. Dystopos 16:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, even without the linkspam. Pilatus 16:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Hate Sockpuppets Delete all Pages with Them Also Varsity
I don't believe there is a single sockpuppet that voted. All of the new users that came on to vote I know, so I know they are not just dupicate accounts that Sean has made. Now, that doesn't mean we have to count their votes, but they aren't sockpuppets.--Grant 17:14, 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.
Non-notable vanity page. DeleteExtreme Unction 02:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmm, perhaps the user is confused, and means to put this on his user page? (But, it's about 'Worm' and was created by Sparkyfry?) Either way, it does not belong where it now stands, and should be deleted. --DavidConrad 03:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No claim of notability. I've tagged the article as such. Pburka 03:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy to Sparkyfry if he so wishes. Alf 10:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a nn-bio. Writing an apparently unpublished book is not an assertion of notability. Even if this were a notable person, there's no way this is the correct name for the article. Friday(talk) 19:37, 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. Paul August☎ 02:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism with only very limited use, referring to a form of art, which, however, isn't entirely clear from the article. Please take a look at the related pages Shifz and Magnus Wurzer, too, about which I haven't quite made up my mind yet. However, this one should be deleted. Martg76 02:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, the Cocktailrobots are now all in RA (Robots Anonymous). If the claim to international relevence on Magnus Wurzer cannot be verified then I would see no problem with all three of these articles being deleted — if this art movement were to take off, an article could always be created later on, eh? Perhaps some WienerWikipedians could indicate whether this group has gotten much attention there? --DavidConrad 03:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cocktailrobot isn't even a neologism, it's just two words run together. Take the links away and it's just dicdef, anyway. Shifz at least seems to have done something of note. My vote is to DeleteCocktailrobot and Magnus Wurzer as nn, KeepShifz as an art group. --Outlander 21:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef at best, not an encyclopedia article. I think it's very questionable whether this is a word, since in most contexts it would seem to be two words simply run together per Outlander. Quale 17:35, 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. And wasn't that nonsense? --Phroziac(talk) 01:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Tagged as {{nonsense}} but it isn't, and doesn't really meet any other CSD either. Nevertheless, it's either made-up or woefully nn.}} -Splash 03:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable, possibly fake, etc. ral315 03:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, i'll run with not notable. feydey 04:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'll run with fake. Punkmorten 08:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and see me after class!. Alf 10:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable --JeremyStein 16:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, maybe fake. --Mairi 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a cherry on top, on the grounds that the group has 3 members. :) -x42bn6 03:17, 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 Keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition of an acronym. It refers to the provinces of Mindoro Oriental, Mindoro Occidental, Marinduque, and Romblon in the Phillipines, similar to the use of BONYWASH to refer to Boston, New York, and Washington. inks 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge. Kappa 08:27, 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. Nufy8 03:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suspect hoax def. concerning Iranian soccer player. 5 Google hits on "Mohammad Payam Saadat Sarmadi" all point here. Information is not verifiable. Eddie.willers 03:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any info on him, either. Will change vote if corrected, of course. Grayum 10:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such player exists in Iranian football. User:Nokhodi 15:30, 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.Woohookitty 07:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Person trolling the wikipedia keeps adding this and similar nonsense. A Google search shows no results for "pocket tubmans". The term is the troll's own creation. 2005 03:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Btw, don't remove the content of the page when voting for deletion no matter how much its nonsense - that way, others can judge too. Grayum 10:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. - This is nonsense. Syrae Faileas 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, and remove the entry in Texas hold 'em hands unless sources can be provided--Outlander 21:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per other delete voters. Not verifiable since no references are provided. Quale 17:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term almost certainly does not exist: the scenario given wouldn't happen often enough for there to be a term for it. Even if it is a real term used by somebody somewhere, this isn't a slang dictionary anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete There are terms for almost every scenario in poker. The term was established during the latter stages of the Civil Rights Movement.
(preceding unsigned comment by69.139.85.183 02:41, September 1, 2005); this is the author of the article in question
Speedy delete as nonsense. Sasquatch讲看 02:46, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I know this isn't the most eloquent phrase in the world but it really is used. If you take this out, you'll need to take out the many other ethnic and racial slurs I've found on wikipedia. Cracker has a page for Pete's sake. It would not be fair to take something like this out when many people have heard it. I've heard it, not proud of it, but heard it before. I say it should stay. Hubris 09:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC) first ever contribution of this user Special:Contributions/Hubris[reply]
Delete. The term is not used anywhere except in this person's head who keeps make new identities to make single nonsense posts here pretending his stupid term has existed for years, despite it appearing nowhere on the Internet except where he has posted it. Ugh. 2005 01:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Google has no evidence that this term has ever been used except in reference to this Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 06:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Do NOT delete. I have heard this used in many a poker game. I believe it was used on Celebrity Poker at one point.
Above is yet another sockpuppet of the troll, see Contribs under Bushwhacked. 2005 22:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Believe it or not, I was at a poker game the other day and someone used this phrase. Maybe the trolls know something we don't, but I couldn't believe my ears when I heard it. MrSpleen7 09:02 September 6, 2005 (UTC) first ever contribution of this user Special:Contributions/MrSpleen7
Abstain, but perhaps some kind sould could explain to me (I am not an American) how the term is "inherently controversial"? Or better, add the explanation to Tubman. -- Aleph4 16:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "controversial". The term simply doesn't exist except in the troll's head. Harriet Tubman was an anti-slavery activist in the 19th century. Apparently the troll thinks naming two black queens after a black woman is funny, and that the name "tubman" itself is somehow funny. The troll has been vandalizing all over the encyclopedia, and this stupid article is just another bit of his childish vandalism. 2005 22:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Also note the troll's vandalizing of the main Harriet Tubman article. 2005 22:10, September 6, 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 MERGE to Glassblowing. Clearly not deleting, no support for Wikt: and nominator also allows a merge, as to do two other comments one of which is only weakly keeping. -Splash 20:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete, move to Wiktionary or merge to 'Glassblowing' Eddie.willers 03:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tools are encyclopedic. Kappa 08:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge. Tools are indeed encyclopedic, but this entry is kinda dicdeffish. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Glassblowing unless it can be expanded to an article --Outlander 21:48, August 30, 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. --Titoxd 05:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm..crystal ball - movie has been produced but yet to achieve general theatrical release. Advertising? This reeks of a vanity page but I'll give it the benfit of the doubt.Weak DeleteEddie.willers 03:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiable movie, shown at the Berlin and Seattle International Film Festivals. Needs a clean-up though. -- Lochaber 11:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've removed the praise and added IMDB link. Keep as per the above voters, but I'd like to see proof of a 2005 theatrical release, cause IMDB doesn't mention it. - Mgm|(talk) 12:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I agree with other keep arguments already made. PredatorX
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation of Nazi crimes is surely a worthy task. However, the question here is whether each individual concentration camp guard should have a Wikipedia page. There is an entire Category:Personnel of Nazi concentration camps, which is populated with bios of mostly non-notable female guards. (BTW, where are all the men?). One of those was deleted in early August at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Thea Miesl. I am listing only a few of the least interesting ones here. Since this is quite a lot of work, more will follow only if these pages get deleted. My vote is delete. Martg76 03:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My impulse here, given the importance of the parent subject matter, is to keep; I dislike proliferation of articles when a list would do (especially when, um, people make articles for individual rocks in the ocean), but there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Sdedeo 04:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make into a list (listify, in the jargon). Most of the material in this articles is not interesting, but having a list of them is possibly worthwhile. In fact, didn't such a list go through VfD with a keep just recently? -Splash 04:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles. On several VfD's we have deleted murderers and other criminals who were not notable; these seem to be the same ilk. I am also concerned that at least the several articles I looked at listed no sources and stated that the individual not prosecuted for her war crimes. Thus, we are listing people who haven't even been prosecuted, let alone convicted. There may well be a place for these stories somewhere, but they fail to meet the standards of notability and being verifiable. -- DS1953 04:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and create one page. Manik Raina 06:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete Listify those cases that can be verified if you want. --Doc(?) 08:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepKlara Opitz and Gertrud Rabestein, who were convicted of war crimes. Listify the others (if the closing admin doesn't want to go through with this much work, I can).--Scimitarparley 14:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Let's listify them instead. - Hahnchen 16:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep convicts, merge others into a list. --BD2412talk 17:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep those convicted of war crimes, convert the others to a list with a brief outline of the camps they were guards in as per Scimitar. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Listify/merge entries into a single page. Syrae Faileas 21:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and where are all the men?Coffee 22:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean men? Isn't this a list of German Dominatrixes? - Hahnchen 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DS1953. -- Kjkolb 14:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Listify, this long line of larruping ladies Alfmelmac 07:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify the majority, keep special cases where clear notability can be established. Usrnme h8er 11:18, 8 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 --Phroziac(talk) 02:09, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising & crystal balling. If this were part of a larger piece on such cameras then fine, but it's not, so BANG! Eddie.willers 03:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "...aimed at the prosumer market"?! Tut-tut, looks like advertising. Grayum 10:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like advertising indeed. Apart from that, this item hardly warrants its own entry in an encyclopedia. --Lomedae 13:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looks like an ad, walks like an ad, quacks like an ad---Outlander 21:32, August 30, 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. brenneman(t)(c) 05:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is naught but a list of the instrument's features and reads like advertising copy. Wikification would not help. Eddie.willers 04:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is indeed unsalvageable. Nothing links to this entry in any case, can't see the merit of keeping it. --Lomedae 13:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text hereI made it, and I am quite ashamed of it too. this article should be deleted and I should just start again.
Delete. Advertisement. --Fang Aili 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. --Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 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. Few votes here, but most are from usernames I recognise as established, and there is no dissent. -Splash 00:21, 10 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. -Splash 00:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as a CSD but isn't. No vote. --fvw* 05:15, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Don't think Wikipedia should include every person who's run for political office. --NeilN 05:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running for Mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania as Third Party candidate. The Mayor of Allentown may be notable enough for Wikipedia but I doubt that a candidate for mayor is. Capitalistroadster 05:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wfm, delete per Capitalistroadster. --fvw* 06:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Capitalistroadster. --Alan Au 06:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're living here in Allentown / and they're closing all the factories delete. Sdedeo 19:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is a conprehensive online encyclopedia, why can't we be inclusive and have a broad spectrum of people. He might only be a candidate in your eyes but you don't live in Allentown and see the force he is having on local politics. Imagine if you just randomly erased political candidates names from here because you as the holy Gods of Wikipedia deem them unworthy. Benjamin Franklin never held a major elected office, maybe he is not worthy to be on here. Ralph Nader and Ross Perot were only third party candidates, maybe they shouldn't be included here.Shouldn't we accept all of God's creatures great and small. Who are we to judge someones entire life as unworthy of inclusion. I think this entire policy of notability is just plain facist and bordering on out right Big Brotherism. We are all people and no one is worthy or not worthy. We should have no policy of notibility and include everyone great and small. We are human beings, we are flesh, we suffer and die everyday and every single person is worthy. Who are you to judge someones worthiness, you spend most of your time editing an online encyclopedia for free, are you so superior. Let him be included, let everyone who has taken a breath on this green earth be included and let them stand amongst us all, naked and bare, human beings taking their place in this universe. Bodhi395
Merge into an article on the election in question, or otherwise delete unless he's done something different than the tens of thousands of other mayoral candidates across the world.
Ralph Nader and Ross Perot recieved press notoriety and more than a handful(at that level, I define a handful as less than 30,000 votes)during the presidential campaigns(most people don't realize that there are actually 20-30 candidates for U.S President in each party if it doesn't hold the presidency, 5-10 if it does, we have to see most of them here in New Hampshire.)
So speaks the gods of Wikipedia... :-) Karmafist 00:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't understand the notibility system here on Wikipedia. On the Allentown, PA page it has as a famous Allentownian the guy who does the voice of Master Shake on Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Now is that that much of an achievement to be included on Wikipedia, and yet a person who is seeking the Mayorship is a nobody. It also has the girl who played a bit part in Mean Girls. These people are very marginially famous yet get included. Where do you draw the line? What about doctors and firefighters, they are much more significant people in society then bit actors, would they be granted a page? Or does Wikipedia value the whims of pop culture more than the true heroes of society? I think this deletion policy is just too vague and since this is a very expandable online database, why not let everyone be included? Bodhi395
Successful voice actors are notable. Not-yet-successful mayoral candidates are not. Losing at an election is not a notable accomplishment. Now, if you want to write an article about the major of Allentown, go for it. As far as I'm concerned, mayors are notable. (This is also a delete vote.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mr. Molovinsky is certainly not notable outside Allentown, and as a third party candidate is of doubtful notability in it unless that notability can be documented. My own personal threshold for political notability is can he get 5,000 votes, but that's not a Wikipolicy. Unless something more notable than being a third-party candidate in a mayoral election in a medium-sized city (pop. 106,632) can be shown, he's not notable. Caerwine 05:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because then you'd have thousands and thousands of John Smiths in the database instead of the present 50. Wikipedia is a reference tool, not the Geocities personal pages. --NeilN 12:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way, way, below the bar for notability for bios. Quale 17:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Room 101. If he wins, dig it up. Alfmelmac 07:43, 4 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 07:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as a deleteagain as it had already been speedied, but I don't think we have a CSD for it so let's VfD this time. Vanity. --fvw* 05:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn band vanity. --Alan Au 06:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBhoeble 02:01, 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 as validly transwikied. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listed as speedy candidate by an anon for already being transwikid, which isn't a CSD. My vote is delete, unencyclopaedic, but if wikisource wants it it might be worth for someone to check if it's been transwiki-ed. --fvw* 05:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Move to wikisource. Not encyclopedic, but still interesting. --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 06:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Transwiki per nom. --Alan Au 06:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Cryptic's link shows source text was already transwikied appropriately. Barno 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the transwiki is enough. Note that being transwikied as a result of a VfD is a speedy criterion, but this was not VfD'd.-Splash 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this information has no business on its own page. There is too little useful info and that info will soon be outdated. It's basically just posting one of the National Hurricane Center's advisories as its own article. --E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe merge with another related article or trans to another wiki. Certainly notable, somewhere. CoolGuy 05:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hurricane Katrina, and let it stay there after that page has settled down. It was a true mass meme, on the Internet and in mass media, but only for one day. It is notable (I mean that in the colloquial sense, not the Wikipedia sense) for being the most terrifying NOAA bulletin in history, but it only had currency for about 12 hours. If it belongs anywhere, it's in the Hurricane Katrina article as a footnote to history. MCB 05:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikisource.--Kross 13:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep or rename. This will be a historic document that accompanied the mandatory evacuation in New Orleans and hence save tens (if not hundreds) thousands of lives. It's effect is hugh and something to write about. --Vsion 17:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. Same reasons above. --CFIF 01:15, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see how an article on this document is expandable. By all means, mention in Hurricane Katrina that the NOAA report's tone was unusual, and link to it on Wikisource, but a separate article about the document is analogous to having articles about press releases as well as the events they describe. See also Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. —Cryptic(talk) 01:30, 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. -Splash 00:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. --fvw* 05:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
And full of placeholder links and nothing links there. DELETE -- Cdyson37 12:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. And the "Articles for deletion" page is redirecting somewhere else for this. --Etacar11 02:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed it. --Etacar11 02:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I got myself very confused, and thought I had fixed it. -Splash 02:20, 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 REDIRECT to Software development kit. -Splash 20:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect or better still just delete and change the link on F5 Networks (the only thing that links to it anyway) to the correct page -- Cdyson37 12:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per everyone. Optichan 19:39, August 30, 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.
Unverifiable, probable hoax. --fvw* 05:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, appears to be a test page. the wub "?/!" 12:16, 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 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.Woohookitty 07:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a slang dictionary, besides which it isn't even spelled correctly. OMGWTFDELETE --Alan Au 05:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this to AfD, and subst:d the template. -Splash 22:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this should even be a candidate for speedy deletion --Shreddy 06:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm glad people have the time to share brilliant insights such as this article with Wikipedia.--Scimitarparley 14:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd almost favor a speedy delete. It almost counts as nonsense since it's not even spelled correctly. Syrae Faileas 20:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete people should spend their electrons on better pursuits. However, if the consensus so flows, we could add it to internet slang and retain a redirect. -Splash 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and possibly redirect [[[OMGWTF]] (the correct spelling) to internet slang. --Netvor 07:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Out mini-factoid without true grammar. Alfmelmac 07:53, 4 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 RESULT. Woohookitty 06:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to verify, fails Google test (17 unrelated hits) [10]. Creator has a history of creating ficticious articles. I was tempted to speedy this, but I'm not sure it qualifies, so I thought I'd do it the slow way. Delete --Alan Au 05:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Etacar11 02:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax. ADAM DALGARNO nominated below is by same author. -- RHaworth 09:35:55, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
Delete ho.. ho.. hoax. Alfmelmac 08:22, 4 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 07:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. --fvw* 06:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, doesn't deserve its own article. A mention about them could be added to emoticon, though. — JIP | Talk 06:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JIP. --Alan Au 06:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Lomedae 10:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Emoticon. These aren't new -- they've been around since the Sixties or earlier -- but I've heard this term used maybe once over decades in the computing business where such things traditionally originated. Barno 22:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
8========D to (.)(.). -HX 17:24, 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 06:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. --fvw* 06:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this to be a very accurate article about one of the most outstanding bands in Mexican music in recent times. I think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.102.85 (talk • contribs) 06:14, August 30, 2005
We're not here to judge quality, however if there is evidence that they are notable please add that to the article (have a look at WP:MUSIC for a start). --fvw* 06:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
You are right. Notable national tour has been added to the article. I think it has more elements to stay.
Delete as per nominator. — JIP | Talk 06:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable & vanity, don't even have a record deal according to their own article. --Lomedae 10:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
This band, though a little unknown, has managed many gigs and battle-of-the-bands in their native city, Mexico City, together with their 2003 tour. I think the article should stay.
Keep the band is obviously important in Mexico, therefore it should have a space within Wikipedia. It seems it has a lot of opportunity to keep growing internationally. Let's give this guys a place!
Delete per nom, socks. Sdedeo 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Woo, one google hit! Ryan NortonT | @ | C 22:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't even get anything sensible on google.com.mx for 'Las Flemas' and 'The Flemas' points to their website. Eddie.willers 19:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Is this a really important band in Mexico? I consider myself an ignorant in that aspect but hey, Wikipedia is not a site for promotion but for information access about important matters... if this article is to be continued more info on the IMPORTANT facts of the band should be published. - Amy
Delete, I can't verify that they meet WP:MUSIC; their own web site has no evidence of a national tour. Google test for "las flemas" reveals that their name is Spanish for phlegm but I could find nothing about the band. --Metropolitan90 07:02, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being Mexican, I have never heard of them. --Titoxd 05:22, 5 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. -Splash 00:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per fvw DV8 2XL 18:07, 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. Obviously not deleting, and of thost that would retain some form of the article, there is a bare consensus to keep. Someone can merge it if they want to, of course. -Splash 03:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably an ad, and if it's not an ad it's probably not notable, and if it is notable this isn't a proper article but just a dictdef with links. --fvw* 06:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable topic, vfd is not cleanup. "Baby videos" gets more hits (53,100) than "videos for babies" (43,700). Kappa 17:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Potential for encyclopedic article here. Capitalistroadster 18:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to infant education, and merge the concept of teaching via videos. — Eoghanachttalk 18:52, 2005 September 1 (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 07:47, 8 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 06:47, 8 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 del.mikka(t) 06:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
??????? So is it about non-sense, genealogy, anti-semitism, disability to understand alternation in Slavic languages or IT writing about Ukrainian history?
: an assumption is IT nonsense. Kolchisnky 06:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, DELEET, DELEAT Non-notable, poor title, poor content without citation. - CHAIRBOY 22:22, 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 del. mikka(t) 06:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish-American commentator! Do you really think it's more valuable to write about some folishly narcissistic user: personality rather then genealogical context of the Eastern European Jews if you know know what have happened?
: world had already won you, so don't suffer and enjoy it. Kolchisnky 06:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that you're talking to me, so I'll answer. Please don't write in bold, unless you mean to shout, which is rude. Also, you deleted some of Irpen's comments, which I've reinstated above. That is extremely rude and is also vandalism. Do not continue to do that. Add your comments to the bottom of the page like everyone else.
As for your statements: A user page is hardly narcissitic, it tells people about yourself so that they can tell what your biases are and have some concept of yourself. As for "the genealogical context of Eastern European Jews," the article is extremely poorly written to the point of being incomprehesible. Feel free to improve it and thus allow it to stay. Also, your ridiculous trollish rants are not helping you, so calm down. --Blackcap | talk 00:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Just came back for a look, and boy is my face red. I hadn't realized that Irpens' comments had just become shoved at the bottom of this. I've deleted the duplicate I created. My apologies. --Blackcap | talk 05:38, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
??????? So is it about non-sense, genealogy, anti-semitism, disability to understand alternation in Slavic languages or IT fellows???? writing about Ukrainian history?
: an assumption is IT fellows nonsense. Kolchisnky 06:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Blackcap | talk 22:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Have a look at this, fellows. I can only assume he's talking to us. --Blackcap | talk 22:03, 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 Shortened and merged. Redirect left.Marskell 11:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a vanity article about a highschool newspaper and does not establish notability. I'm fairly lenient about inclusion of school articles, but I don't think a school newspaper warrants a separate article, particularly when written in a non-encyclopedic style. --Alan Au 06:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sdedeo 19:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above--Machtzu 23:08, 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 06:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Got paltry 2 google hits. Smells of vanity. Manik Raina 06:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Australia's first TV superstar would get more than two Google hits. Further, I am an Australian and I have never heard of him. Capitalistroadster 07:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You have to applaud the creator for doing a well-made mock bio. Most everything in the article is very, very obviously fake though. There never was an Adam Dalgarno the TV star, and there never was a "Footloose Floozie" to name but a few. --Lomedae 10:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. At least part of this is copyvio:d from the bio of a certain "Ann Miller" at [11]. --DrTorstenHenning 08:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable hoax. One has to admire the author's creativity - this appeared just one hour after their Geoff Tiver (see above). -- RHaworth 09:38:53, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
Delete Hoax. Alfmelmac 08:23, 4 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 No Consensus (6K to 10D). Redwolf24 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to mention that some time ago I closed a debate on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Battle of Hogwarts as a "delete". Since the article being discussed now is five times longer than the one I deleted, I think it should not count as a speedy-deletable recreation. No vote. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Isn't there a Potter wiki for this stuff? --Lomedae 10:04, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
We have the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter for detailed analyses of the stories. Editors are encouraged to contribute. Uncle G 16:10:35, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft title for the climax of HP&THBP. Already covered in that article.Gateman1997 17:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written summation of the battle in the latest book--Machtzu 23:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly quasi-transwikify to the Harry Potter Wiki. I know it's not technically a "transwiki", but it would be (at least slightly) more appreciated there. Although nobody ever called it the "Battle of Hogwarts" in the books… Hermione1980 23:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-canonical name. -Sean Curtin 01:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I'm already serving 10 years in Azkaban for casting an unforgivable vote the last time this came up, but here we go again Avra Deleta! For same reasons given last time. Sabine's Sunbird 01:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll smuggle in a file hidden in a cake for you. Meantime, Delete this Potter-cruft. --Calton | Talk 02:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
A wand might be more useful —Wahoofive (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire →Raul654 17:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - if content from the article is merged back into "Half-Blood Prince" then this must be kept. Merge does not require admin intervention, and so, does not need a VfD vote. Delete should only be an option if this material does nto belong in Wikipedia (ie, if the "Battle of Hogwarst" material should not be in the H-B Prince article. Guettarda 17:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fanfiction. --Carnildo 22:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is canon. --Zetawoof 02:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What he said. Plus there is no canonical name and this is the one in common use, battle is one of the pivotal events of series, if Battle of the Windmill has thrived there's little reason to keep this out, Wikipedia's Potter coverage is extensive and I for one would like it to stay that way. Yeah, I'm biased. --Kizor 12:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Too long to be merged into another article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete: If this article stays, then the precedent will allow articles for every minor event in the series. This section of the book was only about 30 pages long, right? Brendan OShea 06:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge with the article for the book. Although there are articles for other fictional battles, that's no reason that this should belong too. Whether it's kept or not, the article needs a major trim; as it stands, it's much longer than it needs to be. --Zetawoof 02:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the climax of the book, a matter of great interest to readers. Pointless merging it with the article on the book as a whole, as this description is already much longer than the description there for the entire book. It could not sensibly be merged without greatly extending the rest of the article on 'half blood prince'. Keeping it separate is consistent with the way topics have been 'farmed out' rather than having everything on that page. It is relevant to quite a few other pages. It belongs here as part of the set of articles on HP, not dumped on Wikibooks muggles guide (which is just disorganised stuff previously dumped from here for no very good reason.) Sandpiper 02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other major fictional battles have articles, and no one's given a reason why this one should be treated differently. It's a major turning point in the series, and would not set the precedent for articles on "every minor event", as one voter put it. --Icarus 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a major point in the book. But it should be discussed in the article for the book. Gamaliel 22:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article on HBP would grow way too big if we merged this lengthy article into an already-large article. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Then you should trim the article. You don't need to recount every little thing in the entire book. Gamaliel 03:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will verge on the inclusionist side and say Keep, for now. Andre (talk) 03:57, September 5, 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 06:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this qualifies as a Vanity page. It certainly has no place in an encyclopedia as it refers to a single thread of a single forum, which basically consists of people saying "good morning" to eachother and ordering virtual drinks. 152.78.65.217 08:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (LionsPhil on said board)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the original poster. I'm also the person responsible for posting said thread, and it's not really enough of a Big Thing to warrant an article. krikkert 08:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not useful, notable or in any way relevant to the world at large. 82.3.43.78 14:27, 2005-08-30 (UTC) (McNutcase on User Friendly)
Delete qualifies for speedy delete as patent nonsense. --WCFrancis 17:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a straight cut & paste from the User Friendly diary and as such is copyrighted to someone else. 80.3.64.9 17:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Vanity page, and of no use. Sietse 19:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And eat at Milliways, like the rest of us. Alfmelmac 08:36, 4 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 06:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected autobiography (author is named Jose sam), article seemingly an ad/nn. JoseSamuel returns some 40 google hits. I also searched "Joseph Samuel", and that returns heaps of hits, albeit irrelevant as there are many people by that name. Punkmorten 08:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly veiled advercruft. --Lomedae 10:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity. Sdedeo 20:26, 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. There was no clear consensus after well over two weeks of discussion, even if I were inclined to cast aside 212.101.64.4's contribution to the discussion (which I'm not). --Tony SidawayTalk 10:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and family-name-vanity. --fvw* 20:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
As seen above, Valladares was nominated for deletion on August 23, but since then, no further votes have been received. I am resubmitting this to the August 30 VFD list, and abstain from voting. I think this as a good time as any to remind people to use {{subst:vfd}} and not {{vfd}} when nominating articles for deletion, especially these days when there have been some conflicts over the wording of the vfd template. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, no votes at all, don't think I've ever seen that happen before. As for {{vfd}} vs. {{subst:vfd}}, I've yet to be given any argument for it and it's more typing, so I'm just not convinced. If you really want to dredge the matter up again, have a look at my comments in the argument on talk back when the subst: was first added to the instructions. I'll grant you, it would have prevented some of the collateral damage caused by the namechange war, but that damage and a lot more would have been prevented if people had thought of way to migrate from one name to the other without lots of breakage before fucking with the template. Anyway, that's not a discussion for here, but if you feel like it please do come to my talk page, I'm sure I can find much more bile to spew.
Oh, and still delete, but I suppose you guessed that. --fvw* 11:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - What's wrong with including articles on the orgins of names and other things of interest? 212.101.64.4 09:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ISNOT a genealogy database. Zoe 21:46, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong with the article. Pengo 13:29, 8 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 06:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
either a hoax or OR. Not verifiable elsewhere Tonywalton | Talk 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting concept, I suppose, but zero Google hits on various combinations of Tompkinson, incongruity, and so on, and none on the "pop culture theorists" cited (there are Benjamin Grangers, but I doubt whether either the one getting married in 1773 or the diarist of 1887 qualify). Tonywalton | Talk 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not the "Ben Granger" who writes for Spike Magazine? link title(This unsigned edit by 62.6.139.11)
could be - I see the article has now been updated to refer to "Ben", rather than "Benjamin" Granger. Still no apparent sign of the Tompkinson Unit, though. Tonywalton | Talk 13:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I read about this before. Believe it had to do with Memes. [[memes:] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme]
There was some more "technical" depth before.(This unsigned edit by 195.92.67.67)
I remember reading about this some years ago in a Manchester-based fanzine. Ben Granger is a rising star in the field of pop culture theorism. Don't know who this Simon Telford fellow is though.
(This unsigned edit by StephCarter)
Some guy said it to me at a club night in Manchester a couple of years ago. The DJ was playing a different style of music to what was normally played there(he was playing house music at a breakbeat club night).
The guy said something along the lines of "I can't believe what this guy's playing. He's off the f*****g Tomp!"
When I asked him to explain what he was talking about he said "You know, off the Tompkinson", and then preceded to tell me that his mate read about this theory of a measurement of culture clash based on a comparison of how much of an outsider the priest from Ballykissangel was. He seemed surprised that I hadn't heard of it since he knew a lot of people who used it for all sorts of situations.(This unsigned edit by 80.176.80.17)80.176.80.17 15:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What "some guy" in a club said his mate had read somewhere is hardly verifiable, though. Sounds more like an urban legend if anything.
And could contributors please sign their edits by putting ~~~~ at the end (which is converted to a username or IP address and the date and time the edit was made). Thanks. Tonywalton | Talk 12:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per one of the earlier posts I recall reading an article on this issue in a magazine while I lived in Manchester. It was a few years ago, so my memory is a little hazy, but I think it the magazine was called 'sub' (or it was at least something extremely similar). I can't confirm that the whole entry is consistent with the original article (for example I don't recall muslim/wider environment refs) but i'm pretty sure it is at least consistent with the general thrust of the article (in terms of the drama/ comedy tradeoff w.r.t. ballykissangel). Rather than delete the whole entry, would it not be preferable, if necessary, to just tidy it up a little? 62.253.64.15 00:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen above Tompkinson Unit of Cultural Incongruity was nominated for deletion on August 23. There was only one vote cast, the nominator's, even though there was a lot of comment. Had I closed it, it would have been as a "no consensus" keep since most of the comments seem to favor inclusion, but I didn't feel there was enough requests for me to do that either. I am therefore relisting this one for a second run.Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a slightly controversal theory but i do dimly remember hearing it being explained and then excitedly discussed a couple of years ago at a house party. On the surface it may seem a slightly frivilous way to measure the cultural impact of something but does indeed capture the imagination ( for the Ballykissangel generation at least). Maybe it's a theory confined to the north West but i have witnessed it being used in normal conversation so it deserves to stay as an insightful page on this website. (LauraCameron, 31 August 2005).
Delete Take your pick: Not notable, pseudoscience, original research, unverifyable, patent nonsense --Lomedae 09:51, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR or nonsense--TimPope 19:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, unless author can provide external secondary sources. Sdedeo 19:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SdedeoSliggy 22:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article clearly isn’t science and, as it isn’t masquerading as such, cannot be described as pseudoscience. And having been published in Sub Magazine in Manchester neither does it fall into the category of original research. Given the timescales does it even fall under the rationale of neologism? May be better described as logism?! The writing style is fine and so it is difficult to describe it as nonsense. And unverifyable!?! At worst this article could be described as non-notable and possibly vain but this is rather subjective and it seems a shame to delete a perfectly good article for being too provincial.82.17.24.13 11:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Can you provide a reference for this article in Sub Magazine in Manchester, please? Sliggy 13:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
comment I'll see what I can do.82.17.24.13 21:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no references. Quale 17:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Unfortunately unable to obtain a suitable reference for the cited publication within the given time frame. Maybe the other users who commented previously could help. Failing that I suppose you will have to rely on anecdotal evidence.82.17.24.13 22:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for looking, a pity nothing concrete turned up. Sliggy 09:56, September 6, 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. Though there are few votes, there is no dissent at all. Further, it is actually a copyvio from http://punkmodpop.free.fr/doubt_pic.htm (so isn't a hoax). Copyvios get 7 days, but there is absolutely no interest in rewriting this, so I'm going to delete it per the AfD debate. -Splash 00:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not even a claim of notability. The article admits they played "not very many" gigs and "sold a couple of hundred copies locally". --rob 09:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete.Woohookitty 06:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only 50 Google hits, doesn't try and state notability, seems to be vanity and advertisement Halo 09:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: JosephSamuel, a related article by the same author is also VFDed. Halo 09:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Its a new service. Give them a chance. Does wikki add a page based on google hits only?
Delete; nothing notable about this service compared to thousands of others. Sdedeo 19:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep: Please dont delete this without even trying it. It has a few google hits because of two reasons : 1) Its started just a few weeks ago. 2)I dont have enough resource or marketing power to increase the google hits(because this is developed as an individual effort). Give this a chance.. the rankings will follow.. I have no objection in deleting the other page about me, but please dont delete this. The article was created in similar way of a similar service, where there was a link to the page of its creator. So I followed it. If that was wrong, please delete the other page(about me), but please leave this page. I humbly request you to try the service before concluding that there is nothing notable in this.
Delete; Not unique or popular enough to be notable. Wikipedia’s purpose is not to provide marketing but information on established topics. - FlooK 18:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Not any different than hundreds of others. If it gets popular enough and unique enough to warrant a unique entry, then a unique entry can be created then. For now, there is no reason to have this cluttering up wikipedia. The site doesn't even do what the author says it does.
Delete. "Its started just a few weeks ago." Well, fine, good luck with it (seriously), but please come back when it's of wider note. MCB 07:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I completely respect the comments of all other members who all are more experienced with wiki process. But after reading through the wiki policies I came to know the following points. I hope those are applicable for this case also.
Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion.
So I kindly request to consider these while taking a decision on this.
--Jose sam 17:44, 5 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 06:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and fail the student that wrote this thing. --Zetawoof 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ramblings. I can believe that an article on this is write-able, but we would be better off starting over with a clean sheet. -Splash 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above folks. -Fang Aili 16:57, 6 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. --Phroziac(talk) 13:43, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The redirect page, Souma, now points to Nagana directly; there is no need to have a separate *(disease) page to do the same thing. Acuster 10:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Delete. --Zetawoof 16:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; for same reasons as original nomination --FlooK 17:45, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tagged for speedy delete as nn-bio by Spearhead. --GraemeL(talk) 12:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all publishers have numerous editors under contract and it would be foolish to list them all unless they've done something worthy of general attention to the world. Notability not established. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, probable vanity. android79 16:38, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Borderline speedy, but Zoe rightfully did not pull the trigger on it as being the author of a "popular" series of books is a claim to notability. Fernando RizoT/C 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and possibly vanity.--Isotope23 18:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN & vanity. --*drew 22:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gordon is well known within Sydney Anglican circles. There are people less-well known on this encyclopedia than him, I don't see why he should be deleted. But if it must be, so be it.--JROBBO 20:09 25 August 2005 (AEST) — (JROBBO's 7th edit.)
Keep. Gordon exercises significant influence in the Australian Evangelical Christian scene. He is closely associated with the influential Philip Jensen — (Kairon's 28th edit.)
Keep. Article has been cleaned up to establish notability and remove vanity elements — (Duplicate vote by Kairon.)
keep. Person of influence within sydney evangelicalism, notable for his publications and opinion setting.--203.87.74.218 11:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bye bye... Kontrovert 13:14, 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 06:24, 8 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 no consensus. Virtual dead heat. Woohookitty 06:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from being against school articles but this one does not even try to establish notability. Has been given two months to come up with something but is still just a couple of lines. violet/riga(t) 11:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it was rubbish, though two months is really much too short for any kind of organic growth--from experience I'd say that six months is a reasonable minimum. I removed the vanity stuff about the new headmistress and plonked in very brief summaries of what OFSTED and DFES have to say about the school. And the BBC league table for good measure. It's a very good, though not exceptionally good, secondary school. The article is now a perfectly good stub. Keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no evidence of any notablity whatsoever. The article is a horrible attempt to cover over that deficiency by including subtrivial information on its OFSTED report. Dunc|☺ 12:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with Dunc. Perfectly unencyclopaedic and non-notable stub. Prototc 12:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it was the usual one-line stub, I'ld toss-it, but it's a wee bit more, and just barely worth saving. --rob 13:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, school and article appear just notable and encyclopedic enough to keep per Schools for Deletion. Also appears to get a fair number of Google hits.Gateman1997 14:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to avoid linking to personal pages in a way that might make people think they are official or neutral. Kappa 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If they can't bother to read the title "User" on the page they deserve to be confused. Plus I'd say my stance is pretty neutral anyway.Gateman1997 16:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally who is "we" on that page, as in "We urge people to vote on the following...?" Kappa 17:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me and people like me who resist the "all schools are notable" cabal. Or at least that was my reasoning when I wrote it. Not all schools are notable. This one however appears to be notable enough for an entry. Gateman1997 17:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dunc and Proto. --Lomedae 15:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, helps to build a comprehensive encyclopedia of schools. Kappa 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is not really even a stub now any more so why erase this kind of information Yuckfoo 16:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Dunc --TimPope 16:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the usual reasons. Don't forget: all schools are notable (does that make me part of the "cabal"?)--Nicodemus75 23:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Every cat school is a masterpieceIt is not the biggest or smallest of its kind, it isn't renowned for its architecture or laid-out grounds, it hasn't got a long history, it hasn't produced notable alumni, it doesn't offer special programs, according to the OFSTED report cited here it is near the top of the second quartile and not particularly good or awful, why exctly is it here? Pilatus 08:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: this is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. We write verifiable, neutral, factual articles about idea, people, institutions and events that people may want to read about. If you, personally, don't like the idea that somebody might read about this school (as I have), you don't have to think about it. Just blank it from your mind and eventually the horrible memory will fade. You don't need to have the article deleted; leave it for those of us who may want to read it. --Tony SidawayTalk 09:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory, that is a collection of data. This distinction is actually important. Elsewhere (incidentally at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep we have a definition: "'An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.' -- '... Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value.'" The article in question presents a few facts, nothing more, nothing to put the data into context, and we should have the article deleted for those of us that want to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Pilatus 12:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this. The article describes the school as one of two of its kind in Fleet, it relates the school's educational performance to the local area and to the country, and the standards of teaching to the inspections that are carried out by OFSTED. The article is also categorized as a Hampshire school. It is thus simply incorrect to state that the article provides "nothing to put the data into context". --Tony SidawayTalk 12:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is nothing but a directory entry. It's "one of two of its kind in Fleet", so you say, now in which regard is it different from the other? Why would anyone prefer to go to this school instead of the other? The entry doesn't provide for an "encyclopaedic", i.e. well-rounded education. Collis P. Huntington High School participated in the fight against segregation, but how is anyone who has read this entry better off? Pilatus 10:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The question "in which regard is it different from the other?" is easily answered. it's a completely different school. You seem to be arguing that an encyclopedia should server a pedagogic function--you ask how reading this article make someone better off (I presume this is intended to ask how does the reader learn an "improving" lesson). Well that isn't the function of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia provides useful, verifiable information on a subject. This article does that. It doesn't set out to answer imponderable questions such as was Huntington High somehow better than Court Moor, or will the reader be "better off" for possessing knowledge--the reader who chooses to read the article can answer those questions himself if they're the kind of question that interest him. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia provides knowledge, not data, as in the quotation above. The entry reads as if it were taken from a directory of schools and thus is not up to scratch. In fact, it is mostly data from the OFSTED website. Pilatus 10:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A person reading the article by the time he gets to the bottom of the page will be aware that the academic and vocational performance of the school with respect to the local area and to the nation is rather good. It is true that is could also be described as data, but it is undeniably knowledge. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEEFSTEW point H puts it down more succincly than I ever could. The OFSTED data is nothing distinct, nothing that sets it apart from other schools. Also see point I. It's disappointing if nothing can be said about a school apart from its OFSTED/DFES evaluation. Pilatus 17:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is one of the problems I have with BEEFSTEW. It's requirements are arbitrary and use words like "distinct" that tend to be interpreted in a non-intuitive manner by some who adhere to it. Schools are self-evidently distinct--they reside in different locations, they have different staff and students, they teach different ages, they teach different subjects and they provide different extra-curricular activities. Their academic performance is distinct and they have different connections to their respective communities. While you may be disappointed by a school article because it doesn't tell an improving moral lesson, or OFSTED figures bore you, I don't see this as a reason to delete an article. It's obvious to me, but not to you, that the OFSTED figures distinguish this school from the average. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing articles on schools, not schools themselves. (You are referring to "moral lessons", why is that?) Pilatus 19:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes the distinctions of the school clear, in my opinion. If it didn't then we wouldn't be able to say whether the school was distinct from any other (indeed we wouldn't even be able to discuss its name, location, school system, curriculum or OFSTED figures because those in themselves are distinctive). I use the term "moral lessons" because it's the only way I can interpret your earlier use of the phrase "but how is anyone who has read this entry better off?" in the context of a school in which clearly a person who reads the article has absorbed some information about the school. It seemd to me that, since knowing that the school was considerably better than the run of English schools didn't seem to qualify as being "better off", you must be using some other meaning of the term, and so I plumped for the moral dimension. I did mention this conundrum at the time. Feel free to be more specific. I feel better off for knowing that the school is in Fleet, a town I know reasonably well, and is considered a good school. Since the information could be useful to me and was acquired as no cost to myself, I consider it excellent value. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable secondary school. Quale 17:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. Hamster Sandwich 21:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, borderline notability. 24 at 19:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cat made me do it. Alfmelmac 08:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another non-notable school. Jonathunder 00:51, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
Delete. And the other Fleet school is Calthorpe park. I went to that school and it is absolutely NOT notable. Oh yes, hang on, I forgot it does have a swmming pool next to it that was incorporated into the old sports hall. Smoking was prohibited but the sports hall allowed students at Calthoprpe Park to stay hidden while smoking. Could Court Moor be notable as having a lower rate of lung cancer in it's alumni? I'm sure this could be verified if we document all the deaths in fleet over the last 25 years. I suggest one distinct page for each alumnus with a discussion of whether they were non smokers etc. What a great collection pages that would make to go along with all the school pages. More is NOT better. David D.(Talk) 08:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More is better. It's what makes an encyclopedia encyclopedicKeep. --Centauri 12:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to at least be a rough concensus that all secondary schools are worthy of including here. Silensor 21:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Fleet page previously mentioned the area schools in this manner [12]:
The town has a number of schools including Heatherside, All Saints, Velmead, Calthorpe Park and Court Moor School.
Rather than linking all these schools to their own page such as Court Moor School. It is much simpler to link to the OFSTED data set. The Fleet page could more easily, and informatively, address the schools in this manner [13]:
Obviously if one of these schools has something exceptional to expand the 'knowledge' in wikipedia beyond the 'information' in the OFSTED database then it warrants it's own page. There is nothing in the current Court Moor School page that can be regarded as knowledge over information. If information is the priority for wikipedia then bus timetables etc. should be acceptable. Even stock prices that change on a daily basis.
Why is it better to link to schools that do not add to the information already in the OFSTED databases? This has the advantage of being vandal free and up to date. Note that the main reason would be for the information to be current. One might argue that the links will be vandalised [14]. This is true but it is still preferable to having the actual information on a wiki page. If I vandalise a link it is clear since the link will not work. If I change a data point on the page from 15% to 25% it is not obviously vandalism and might even be considered a legitimate update. Once the Court Moor School page has more than OFSTED and DFES data on it's page then it will be worth keeping. For now I do not see the problem of having it associated only with the Fleet page. i.e. merge or redirect to that page. David D.(Talk) 23:48, 7 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 06:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Patent non-sense. Probably qualifies for speedy delete. But absurd claim of notability in *old* edit history made me take vfd route rob 11:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, are patently false staments assertions of notability?--nixie 11:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I personally would like a speedy delete, but I was just following what I thought were the rules. If I was wrong (hope I am) than somebody should just do a speedy delete. --rob 11:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're perfectly right. However silly or unbelievable, this article does rather clearly assert notability. The CSD criterion text voted on specifically said: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." See Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. / Alarm 11:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyway. / Alarm 11:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could have been speedied as some of the claims of notability are potentially libelous giving this page a history of being an attack page--Porturology 12:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still want this article deleted as quick as possible, but in the meantime, I made the article be consistent with the single back-link to it. However, the person (a senator's wife) is not not-notable, and should still be deleted. --rob 13:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub about 19th century Senator's wife. No indications that she was notable in her own right. Capitalistroadster 19:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not usually conferred by a wedding ring. -Splash 22:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the current page is completely different from the teen vanity/attack page that was first written. People with more experience can tell me if this is a trick to try to get it through vfd and the restore the attack page--Porturology 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I just realised what happened. Deletethe current page--Porturology 01:04, 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 ambiguous. There are five deletes, 2 keeps and 1 redirect. Usually, I would not delete with such a vote count, but after reading the comments presented here, I feel the need to use my discretion a bit. First, there is no consensus that there should never be an article on this, indeed some of the "delete"s say that a more neutral article without original research should be put in its place, so therefore I will not turn this this page into a redirect. Furthermore, one of the two "keep"s said "but not in this form" and so there appears to be a consensus that there are serious issues with the article, and I therefore feel that an outright "no consensus keep" result cannot be justified either. Based upon that, I will call the result of this debate as delete. Sjakkalle(Check!) 09:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this will seem a strange topic to delete, but here's the reason. It is too vaugue to write an article on this. The current one asserts that controversy is due to intolerance, but that's a POV, reductionist and partonizing (see my comments on article talkpage) - controversy can simply be honust and informed disagreements over truth claims. Religious controversy could include every type of informed (or uniformed) theological difference of opinion within, and between, religions - from 'what shall we sing in my church on sunday?' through 'is their a God/afterlife?' and 'shall we pray/teach evolution in school?' to 'who's going to hell?'. I wanted to redirect this somewhere - but any redirect is bound to be loaded - unless we redirect to religion itself. --Doc(?) 11:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to religion. I agree with the reasoning above. Any good article about this subject is bound to be either POV or original research. --Lomedae 12:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I am tempted to classify this entry as nonsense: certainly POV. Examples provided aren't religious controversies, but are aspects of religion which the editor presumably has a personal beef with. If there was anything of interest I would suggest a merge to religion or specific religions as appropriate. But there isn't. Delete. --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitly not in this form, the topic is one that can be expanded on but the current text is completly POVHoratioVitero 15:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It might be helpful if you could comment on what form you could see an article developing. My initial reaction was exactly as yours, but I could not think where this might go. --Doc(?) 15:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's a microessay. Gazpacho 16:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With nowhere to take this, and no usefully non-duplicative NPOV content like to exist in the future, this is just a stringalong of a few examples to justify what is effective POV OR. -Splash 22:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written but could do with updating--Machtzu 23:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Controversy itself is self-explanatory Ryan NortonT | @ | C 23:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the edit history: this thing started as a poorly worded dicdef, and I think the subsequent edits kind of hid that fact. The whole field is fraught with ambiguities. Large controversies may cover up personal animosities, just as personal animosities may be motivated by genuine disagreements on religions. The place this really needs to go to be NPOV is to an article in the realm of the anthropology of religion, but I don't know anyone who is writing that kind of analysis; if they are, we'd be up against some original research. So I'm voting for Delete in the hopes that if someone wants to start a new article (BTW, I am not volunteering), they could do so with a better starting point. --KJPurscell 02:36, 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 USERFY. Since the user has edited a little apart from these articles, I'll move it there and delete the redirects. -Splash 00:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Muerte(Delete) , let him userfy if he wants to.--Jondel 04:24, 8 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 06:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a small production, if they'd put it on the West End then keep but untill then--Machtzu 23:03, 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. I'm going to prune this mercilessly back to a third-person stub. -Splash 20:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing screams vanity like switching between first and third person. --fvw* 13:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment If this is kept, it will need major cleanup. He could be notable, so I'm going to abstain. --Lord Voldemort(Dark Mark) 19:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a reasonably notable commercial artist who has done cover art for at least one reasonably reputable UK small press company specializing in sf/fantasy horror (as well as other small presses). The article text is taken from his website, and badly edited. He's up for a British Fantasy Award this year, which may not be the Booker Prize, but is still well-regarded in the genre. Looks to me like it's not a vanity page, but was put up by Sean Wright, one of whose books Marchand did a cover for. Monicasdude 04:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A BFA nomination meets the bar for notability, I'd say. MCB 05:48, 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 06:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search reveals this to be a Deviant Art thing; as such it should be mentioned there, not in it's own article. --Quasipalm 14:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neoholidayism. No desire to retain each and every Deviant Art craze. -Splash 22:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and give Doug a whack in the chops instead. MCB 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Give a Dessie a Pressie, Give a Dick a Kick, Give a Drew a.....ahem, you get the idea. delete. Alfmelmac 08:59, 4 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 No consensus. brenneman(t)(c) 05:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University dormitory whose only notable characteristics are already mentioned in University_of_Hong_Kong#History_of_Halls; miscapitalized so unsuitable for redirect. choster 13:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment miscapitalizations, particularly of the no-capital-letters form, are entirely appropriate for redirect... assuming the subject rates a redirect, that is. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:17:45, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Redirect to University of Hong Kong will do no harm. No need to merge since it's already there. This is not a vote to retain the article as it stands. -Splash 22:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to see here, move along. CDThieme 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Splash. Alfmelmac 09:00, 4 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 06:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn (nn enough anyway). --Quasipalm 14:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it does sound like a very title for a goon show. Alfmelmac 09:06, 4 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. -Splash 20:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think merely failing WP:MUSIC is sufficient reason for declaring this non-notable, however the article doesn't suggest notability of any sort, it appears to just have been a project of a few fans, so I'm going for a delete, not notable. --fvw* 13:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is a community project, not an article, that was just created today, I say give it a chance. --Quasipalm 14:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a community project, then speedy delete as an inappropriate use of Wikipedia space. Zoe 21:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this album and the process used to create it is a notable aspect of New Order fandom, and probably notable in the field of fan-made records in general. Anyway it has an Amazon listing [15]Kappa 23:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which costs of all $25 and two copies of your book/album to register if I recall correctly. --fvw* 15:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Well, actually it's a lot more than that, it's probably the best tribute existing for the band New Order... and to say it's from "a few fans" isn't really what it was. I was just updating the New Order discography, wanted to add the tribute albums as well. This is a very serious album actually, sponsored by the band themselves... I think it was worth being included in wikipedia due to the "nature" of the project being very original. Sure isn't for commercial reasons, this album is out of print. But it's nevertheless one to add for the discography section of New OrderSpotnick 15:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough, and I do believe an Amazon listing is mentioned in WP:MUSIC. --Kiand 14:29, 5 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. Titoxd 05:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a nn professor, has co-authored one book. the wub "?/!" 13:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the book/paper is as notable as the article says. (If not, Delete) --Quasipalm 14:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently only an associate professor, but he has published that book. Not sure, so I'll take a pass. — RJH 16:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Co-author of book published by Oxford University Press, co-editor of recent book published by American Institute of Physics (both on Amazon.com - not highly ranked in sales but books liked these would not be expected to be). -- DS1953 17:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, published, non-vanity author. Kappa 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as published author by OUP showing he has an international reputation.Capitalistroadster 19:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable within his field. Hall Monitor 22:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above--Machtzu 23:00, 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 06:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most likely either an ad or a copyright violation of an ad --Quasipalm 14:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' advert/nn - hotel --TimPope 17:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the hotel is likely to have cultural and/or architectural significance in Sidmouth, obviously no links to expedia or travelocity but it could be an important aspect of the town--Machtzu 22:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: keep if cleanup, NPOV, focus on cultural, historical, or architectural value if any. Otherwise delete as nn/advertising and WP:NOT a travel directory. MCB 05:54, 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 REDIRECT. Homey 18:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the beginning of a project to create articles for all 24 Quebec Senate divisions. After a lengthy discussion, it was decided to incorporate all of the information on all 24 divisions in to List of Quebec senators. The Grandville (Senate division) article is now redundant because all of the information is in the List article. Ground Zero | t 14:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Homey 17:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mindmatrix 13:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When information is merged in this way, you can just redirect without a VfD vote. (Actually, you have to redirect; per GFDL, you can't just delete the old article if you're retaining its former content in a new one. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.) Bearcat 16:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Redirect done.Ground Zero | t 16:24, 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 --Allen3talk 14:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable web forum to learn GameMaker software. Al 14:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete reads like an ad --Quasipalm 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. Optichan 19:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete It's really not an advertisement. I just wanted to enter an article about the school, just for informational purposes. IceMetalPunk 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability provided by article. Gamaliel 00:57, 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 --Allen3talk 13:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
delete i am not normally one to say this, but there really isn't much here even to work on...HoratioVitero 15:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article can be completed as sounds interesting--Machtzu 22:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would have marked it Speedy Delete for being a test page. --DrTorstenHenning 08:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete voters. Quale 17:56, 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 article still is an outrage and so are the many lying and hostile Wikipedia "contributers"
I knew that this stupid article would result in lots of work for me, just because some people just can't leave me alone. I constantly have to go back to the painful times in my life and suffer again through it, in which I was abused as certain people like Tilman get a kick out of it to bring that stuff up again.
Here is my contradiction:
Barbara Schwarz, neé Bretschneider,
Where is the proof that I am a nee Bretschneider?
is a German expatriate
Where is the proof that I am a German expatriate?
Barbara, you lived in Germany and now live in the US. By most people's definition of the term, you are an expatriate. Of course, since you claim to have been born in the US, you won't ACCEPT any proof of that sort. 206.114.20.121 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
now living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She was the president of the German branch of the Church of Scientology from August 3, 1983 until July 10, 1984. [1]. Schwarz is no longer active in the Church of Scientology (she states that she was "kicked out" in 1984).
I wrote I was kicked out by a non-scientological infiltrator, a friend of Tilman Hausherr with name of Brigitta Harrington. She was NO Scientologist. She left Scientology right after she kicked me illegally out. She is an enemy of Scientology. As is it was said, when an Al Queda guy kicks a Jew out of a Synagoge, is that Jew no member of the Jewish religion anymore? I posted over and over that the Church of Scientology asked me several times to come back.
Moreover, what is to make of these many ARS postings that claim that I would work for the Org Special Unit or those that saw me entering the Church of Scientology in Salt Lake? For anybody's info: as soon I have more time, I will be back in the C of S, which only the non-scientologicial infiltrators will not appreciate.
So, why is that not in the article?
Despite this fact, Barbara still considers herself a Scientologist, if no longer officially a member of the Church.
That is not true, and bad grammar. I never resigned and I never was excommunicated, for heavens sake. I am also a lifetime member of the International Association for Scientologists. The number is 12182 038 0003 8519. Check with them and ask them also what they think if the biased Wikipedia article on L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.
Schwarz is also known as the current holder of the record for most requests filed by a single individual under the Freedom of Information Act.
Prove that some reporters did not file more.
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Schwarz has submitted thousands of FOIA requests to the United States Government
You should order the logs of all federal agencies and check how often my name appears on their FOIA logs from 1998 through 2001, the years in which I filed FOIA requests. I bet a Million Dollars with you that just a few hundreds FOIA requests of mine are recorded in those logs. If Wikipedia wants to publish an article about me, their contributors have to make real research and not just allow Scientology haters to put lies on their site.
and followed these up with dozens of lawsuits against thousands of federal employees. Many of these attempt to substantiate her claims that she is the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the daughter of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, that she grew up on a secret submarine base on the Great Salt Lake, and that her husband Mark (aka Marty) Rathbun was wrongfully arrested in Madrid, Spain, in 1988 and taken to the United States, where he is secretly being held.
I posted over and over that I did not grow up in a secret submarine base but was kidnapped to Germany. Prove that I said I grew up in such a base.
As far as my law suits are concerned, they were about that the federal workers conducted no lawful searches to my FOIA requests.
Because the anti-Scientologists libeled me before I ever posted there. When I leave they become even worse with lies and forgeries. They are criminals.
Her posts are sometimes defensive of the Church of Scientology,
I don't defend the Church of Scientology. I correct the lies about the religion Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. Tilman's (who works for German secret service OPC) purpose is to portray me wrongfully as confused or mentally ill person. He doesn't know me, and that is his problem. His secret service has greatest interest in him and others spreading lies about me.
but other times she insists that while the church's "technology" (scripture) works, the current hierarchy of the church is corrupt, due to infiltration.
I never said that any hierarchy of the church is/was corrupt, but I indeed made the personal experience that the Scientology organizations are infiltrated by non-Scientologists. The German branch even filed a law suit against Tilman's secret service to make them pull their agents out, which they didn't.
Other posts have recounted her travels during the 1980s and how she was arrested on various occasions, including for illegally entering the White House, and twice confined to a mental health hospital in the U.S. and once in Germany. [2] [3] [4] [5]
Arrested for "various occasions"? Tilman just want to make me look bad and cover up that German secret service are not just watching Scientologists illegally but also plotting against them and denying them their human rights. The U.S. Department of State mentions Germany every year in their Human Rights report because of the abuses against Scientology.
The Germans are crazy, they still have their Nazi boots on, allowed Atta and his cell to plot Sept. 11 while they were and still are occupied to spy and plot against harmless Scientologists.
I never entered illegally in the White House. I never committed any crime, except having had no food for 14 days and taking nectarines worth five bucks with the intention to pay them back. All cases against me were indeed plotted. Read for yourself what happened to me in my 92 parts series, which is a draft only, but correct in details.
Why are the crimes by the German government against me concealed in the article? For the sake of arguments, let say for a moment that I am crazy. But how come the German government who started to constantly pull the rug out from underneath my feet, is not accused of having caused that? Tilman protects his fanatical government. I was lied to by with the German's co-conspiring police that I am needed as witness in Germany. At the border I was told that I was arrested, but they had no charges against me. I saw a judge who denied to me any contact to an attorney despite the German law says everybody arrested has a right to an attorney.
He told me that I am arrested because I tried to intimidate Klaus Karbe, an ex-official in Germany, in a phone conversation to call off an international event to introduce "deprogramming" to Europe. (Deprogramming is the cruel procedure of breaking somebody's belief with all kinds of criminal methods.)
Read about the father of deprogramming here:
http://www.parishioners.org/false_exp/patrick1.html
The German district attorney Juergen Keltsch made the charges up after my arrest, and German police transported me in deliberately too tight handcuffs for at least eight hours in a train through Germany. I was beaten by German police, and when I became upset they lied that I am crazy and stuffed me in a mental institution where I had to sit for eight months because they tried to "deprogram me" from Scientology because they wanted a former President to attack Scientology. The German psychiatrists from hell messed my kidneys up with who knows what was in those injections. My kidneys became hard and painful. Tilman's friend Ingo Heinemann was very much involved in that process, and this fanatical man even wanted to become my "guardian"!
I was not allowed to talk to any attorney over many weeks, and the German government plotted behind my back with the judges, and they issued one degree after the other against me without that I had any chance to defend myself against it.
What a "fine" country Tilman works for, and I did not just claim that the SEGNPMSS was involved but also the OPC for which Tilman Hausherr and his good friend Ursula Caberta works.
The case against me was dismiss years later, I was wrongfully arrested for such a long time. And - two years later, I was kidnapped by three deprogrammers and badly hurt in an attempt to flee. Isn't that an irony? I protested against it, and the government kidnapped me from Copenhagen to penalize me for that, and then I become the victim of what I protested against!
Furthermore why is nowhere in the article that a Police Officer and a U.S. Marshall broke my arm twice without provocation, during these "arrests" in Washington, that they took my $ 2000, threw me in the streets at night, etc?
And when I protested that, they lied that I am crazy and need to see a psych. What a rotten world it is and what a lousy article that Wikipedia article about me is. Everything but how it really was.
If Wikipedia wants to write an article about me then write a true one, and not a German OPC organized and approved article that sweeps all their organized crimes against me under the carpet.
Barbara Schwarz
Shovel the article, is my vote. I am Barbara Schwarz. Wikipedia
is a piece of junk. I can't force anybody here to write a truthful and
factual article about me, but I certainly can spread the word that
Wikipedia allows gangs as Alt.Religion.Scientology (ARS)to defame and
libel and portray people in false light on their website, people who
delete any neutral and correct data, and I am tired to waste my time
on this Mickey Mouse encyclopedia, founded by pornographer Jimbo
Wales. Who believes the articles on Wikipedia has a major IQ problem.
First of all, Wikipedia board and administrators should study the laws
before they allow discrimination and libel on the Wikipedia webpage.
When a local paper writes about a person, when that person posts on
Usenet that does not make her to a public figure. You should clear the
legal definition of it before. I am no public figure per legal
definition.
Tilman Hausherr, who wrote most of that article and controls it like a
lunatic, is an enemy of the USA, wants to hurt the American tourism
and wants to blame it on Scientology. He posted at least 24.000 hate
messages on Usenet. He deletes any truthful information about himself
and is supported by ARS gang members and dishonest Wikipedia
administrators.
Yes, I am a Scientologist and not Scientology threw me out, but one of
Tilman's and the other extremists' friend, Birgitta Harrington a
non-scientological infiltrator. You need to be "SP declared" in order
to be not more considered a Scientologist. But lets say, all of
Scientology would be in the hand of Tilman and the secret service he
works for, and they would indeed lie that I am no Scientologist
anymore: I still would be one per definition of L. Ron Hubbard who
stated that a Scientologist is one who applies the technology of
Scientology.
Tilman, like the others, claims to be an expert on Scientology, and posted
approx. 24000 hate articles against it on the net, but he and his
friends are absolutely clueless. They are responsible for having
written the L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology section, and that one sucks
too. It is full of lies and false information. "Fine" encyclopedia is
is!
Also in this vote section, ARS anti-religious extremists lie and
accuse me of what they are doing. I referred often to this website,
which is on the net since several years and never was sued by this
gang as the data provided is not false.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/index.html
See also how many documents are on that site, but as soon somebody
provides a link to the documents on that site, the entry is
overwritten. "Fine" neutrality it is.
I don't libel anybody, I hate defamation and lies. I never wanted to
post on Usenet, but I was defamed even before I posted. One day I had
enough and just wanted to keep the records straight. The result: I was
even more defamed and had not much other choice then to stay present
and correct the lies about me.
Most people who post here did not even read what I posted in the talk
page. Their postings reveal that they are completely clueless. How
can they make an informed decision when they are so biased that they
don't even want to know the facts? I don't repeat what I wrote already
in the talk page. Wikipedia and the gangs who post here are wasting my
time and I will hold not just the individual posters but also
Wikipedia legally responsible for webbing an article about me that
portrays me wrongfully.
Some of the information provided below is Garry Lynn Scarff. He is
a forger and death threat maker, and you just have to google his name
to find the details on him. He filed false complaints. I never. Google
also William Charles Barwell to find what lying bastard he is. The
there is the Desertphile poster, who is Dave Rice, who described
himself as Prozac filled gay terrorist psycho, took GPS readings of
Scientology orgs and called them target data. He suggested in a
posting to kill members of the FBI and he and his brother put a plan
on the web in which they revealed that they want to "deprogram"
Scientologists by applying sexual abuse. His kook bother Frederic is
the lunatic who put the "kook award" crap on the page. These are the
few intoxicated kooks who voted (several times) to "award" me, but
Wikipedia doesn't get it and degrades it's pages by allowing that kind
of garbage in an article.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/54ef1b7f6b03bb0f/f36f44c3060f5731?lnk=st&q=Frederic+rice%2Bdeprogramming&rnum=1&hl=en#f36f44c3060f5731
Frederic recently made the text on his plan on his website illegible,
because I complained about it.
Lily, who goes out of her way to describe me as "unimportant" to the
world, is also wrong. E.g., I documented through my FOIA requests and
law suits that the U.S. government is infiltrated by non-American
forces and conspires against citizens. Wonder what her great
accomplishments in saving the world are.
I explained that the Tribune article is false. Why do you think
reporter Chris Smith did not want to talk to the First Amendment Center
reporter about it? Read below. Because he has a bad conscience as his article
is full of lies and portrays me and my actions deliberately in a false
light.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15428
I posted already about the "credibility" of the Salt Lake Tribune.
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2003/feat_2003-05-08.cfmhttp://www.slweekly.com//editorial/2004/city_2_2004-10-28.cfmhttp://tv.ksl.com/index.php?nid=5&sid=38041http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3077http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3036
The state court judges who kicked my case out are corrupt. They
ignored all laws on my side. It is a shame that such people sit on the
bench.
And do you know below statement of Professor Freedman? He is right,
and not just federal judges but also state judges apply no or false
legal standards as I can say out of my own bitter experience with both
kind of courts.
Abuses by courts are known to the nonprofit organization "A Matter of
Justice" ("AMOJ") and they try to hold judges accountable for their
corrupt actions. [email protected] posted following recently
on the Internet: "Hofstra Law Professor Monroe Freedman said this
recently to a conference of federal judges: 'Frankly, I have had more
than enough of judicial opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever
to the cases that have been filed and argued before the judges. I am
talking about judicial opinions that falsify the facts of the cases
that have been argued, judicial opinions that falsify the facts of
cases that have been argued, judicial opinions that make disingenuous
use of omission of material authorities, judicial opinion that cover
up things with no publication and no citation-rules.' Afterwards, when
Professor Freedman sat down, a judge sitting next to him turning to
him and said: 'You don't know half of it.' (Suggesting even more
serious implication than the alleged statement by Professor Freedman.)
I explained what kind of records I requested from the government and
had many of them. I don't owe the government any money. They
fabricated $303.30 as they did not want to process FOIA requests. Even
the Tribune reporter wrote to me that they are lazy and don't want to
work.
As many of what I write on Wikipedia is constantly deleted by the
anti-religious ARS gang, I will mail this article to the Wikipedia
Board, the Information Team, Usenet and several websites.
I am sick and tired of criminal people lying about that I do what they do.
Barbara Schwarz
non-notable, non-encyclopedic 198.93.113.49 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because she posts to usenet?--198.93.113.49 14:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the things listed in the article. I had heard about her before seeing this VfD, even. Brighterorange 18:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've never heard of her but there is plenty of google presence and a few Salt Lake newspaper articles on her HoratioVitero 15:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article being used for propaganda, not notable
Keep What is "non-encyclopedic", by the way?. 212.101.64.4 15:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It takes more than being a prolific usenet kook to make someone encyclopedic. There are thousands of crazy people posting to usenet and yes some of them are crazy enough to make the local paper every once in while. Doesn't make them notable.--
I read a lot about her since the Wikipedia article and I came to the conclusion that she is defamed but no kook. Her life is too complicated. A book needs to be written on her, not a misleading Wikipedia article. Vote: delete article. Signed: a Mormon.
Keep I just happened upon her while researching FOIA requests. Utah Court of Appeals ruled against her and evidence presented supports the Wikipedia article, here is a link to the article [16] Barbara is a notable figure in various courts throughout the United States and her contibution should be noted here. --Frankcoop 10:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. anyway, there are hundreds of articles in any encyclodaedia on subjects of which I've never heard and in which I have little or no interest. I don't demand that the pages be torn out, however. Perhaps the article on the lady will be of use/interest to someone else. 212.101.64.4 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
She satisfies the google test, with over 13000 hits :-) Tilman 16:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
You haven't applied the Google Test thoroughly enough. It is not enough merely to count the hits. It is important to see what the hits actually are. Uncle G 18:57:51, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Here's a more narrow google search for her, with the keyword FOIA. [17]Tilman 19:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
keep She's a celebrity in the FOIA scene. (Read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune [18]). About a deletion, ask youself "cui bono"? Barbara doesn't like the article, like she didn't like the Tribune article, which was also fair.
I read what the First Amendment Center (who has noteable judges in its board) wrote about her. The Tribune reporter denied information to the First Amendment Center. That is very odd. The Tribune was in a lot of hot water in Utah. Even the family of the governor protested against their shaby and biased reporting. The Desert News is a much better paper. Signed a Mormon
Another party who would profit from a deletion would be the scientology Organisation - a person like Barbara isn't exactly good PR. Tilman 16:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
If I would be no good PR for Scientology, Tilman would not lie that I am no Scientologist anymore. The entire article portrays me in a false light. I am nothing as he, his friends or the Tribune describes. The Tribune is known for unfair reporting. Some of their reporters sold lies about the Elizabeth Smart family to the National Enquirer for $ 20.000. Go to the talk page of my Wikipedia article and click on the links that I provided. Remember Jayson Blair from the New York Times? He fabricated just as Christopher Smith of the Tribune did. Wikipedia should not entertain articles that show people in a false light. Take it off or put one up that is truthfully. And don't use yellow journalism as your guide. Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.152 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 16:44:28 UTC (UTC)
Barbara, you wrote yourself several times that you were kicked out of scientology in 1984. You can't have it both ways. Tilman 17:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
I explained it to Tilman before, but he does not want to enlargen his horizont. Only people who are officially excommunicated are no longer people within their religion. If a LDS bishop tells somebody to leave the ward for unruly behavior, that person is not excommunicated and still a Mormon.
Ms. Schwarz wrote that other people than Scientologists infiltrated the church and outed her but that Scientology wants her to come back. I wish she would join LDS, but she indeed is a Scientologist when she seens herself as such and was never excommunicated. Signed a mormon.
Keep Very notable in the FOIA scene. Also notable in that she is a major player in the Alt.Relgion.Scientology scene, which is clearly a point of interest given that A.R.S. also has its own entry. She is a curious facet of our modern times, and many, many internet denizens know of her and refer to her, which would cause others to seek her out on Wikipedia. There is no good reason to delete this page; unless you are Scientology, or Barbara Schwarz. Databind() 20:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is not fair. Tilman wants her to look like a nut when she indeed is highly intelligent. As more you read of her as more you get that she really is just hated because she is speaking up against opponents of Scientology.
Keep Schwarz's detailed delusional fantasies are amazing. But her incredible efforts to prove them via massive abuse of the FOIA with numerous govenment agancies and massive numbers of lawsuits, all argued pro se and all lost, sets her far apart from mere net kooks. That alone would make her newsworthy. She is now actively posting in alt.religion.scientology and brought her hyperactivity with her, and became a willing conduit of Scientology misinformation, libel and harassment. Only the Saltlake, Utah library's cutting of hours allowed on a computer there slowed her down.
She shows no signs of slowing down or going away on her own. Only lack of money and large debt to the US government over her FOIA bombings of hundreds of agencies keeps her from continuing her career as the most prolific kook of all time in regards to computerized abuse of the FOIA statutes. This bears watching, as does her penchant for lawsuits, slowed down only because of lack of money. Wbarwell— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.197.170 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:01:03 UTC (UTC)
keep The web page in question is 100% factual (according to Ms. Schwarz herself), and I cannot see any non-neutral "bias" in it. I do not see anything objectionable. -- Desertphile — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.49 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:05:37 UTC (UTC)
Keep Her FOIA status and her activity on ARS need references on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.184.200 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:04:11 UTC (UTC)
Keep Ms Schwarz has made herself notable through her excessive FOIA actions and her extreme record of Internet abuse. Ms Schwarz craves, even demands, notoriety, but only on her own terms and only when the information is provided by such an unimpeachable source such as herself. This article should be retained to document her notoriety and abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.133.254.34 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-30 17:16:36 UTC (UTC)
delete Several reasons: She is of no importance for the world. She is not a celebrity. She is mainly defamed in that article and that is what bothers me the most. An article like this, where a common person is just ridiculed, defamed and fingerpointed (I tried to reveal the reasons and some background info on the discussion page, please watch out there) is not a good reputation for the encyclopedia of the Internet community. Barbara Schwarz is a very, very common name in german speaking countries. The google-test is not fullfilled. There are already 2 Barbara Schwarz in my city's phone book! - - - Her belief is very important for her, she identifies with it. She is a dedicated and convinced scientologist, but the article does not allow to add this important information about her. The article seems to be written by scientologists, who feel ashamed of a person posing like her, but want to abuse her to check out the possibilities of further abuse of wikipedia to harass, defame and discredit people. The article is neither neutral nor justifiable and of interest only for people, who find freaks entertaining. But since she for herself finds the article not correct, we all should respect that and forget about religion. Maybe she in fact is mentally insane, I do not know. If so - it is worse, what is done to her. I can not support that, although I understand, that she can be really entertaining. - - - Please, community, let us demonstrate, that we are honestly trying our best to respect individuals, no matter of which belief (I am a critic of scientology and she is a scientologist, I would fight with her about that, but I will fight for her dignitiy as a human being as well) and don't we become part of a world, where people are treated like Barbara Schwarz and nobody protests against that, but watches for entertainment. - - - If the article should be kept, I will fight for the addition of the information, that Barbara Schwarz is most of all famous for being a scientologist. - - - I really am concerned about the activities of scientologists on wikipedia and we all know, how dangerous this cult can become for critics or members, who want to leave it. It is authoritarian, manipulative, working with fear and destructive, and uses non civilised methods to hold their's own or suppress criticism. Don't we support that. Let us show them, that society does not allow or defend or support that behaviour, but protects individuals and that human dignity is untouchable. - - - Each of us could be the next being defamed and mocked on wikipedia. Each and every of us. A kind of justification is easily written or done ("kook award", mention in a newspaper article ...). That is IMO the reason, why this article has been written at all. - - - Let us show them, that we do not tolerate that! Thank you. Lily Firered 18:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC) .Lily.[reply]
Comment. Please remember to sign your votes with "--~~~~" to help us keep track of who is saying what. Anonymous users may want to register a named account, as anonymous votes typically carry less weight. Thank you. --Alan Au 18:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a notable eccentric and prominent religious figure. However, the sockpuppet limit "has been reached and exceeded".- Translation: If you're a brand spanking new user, and we have no way to tell you apart from all the other brand spanking new users, stop voting. Anonymous votes are often discarded, particularly when there's lots of them that vote the same way.--Scimitarparley 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sockpuppets. Kappa 18:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
!! (and Weak keep for the opposite reason.) Barno 23:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons. Being a frequent poster to newsgroups does not establish notability in my book. Evidence is that she is known locally in Salt Lake City but not nationally. Third is the presence of socks which is usually a sure sign of a lack of notability. Capitalistroadster 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable crazyperson. Virtually everyone who keeps up with Scientology, Usenet, OR the Freedom of Information Act has heard of her. Thatdog 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per that dog. Sdedeo 20:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sock puppets shouldn't count one way or the other, especially since that'll encourage people to make strawman sockpuppets. She's well-known in several virtual communities, and Salt Lake City is a major metropolitan city, larger than several nations; notability in a large city should be worth a lot in its own right.--Prosfilaes 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schwarz often makes false and libelous claims about other persons who disagree with her, which she insists are claims of fact. However, Schwarz cannot cite substantiating evidence to verify her claims. Schwarz also is known to file frivolous and false reports to law enforcement about anyone who disagrees with her, in a similar manner to Schwarz's response to a Freedom of Information Act request that Schwarz deemed unsatisfactory (when Schwarz attempted to sue that entire Government department for not finding the evidence she wanted). This entry should be kept on file so that unaware persons are informed as to the nature of the likely credibility of any claims that Schwarz makes as statements of fact.
I don't want to go in that Scientology matter. It is not my religion, but I saw that Tilman posted on alt.religion.scientology and called all people to vote here who defame Ms. Schwarz and who lie that she would libel. She is a kind poster who just hits back when she is defamed. She does not make false statements of facts, but such are done on her, even in this Wikipedia article. I saw that she refers to several websites which webbed legal documents about the people who post on alt.religion.scientology. The majority of people who were called to vote her are expressed enemies of Scientology and of her. You would find such enemies also on us Mormons and they would leave no good hair on us. The people on alt.religion.scientology are abusive and blame her on what they do. To me it seems that just about anybody but Ms. Schwarz is crazy here. Ms. Schwarz, if you read this, why do you put up with this? Join the LDS Church and leave alt.religion.scientology behind you. Signed: a Mormon.
Delete - if we do an article on every Usenet whackjob, we'll overload the servers for sure --Outlander 21:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep as a notable eccentric and semi-prominent conspiracy theorist. Hall Monitor 21:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent google hits, needs rewriting for neutrality --Machtzu 22:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Schwarz is one of the most notable posters to alt.religion.scientology; article is well written and encyclopedic as far as I can determine, and is not in any way scurrilous. As a consequence, I can't possibly see any merit in deleting it. --NicholasTurnbull 00:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for having made the rounds enough in barely enough spaces. Alf 01:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The article on Barbara Schwarz is just harassment of her. If you could see "tilman" on alt.religion.scientology parading around about this article, you would agree he and some others have ganged up on Barbara and are using Wiki as a way to harass her. Don't allow Wiki to become a libel and defamation machine like Usenet has become. Please delete the article on Barbara Schwarz
Keep but clean up the article. Barbara Schwarz is our nation's preeminent FOIA abuser, and has made herself a willing tool of the Scientology cult's campaign to harass and libel its critics. A summary of her history and beliefs is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. But leave out the 'Kook of the Month" nonsense; that's just namecalling. And if she still considers herself a practicing Scientologist, the article should acknowledge that. Touretzky 02:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SHOVEL THE ARTICLE SOME MORE
Shovel the article some more.
Dave Touretzky wrongfully claimed that I abused the FOIA system. He has no clue what my cases are about because he is so busy attacking and persecuting Scientology, study technology and drug rehabilitation.
I requested from federal agencies records pertaining to myself, Marty Rathbun or Mark de Rothschild, L. Ron Hubbard, Church of Scientology or former President Dwight David Eisenhower. I requested searches in specific offices and records systems. Some agencies found records, some mailed me some with redacted information, some wrote they would have none, but rarely any agency provided sufficient information as to what kind of search they conducted or in what time period they searched. They also often misspelled names, which is odd, because when they don't get the names straight, how can they expect me to trust their information?
I decided to request under FOIA their search records, the records that they generated during the search to see myself what they did.
The Tribune reporter told me that he found that a smart move but he of course did not write that in his crappy article.
Here is were the troubles with the feds started. Many agencies mailed me their records, and I saw that rarely anybody conducted adequate searches. I filed administrative appeals, which were not lawfully processed but the appeal authorities rather covered for the lower instances. Then I filed court cases and made the discovery that judges are not impartial but cover up lawless acts of federal workers.
The letters that I received from federal employees, the affidavits that they filed are so suspicious, and their activities so un-American that I came to the conclusion that the U.S. government is filled with workers that serve another master than the USA.
Read the details here:
Part 1: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the
infiltrated U.S. government
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301071056.47d7b787%40p...
Part 2: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the
infiltrated U.S. government
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301080937.558b97c8%40p...
Part 3: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the
infiltrated U.S. government
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301090958.d33750b%40po...
Part 4: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the
infiltrated U.S. government
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301100853.7190db4f%40p...
Part 6: Barbara Schwarz about Barbara Schwarz litigation against the
U.S. government
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a6bc00a0.0301110955.4368523a%40p...
Anyway, you should know that I filed a FOIA request to all agencies of the U.S. intelligence community in October 2000 and asked them to pull the files of Osama Bin Laden. And guess what? None of them did. And be reminded that the September 11 Commission came to the conclusion that the Sept. 11 clues were in the governmental files since the late 90s. If the FOIA officers would have done their jobs on my FOIA requests instead of being lazy or corrupt, someone could have raised the alarm as to what Bin Laden's Al Queda was up to.
But an infiltrated and not really American government of course turns everything around and defames ME of all people as "FOIA terrorist". It is outrageous! It is as bad as calling Anne Frank a Nazi!
And here some more information on Dave Touretzky who usually blames the wrong target. A guy like he of course webs that crabby Tribune article because he loves yellow journalism. Before he webbed that thing he had an awful dirty article about a former Miss, Kathy Johnson on his website. He also is obsessed with bomb instructions on his sites.
He claims that the C of S uses me. Didn't Tilman Hausherr claim that I am no Scientologist? Now I am suddenly one again but this time working for the C of S? I don't work for the C of S, but I am a private Scientologist. The reason why I post on ARS is PERSONAL and not on order or request of the C of S.
Below is what Dave Touretzky has on his despicable bomb instruction, porn and religious persecutor webpage about me:
"Who is Barbara Schwarz (see article), and why is this former
president of the Church of Scientology of Germany obsessed with me? Could it be because Scientology hates my Razor article?"
There is no obsession on my part with the rat professor. And what is the
crap about the Razor article? I find Touretzky's ways wrong, don't
like that I received his harassing porn letter, don't like his bomb
instructions, and that he goes after my websites and removes them with illegal methods from the net. He is obsessed with denying free speech to me.
I don't harass, libel or defame the "critics" of Scientology. I never wrote intentionally any false information about anybody and nobody in the world can force me to do that. Most of the "critics" are fanatics who lie horrendously about L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology and me. I don't like these kind of abusers, so what I post about them is TRUE, and they don't like it. Dave Touretzky doesn't like that I post so I got a harassing porn letter with his name and address on the porn invoice, and it is the truth. I received that letter with the USPS, it still needs to be tested if Dave's DNA is in it but nothing that I posted about him or anybody else was or is untrue.
In other words, that Dave Touretzky or others wrote that I libel or harass is libel and harassment of their parts, not of mine.
Signed
Barbara Schwarz
From: [email protected] (Barbara Schwarz)
Newsgroups: misc.education,misc.education.science,misc.activism.progressive,alt.religion.scientology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Why does a pervert get a federal grant?
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.127.246.149
Message-ID:
Since David Touretzky continuously oppresses my free speech by having my website taken down because I have been exposing the truth about his sexual perversions, I have re-typed the invoice that was sent to me. Why is the US government giving grants to this pervert who is using Carnegie Mellon University's phone number to order dildos? I have also asked a friend to post the invoice to an alt.binaries* newsgroup.
Below is how the real invoice looks., Note the phone number (412)
268-7561, which goes straight to Touretzky's office (not via his secretary) at Carnegie Mellon University:
INVOICE:
JT's Page Date Invoice. No.
Stockroom 1 12/05/02 125888A
All the Best in Sexual Technology
2140 Hyperion Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90027
Phone: (800) 755-8697 or (323) 666-2121
Fax: (800) 357-8697 or (323) 913-59736
BILL TO SHIP TO
David Touretzky
800 Nordeen Drive
West Mifflin, PA 15122
Customer No. Sales I.D. Reference # Media Code Terms
99154 /CJ / xxxxxxxx4235 DISCOVERER
Ordered by Warehouse Phone Number Total Wt. Zone Packages Ship
(412) 268-7561 0.3. Lbs 0 1 PPI
Message: Happy Holydays from the staff at
www.stockroom.com
City B/O Shipped Items # Description Unit Price Disc Extension
1 0 1 A810 Hot Rod-Sport, Red 27.000 -- 27.00
1 0 1 B087 Silk, Blue Pearl, Small 10.000 -- 10.00
1 0 1 CAT JT's Stockroom Catalog 0.000 -- 0.00
MERCHANDISE INVOICE TOTAL $ 37.00
SHIPPING & HANDLING $ 8.00
INVOICE TOTAL $ 45.00
CR. CARD: DI.APPR:005069 $ -45.00
--------------------------
What are the federal employees thinking by awarding such a man who said himself that he is already overpaid and has also bomb
instructions on his website?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the reasons stated above. However I'd add a note when acknowleding her supposed Scientology membershp, that Scientology is "clueless about this person" [19]. That will keep Church of Scientology at bay too. --Mgormez 03:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are turning around the facts, Mike Gormez. Scientology is of course not clueless about her. She was the general manager of that cult in Germany. And the cult-PR wants to make us believe, that they have no clue about her? The truth is, that scientology pretends to be clueless about her. Barbara Schwarz is a scientologist. Lily Firered 09:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brink in the Wall/Lily Firered, Scientologist is a trademark and as such the trademark holder can indentify its products and services, and they don't recognize Barbara Schwarz as one of them. "Scientologist is a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology." [20]Mgormez 14:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that written, Mike Gormez, that Hubbard created a trademark? I mean, where did Hubbard himself state that? Did he once say: "I create a trademark!"? Where, when? If so, then it is not a religion? So the status of being a religion and the name of being a church has to be cancelled very, very quickly, I think. Let us bring this to the tax department's attention. Barbara Schwarz is a scientologist. Lily Firered 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's very vocal with her harassment of Scientology critics, and she's an interesting study in the pro-Scientology anti-Scientology Freezone debate. --Bess 03:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Posted by 221.221.17.141
Keep There are more than enough supporting data about Barbara Schwarz from various gov't and state agencies to support the entry here. She has made her claims not only in the court of public opinion (online) but in the United States court systems. Information related to her can be readily foudn with a simple search of her name in various search engines, it is important that Wikipedia keep her entry intact as it will no doubt assist others who inquire about related areas and subjects involving this individual. --Frankcoop 10:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the present article now establishes notability by the second sentence. It needs to be watched by a critical mass for NPOV, but given the subject that is as likely to work out over time as any article on Scientology. Samaritan 08:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Holy shit! BJAODN that rant, Keep the article. -HX 17:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only for the FOIA reference and her former connection to "official" Scientology. The article needs watching to maintain NPOV (on BOTH sides), of course. - 206.114.20.121 18:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but revise substantially. Schwarz is a well known figure in legal circles due to her massive amount of litigation which is barely touched on in the article. This dates from long before her Usenet presence. She gets tons of Google hits and should expect to be in the public eye since she thrust herself into it. Her current doings on Usenet are of much less interest. Phr 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hold it right there, Phr. I made some research on her. I found out that she only posts because she was defamed on Usenet BEFORE she ever posted. Filing FOIA requests and legal cases does not mean that she thrust herself into the public eye. I found no website in which Barbara Schwarz tried to get attention. She can't be blamed for other people putting her on the web and the press chasing her. She raised a very good point herself. Is she a public figure per legal definition or does she deserve privacy? And as long that is not clear, the defamatory article as to go. Signed: Wikinger.
Seems to me that being the President of the German branch of Scientology is about as notable a position as being Archbishop of China. --Carnildo 03:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable kook. And, last I checked, I'm not a sock of anyone. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid grounds given for deletion. --Carnildo 21:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess this guy has a misunderstanding what valids grounds are. Being no public figure, for example IS a valid ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mention that Barbara currently considers herself to be a Scientologist, but she is not a member of the Church of Scientology as she states she was kicked out many years ago. Removing the Usenet Kook reference would probably help better its NPOV. Vivaldi 00:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If an Al Queda guy kicks a Jew out of a Jewish synagogue, does that mean that the Jew is not more Jewish? I was not kicked out by a Scientologist but by infiltrators, the same people who write distorted and false articles about me. Moreover, the Church of Scientology asked me several times to come back, and I never resigned from the Church of Scientology. But I am not on staff but a private Scientologist. These Wikipedia contributors are so stupid. -- Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
That is why the article clearly states, "Barbara says she is a Scientologist". Ms. Schwarz doesn't attend church services or any other services at the Church of Scientology and she admits she was booted out of the organization. Whoever booted her out apparently had the authority of the Church of Scientology to boot her, so it matters not if Barbara calls them "infiltrators" or "psyche trolls" or "Nazis". The current Co$ doesn't acknowledge her anymore. Vivaldi 01:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Vivaldi" is an ID stealer, a forger, harasser and liar. He is either 11 years old or mentally retarded. He forged me and others on websites. He is a criminal. -- Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I used the nickname "vivaldi" before most people even heard of the internet. It was one of my first USERIDs (and the id part of my e-mail) on an IBM Mainframe running VM/CMS on BITNET clear back in 1989. This is a non-sensical argument anyway. There is absolutely no confusion between myself and Barbara Schwarz. I am not a forger. Barbara is lying about that. The website she is referring to specifically stated that the Barbara Schwarz being discussed was not the same woman that posted on usenet and lived in Salt Lake. It was a completely different person and Barbara has been told this many times. I am not 11 years old. I'm over 30. Barbara and her stalker friend Patrick Michael Sullivan have "outed" me numerous times as various different people and they continue to harass and telephone these people (who they believe to be me) in real life and harass their aged parents. I'm far from retarded, as I am a Kansas Honor Scholar and I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering from a major university. This is not the first time that Barbara has libeled me by calling me a criminal. I've asked her numerous times to call my county Sheriff and report my crimes and I gave Ms. Schwarz his phone number to do so. I also provided her with the phone number for the FBI after she claimed my crimes somehow were under federal jurisdiction. Barbara refuses to call the authorities to report the crimes she says I am committing. Please Ms. Schwarz, if I am committing a crime NOTIFY THE POLICE -- stating it here on Wikipedia isn't a likely method to get me locked up for my supposed crimes. Vivaldi 01:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh, god damn. My stomach hurts so hard right now from laughing. Wow, what a great audience. —RaD Man (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's so funny about fanaticals defaming a person on Wikipedia and what's so funny by violating laws? What's so funny about a bunch of lawless folks who use Wikipedia as an outlet of their lies and persecution? You have a strange sense of humor. -- Barbara Schwarz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.246.48 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non encylopedic, crazy person. Can I put my crazy Uncle Bill in Wikipedia who think we are still at war with Germany? --JPotter 23:26, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Note to self--- start new wiki: "Crazypedia". Karmafist 14:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self --- start new wiki "Hatepedia" and put Karma and his friends in.
Your uncle Bill seems a lot smarter than you are, Jason Potter. Germany does not more use their weapons directly to harm the USA but they use other nations or nationals to attack the USA or/and Israel. My guess is that you were so occupied with lying and defaming others that you missed that Germany companies helped Lybia to build chemical weapon plants, and the company Tilman works for, Siemens, manufactured devices that can be used to detonate nuclear weapons, and I can go on and on.-- Barbara Schwarz
Barbara, do you mean Libya? Just curious if it was a mispelling. Karmafist 18:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't conspiracy theorists be admired for their ideas and guts providing some possible explanation for this crazy planet? At leasts they are thinking and not just heckling.
I wonder who has interest in giving conspiracy theorists a bad rap, Mr. Potter? Could it be the conspirators?
Keep due to having the most FOIA requests. Block Schwarz herself for legal threats and sockpuppetry under the "A Mormon" tag. Karmafist 14:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Wikipedia contributors are lawless defamers who misportray me deliberately as they are full of hatred and love just one kind of free speech, their own! If not everybody hates me, it must be me in her little fanatical hate minds. Block lawless hatemongers as Karma. I also wonder where the legal threat by that Mormon is. -- Barbara Schwarz
Add the multiple violations of WP:civil she's had as well to my reasons for why she should be blocked. BTW, you can see the legal threats she made on the talk page of the article on her. Karmafist 18:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Ms. Schwarz, Karmafist, and your claims claiming that I am are false and a violation against the Wikipedia regulations. I don't want to reveal my name as I don't want to be harassed. Many of the people who hate the Scientology groups also hate the LDS church. -- Signed a Mormon
Which regulations am I breaking A Mormon? Please let me know, and we can talk about it. Until then, in my eyes all anon IPs are potential sockpuppets regardless of what they say. It's very easy to create an account, they're free and it takes a few seconds -- just click on that link on the top right hand side of the screen. You'll find that people take you more seriously, especially on VfDs. Karmafist 00:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ma'am (in case you are one) you make claims which you can't prove, which is a violation not just against Wikipedia policies but also against laws. It is not mandatory under Wikipedia policies (or the law) to get an account. Sofar, nobody else but you has a problem with posters not using an account. You should ask Wikipedia to change the rules if you suffer under them but not publishing that I am a Scientologist and/or Ms. Schwarz. If I would open an account, I still could be accused of being a "sock puppet". You may be also the sock puppet of somebody. Who are you anyway?
I am Mormon and this here is my beloved church: http://www.lds.org/
I accidentally run in this article about Ms. Schwarz because there is a LOT of noise on Usenet about. I noticed that Mr. Tilman and others overwrite any impartial and correct information on that lady, which I find very unfair. The LDS religion is a minority under the world religions too, Ms. Karma, and I noticed that my church is also defamed in the usegroups that beat up on Ms. Barbara Schwarz. And I also know that the Salt Lake Tribune is no good newspaper. They have a history of scandals.
I noticed on your Userpage that you are having mental problems, Karma, and that is the reason I will not challenge you further, but please don't make false statements anymore. And don't be so suspicious. I think it is not even important on Wikipedia who somebody is but rather what he writes. You can't block another writer for what I write. It is not fair. If you operate that way, you will be one day blocked. Signed a Mormon
Obvious Keep. Ms. Schwarz is well-known and well-publicized for FOIA requests. In addition to articles in Salt Lake City newspapers, she has also been mentioned on both MSNBC and FOX News.--Nicodemus75 11:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was mentioned on MSNBC and FOX News? I never heard that. Post the links or references. Who doesn't say you make that up?" Barbara Schwarz
FOR LILY
the even harder to handle .Lily Firered. wrote:
> This would be the final version, as Tilman again found something to
> protest.
Tilman is a German secret agent officer. He works for the OPC, he has orders and has to suppress anything his secret service does not like.
>
> -------from wikipedia talk page-------
> Barbara Schwarz is now living in Salt Lake City, Utah. She has german
> roots.
I have no German roots.
> Schwarz is a scientologist. She was the president of the German
> branch of the Church of Scientology from August 3, 1983 until July 10,
> 1984. [1].
>
> Schwarz is also known for her many requests filed under the Freedom of
> Information Act. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Schwarz has
> submitted thousands of FOIA requests to the United States Government
> and followed these up with dozens of lawsuits against thousands of
> federal employees.
Where is the evidence that I filed thousands of FOIA requests? You have to order the FOIA logs from the U.S. agency from 1998 through 2001 and count their entries. Those are just a few hundreds.
>Many of these attempt to substantiate her claims
> that she is the granddaughter of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the
> daughter of Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, and that her
> husband Mark (aka Marty) Rathbun was wrongfully arrested in Madrid,
> Spain, in 1988 and taken to the United States, where he is secretly
> being held.
>
> Usenet history
>
> Besides her frequent FOIA requests, Schwarz posts regularly to the
> Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, where she defends
> scientology passionately and eloquently.
I don't defend, Lily, I correct falsehoods about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.
> She posts sometimes critical
> against the current hierarchy of the church, because she "made the
> personal experience that the Scientology organizations are infiltrated
> by non-Scientologists".[Barbara Schwarz on the discussion (talk-)page
> of her article under "Moved from article"].
>Other posts have recounted
> her travels during the 1980s and how she was in legal trouble on
> various occasions, including for entering the White House, and twice
> confined to a mental health hospital in the U.S. and once in Germany.
> [2] [3] [4] [5] According to Schwarz, these events were the result of a
> conspiracy by a group called the "Still Existing German Nazi
I don't like that there is not in it what these agencies and psychs did to me, e.g. beating me up, breaking my arm twice, taking my money away, and the German crimes, that German District attorney kidnapped me from Copenhagen, made false charges up AFTER I was arrested, that I was beaten up by German police, that I was not allowed to an attorney while the German corrupt government issued one decree after the other against me to which I could not defend myself, that I was never crazy, and when I was, it is the fault of the German government and psychs who treated me as badly as the century Jew. It also needs to me mentioned that I was kidnapped to be deprogrammed later. I posted in the voting section of Wikipedia a long article with those details.
Tilman does not want the crimes of his government and friends in this article as he has to protect them. It is is order as OPC agent.
Barbara Schwarz
>
> -------------------------------------
> Yet deletion of the complete article about Barbara Schwarz would still
> be my preferred option. And Tilman please do not interrupt the article.
> If you want to comment please do it in one block at the end. Lily
> Firered 13:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
>
> --------end wikipedia talk page-------
>
> Could you agree with that?
> .Lily
Comment: Pardon me, but are you still talking? —RaD Man (talk) 19:57, 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 --Allen3talk 13:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic starwars cruft written like it's real. :(
Oh, and you might want to copyedit it. I would have, but I was lazy. --Phroziac(talk) 14:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I'm pretty sure it's a duplicate of something on the Star Wars Wiki (albeit badly written). Alphaxτεχ 14:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any on Google. Title might be misspelled. Either way, doesn't seem important enough for an encyclopedia article of its own. Acetic Acid(talk) 15:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
It was originally crystels before i moved it, but i'm 99% sure that crystals are always spelled crystals. --Phroziac(talk) 15:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no indictation this is legit, let alone notable. CUSWE, Star Wars Timeline Gold, and SWW all turn up nothing.-LtNOWIS 03:13, 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 --Allen3talk 13:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Here we have an incomplete list of streets in Taunton, Massachusetts, together with their postcodes. At the bottom we are informed where the traffic is thickest during rush hours. Wikipedia is not a postcode directory and a grab-bag of data. Pilatus 15:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a phone book, which is where you look for a listing like this. Merge the rush hour stuff into Taunton, Massachusetts and burn the rest. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:24:22, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
Merge relevant information to Taunton, Massachusetts. I did a few edits on this page just to improve it while it was around, but I agree it doesn't belong in the long run. Sahasrahla 15:33, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT. I'd almost call this a Taunton Vanity article. I'm not sure the traffic information's even merge-worthy. It's not sourced, and I'm guessing it's original research, although I'll admit I'm letting the list of irrelevant (to streets) external links make me think this is the work of an overly proud Taunton resident. The Literate Engineer 15:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm all for road articles... but this is absurd.Gateman1997 17:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Literate Engineer. --TimPope 17:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excuse me, but hell no. V.Molotov 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. Don't merge it with other perfectly good articles! -Splash 22:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep its a fairly useful (if you live there) but innocuous article on road names and ZIP codes--Machtzu 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedic article.Gateman1997 06:13, 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 --Allen3talk 13:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Naught but a dictionary definition, and unlikely to be more. Al 15:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - dicdef ---Outlander 15:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. --Zetawoof 16:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. --cesarb 18:23, 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 --Allen3talk 13:46, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At best, nn. --BD2412talk 16:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete just what the world needs, more derogatory terms for women Ryan NortonT | @ | C 22:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oh yeah Brian. Alfmelmac 09:29, 4 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 --Allen3talk 13:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Note also that this itself was also vandalised. Sliggy 23:13, September 4, 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 --Allen3talk 13:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Blatant advertising Staxringold 16:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. --TimPope 17:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity ad. Sliggy 18:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - choster 05:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity with advertising. Mindmatrix 13:45, 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 --Allen3talk 13:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Do you really need a reason? :p This article is obviously a fluff piece, and certainly not encyclopedic. Staxringold 16:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They play music. So does a radio. Delete as the semi-literate band vanity it is. - Lucky 6.9 17:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious nn/vanity. Last sentence is a cracker, though ;) --LemonAndLime 17:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there must be a way to speedy delete this. There's no way there will be any serious discussion of keeping it. Friday(talk) 17:29, 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 --Allen3talk 21:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This is a vanity page created about (and most likely by) a college student who was very clever in finding a number of security holes earlier this year but has no real notability. It squeaked through a VfD in March with very few votes either way, but nothing has been added to the article since and there are no significant links to it. I think it's time to re-evaluate the VfD (I vote to Delete). –Shoaler (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete judging by the linked articles, he was not solely responsible for finding the bugs. --TimPope 17:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Tim Pope is correct. If we do have an article about this, it should be about the guy's prof: "Students of iconoclastic computer scientist Daniel Bernstein have found some 44 security flaws in various Unix applications, according to a list of advisories posted online." Sdedeo 20:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm fairly inclusivist when it comes to people (to counter the more general Wikipedia bias in the other direction), but I don't really see the encyclop&alig;dic value of this article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other delete voters' reasoning is correct. Quale 17:58, 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 --Allen3talk 21:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
C&P from the CIA World Factbook; needless duplicate of Bangladesh. --Ngb 17:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yuk. What's the copyritgh status of the CIA Factbook? Public as US Govt work? Anyway, no redirect since no one would search for this without simply finding the Bangladesh article. -Splash 22:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The page was originally listed as a Copyvio, but since as you say the Factbook is public domain (except for the seal of the CIA) it needed to come here instead. --Ngb?!? 12:07, 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 --Allen3talk 21:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad for a website without any Alexa rank at all. Note that 'someone' has been repeatedly vandalising this AfD. -Splash 22:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fan website. And repeated vandalism by the author. --Etacar11 02:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exterminate (repeat ad nauseam). Alfmelmac 09:36, 4 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 --Allen3talk 21:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Believed to be a hoax. ITV4 will be launching later this year but not ITV5. David | Talk 18:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. I'd have heard of it if it were launching in December, and I haven't. Their site doesn't whisper it, and neither does Google. -Splash 22:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. --Etacar11 02:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The JPS 10:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure rubbish Red Dalek 13:03, 5 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 --Allen3talk 21:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Unsigned non-notable band vanity Rx StrangeLove 18:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, nothing in allmusic. Friday(talk) 19:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete untersubstublet about a nn band. Their 'space' on myspace.com reveals they recently got a drummer...If this give them fame and fortune, they can of course try again. -Splash 22:17, 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 --Allen3talk 21:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus, article kept. ~~ N (t/c) 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added "member states" to the title. The EU did not compete at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and this is only such article for an entity which did not compete. The only reason to create this was to support the idea that it should do so, which is a propaganda aim which cannot be made neutral through the phrasing of the article. For non-propaganda purposes this article is of no more relevance than Countries beginning with the letter G at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and much less relevance than Europe at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Africa at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Before voting, please consider whether you would support such articles for NAFTA, ASEAN, or such entities in your part of the world. DeleteOsomec 19:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a fantasy league. And Canada would sweep the Commonwealth Winter Games if there were such an event, but there isn't. Ground Zero | t 19:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps there should be a Commonwealth Winter Games - but that is a separate debate! Rhyddfrydol 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The simple listing of member states is not particularly useful and redundant with (presumably) many other articles. The interpretation required to reach the first bullet point of conclusions is fairly minimal, but relies on assumptions like each athlete still training in the same way, still being funded etc etc. The second bullet is pure speculation. Thus, all the non-repetitive material in the article is original research, and should go per WP:NOR. -Splash 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - For no more reason than I think it's quite interesting. Comparing it to a fictional article entitled Countries beginning with the letter G at the 2004 Summer Olympics is silly, IMO. if the Countries beginning with the letter G had a parliament and were politically related, I could see your point. Particularly if the head of the CBWTLG alliance made comments to do with a united team. I also don't believe the page supports the EU should enter a single team - I don't believe they should. And I, personally, would support a similar page to do with Africa at the Olympics. 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization states that as a united force the African Union won 8 medals, and I believe an article about the African nations at the Olympics could expand that information. Halo 22:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this interesting material, no reason to delete. Possibly rename or reorganize if a better title is suggested. Christopher Parham(talk) 04:46, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
Keep. Why this witch hunting? --Pgreenfinch 07:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, No original research. It may well be interesting, but it's someone's original work and speculation, and is very much opposed by Wikipedia policy. Prototc 09:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
??? Sorry, what original research and speculation? The figures are real and publicly available. --Pgreenfinch 14:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above it relys on assumptions for a start, so doesn't have such a strong basis in fact as it might appear. The second bullet point is entirely speculative — there's no evidenciary justification, other than intuition, for its contents. We are presented with someone's reasoning, and that doesn't clear the factual threshold, or the WP:NOR threshold. -Splash 14:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. EU has nothing to do with the Olympics. No need to have articles on this sampling. Sjakkalle(Check!) 13:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you find it consistent with that article. So why deleting an article that gives details ? Useful info, no? Really,I don't understand your point and would like to know what are the *real* motives for deletion, behind the rationalizations. --Pgreenfinch 06:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not sure with what, but it seems like people really are interested in odd groupings of countries at Olympic games, like by continent, or language group, so I don't object to the list, but it definitely does not merit it's own article. Peter Grey 16:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps there should be a general listing of all the countries which took part in Athens. However those which are member states of the EU is an irrelevance - technically all nations are equal at the Olympic Games. Rhyddfrydol 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question - were any EU member nations not represented at the 2004 Summer Olympics - if all the EU member states were at Athens - why not simply have a list of all EU members on an EU page. Therefore as per my previous entry deleteRhyddfrydol 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Er... isn't that what this is, fundamentally? Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of this article is inherently POV as per nominator; 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization covers the factual content already. The number of medals actually won by the EU member nations is not original research, but presenting that information as though it meant "EU citizens are the world's greatest athletes" is POV. --Metropolitan90 07:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, suppressing an article that gives the pros and cons of that statement, made officially btw, would be POV and anti-encyclopedic. --Pgreenfinch 12:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge' with Sports in the European Union, the EU is often used when comparisons are being made between the members, and I think the information is quite interesting, the data is readily available and not original research, Prodi has himself commented on it, I do not think it's pushing a POV that either the EU is one unified country or that it was represented at the 2004 olympics, nor do I think that it's pushing a POV that the EU has the greatest atheletes. -- Joolz 14:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. -- Joolz 00:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing wrong with this, and the article doesn't give the misleading impression that there is an EU team of some kind. It's a valid topic, and looking through the article I don't see any POV problems. — Trilobite 14:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and develop. The proposal by Romano Prodi was real. The controversy in (mainly UK) papers at the time was real. The medal counts are real. This subject deserves an article - but perhaps with a different title. How about something like "EU and the Olympics" or "Proposals for an EU Olympics team". This could then give the medal results of EU member states at past games, along with a treatment of arguments against the proposals. Seabhcán 15:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC) PS. The Spanish and French Wikipedias have similar articles. PPS. The IOC "does not officially recognize national medal totals"[21] - so ANY medal total information are technically invalid - or put another way - this page is as valid as any other.[reply]
What he said (keep). — Ливай | Ⓣ 16:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have already discussed this and there are no new reasons to overrule the previous decision. Ejrrjs | What? 16:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless. Neutralitytalk 16:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Do we have a table of total historical medals by country? Rich Farmbrough 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way according to policy "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data. " From this POV it's not OR. Rich Farmbrough 00:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The political background to the issue (Romano Prodi's comments) clinch this one for me, I don't see why it should be deleted, and don't believe it to be POV. If it is decided that it doesn't merit its own page, I think the information should be merged with 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. David 5000 17:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. Agree with points made by Trilobite and others. Warofdreams 18:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles is not pointless, is reasonably balanced and has an in-depth discussion. It has already survived a previous VfD. Alfio 21:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information provided justifies the need to have its own article. However, I don't think other int. organisations should have this kind of article. *drew 23:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, the third time is it now? I think that the Romano Prodi's comments made this article to be started, an event in international news in 2004. —kooo 23:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Articles which have already been submitted to VfD and determined to be kept should not be resubmitted. VfD is already numerously abused without this kind of nonsense occuring. --OldakQuill 12:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it survived VfD, and this is AfD, doesn't mean that it can be re-nominated. :-) James F.(talk) 22:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not relevant. EU doesn't compete as a single entity. Sounds like POV EU propaganda to me. Mariano(t/c) 07:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does no harm. Dmn €Դմն 14:00, 5 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 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.
Look at it, and enough said. I mean, there is no article at all!D. J. Bracey(talk) 19:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look at what, exactly? android79 19:32, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thank you for linking that. Since there's no content but a stub notice, and there never has been more than that, this is speediable, and Thatdog already beat me to tagging it as such. android79 19:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I've tagged it for Speedy delete. Thatdog 19:50, 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 speedy deleted as an attack page. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:18, 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.
This entry must refer to the small outcropping between the eastern ends of runways 27 and 33 at Logan International Airport which has some piece of airport equipment installed on top of it. Utterly unremarkable. Pilatus 20:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Though it is an unremarkable geographic feature, and I would be inclinded to delete it as useless information, it looks like it may be notable to people who frequent the airport. There is no reason to delete geographical features unless it's something like, "There's a rock in my backyard that I named Promitory of Syrae." I think that this is an interesting tidbit, and if anything it should be merged into the Logan International Airport article. Syrae Faileas 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unremarkable or not, this is a named geographic feature that someone somewhere might want to learn about it. Wikipedia is not paper. Thatdog 20:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or add one more line in the Logan International Airport page. Wiki might not be paper, but it's not infinite either. - Hahnchen 01:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Logan article. Hardly deserves its own. --Etacar11 02:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Syrae. Nandesuka 12:11, 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 --Allen3talk 21:01, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity; Created by anonymous IP 167.193.152.201 and User:Scyoung121, presumably the same person, who has done nothing but promote this site, write articles on it, add links to it to unrelated articles, etc. Site has only existed since November of last year. Jdavidb 20:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also need to delete The Phalanx, started out as a poor redirect and now a correct redirect, again created by the same person. Jdavidb 20:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and clean up this guy's spam elsewhere. Sdedeo 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising, and fairly obvious at that ---Outlander 20:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Keep i just discovered this site, it looks like every other entry here, why delete? macjacob 20:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh. You've made one edit at Wikipedia, and you're qualified to tell us it looks like every other article? How long have you been on Wikipedia? Jdavidb 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One might suspect the user is trying out a new pair of socks ---Outlander 18:18, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I know this isn't a democracy but I figured I was at least entitled to my opinion, delete it for all I care macjacob 18:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article (if you can call it that) is crap! Mb1000 17:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badvertisment. Alfmelmac 09:47, 4 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 --Allen3talk 13:19, September 6, 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 --Allen3talk 17:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although I must say I rather hope this catches on. - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that's the shortest neoligism I've seen here too Ryan NortonT | @ | C 22:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 00:49, 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 --Allen3talk 17:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - The authenticity of this page is in dispute. Apparently, there is a real Lake Wobegon effect, and there is a real Ola Svenson (googling on the name "Ola Svenson" in conjunction with "Wobegon" produces a few google hits, all of which cite an academic paper written by Ola Svenson in 1981. This page was originally flagged for a speedy delete, claiming it as an obvious hoax. I'm not 100% certain of that, given the seeming existence of the "Lake Wobegon effect" as an apparently genuine term used in the psychological sciences.
Of course, it may very well be a hoax. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is. So I've removed the "Speedy Delete" flag and put it up for a vote. Extreme Unction 21:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per Uppland. My apologies for removing the Speedy Delete in the first place. Extreme Unction 01:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Nah, you were probably right to take it here; sometimes it's not that easy to tell. Let it remain for the normal duration of the VfD. If we're lucky, somebody may actually turn it into an article on the real Ola Svenson. If not, nothing is really lost. Uppland 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So she published a paper. Nothing special. I can't even find her on the Uni's website; they don't appear to have a psychology department for a start. Having a 'famous' big sister does nothing for you. Notability is not inherited. I turned up no Googles on a join Uni+name search. So we have WP:V problems for a start and WP:PROF problems at the end. Supposing she's even a prof. -Splash 23:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The (near-nonsensical) pseudo-academic jargon may give the impression of legitimacy, but that Ola is claimed to have have a brother who is a noted "ichthyologist who did a dissertation on the illusive characteristics of Lutefisk and also did a comparative study on the puzzling relationship between aquavit and lutefisk" gives it away as a joke. Ola is a male name, BTW, but it's a common mistake among non-Scandinavians to assume the opposite. Ola Svenson is a real Swedish psychologist (born 1939), a professor at Stockholm University, and has published quite a lot (homepage). He probably deserves an article, but this is not it. Delete unless rewritten to be about the real Ola Svenson. Uppland 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. Not even funny enough for BJAODN. MCB 05:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. Cyclopia 11:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and possible replace with an article about a real Ola Svenson). // Liftarn
Delete - mostly nonsense, and nn without supplying further details of academic achievements and publications CLW 12:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Uppland. Jeltztalk 19:50, 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 --Allen3talk 17:24, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologism with no inherent notability. --Russ Blau(talk) 21:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Can't see it becoming more than an expanded dicdef. Alfmelmac 09:52, 4 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 --Allen3talk 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
This appears to be a vanity article. The majority of the 29 Google matches for this musician refer back to Wikipedia. Delete. Hall Monitor 21:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few blog entries about him, but nothing noteworthy ---Outlander 21:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable. Surprisingly though, AMG does list a Lucas McFadden, [22], but this one plays for a different band. Jaxl | talk 00:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity page. Mindmatrix 13:45, 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 --Allen3talk 16:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jaxl | talk 00:54, 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 --Allen3talk 16:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Jaxl | talk 00:55, 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 --Allen3talk 16:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as obvious hoax; zero total Google and Yahoo! hits for "Gaskalus", and the spelling strongly suggests a juvenile attempt to Latinize the name of someone the poster wants to tease. --Russ Blau(talk) 21:48, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Borders on speedy. --BD2412talk 23:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3talk 16:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising? vanity? whatever it is, it certainly isn't encyclopedia material. Merge anything useful into Warcraft III and delete the rest Outlander 20:52, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pn. - choster 01:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's anything notable about this site, it isnt presented here. PredatorX 21:36, 31 August 2005 (GMT+12)
Delete. Nonsense. *drew 12:07, 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 speedy deleted. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted "Clock Crew" page. Billpg 22:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens, it's a speedy. Done and done. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:06, 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 --Allen3talk 15:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Local access cable shows do not an article make. This guy is spamming the site with other articles realted to himself and...dare I say it...his band. - Lucky 6.9 22:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; searching for "Floor 42" "Josh Parker" yields 0 results. Jaxl | talk 00:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Roodog2k 01:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above (it's so true) Schalicto 07:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the above new user admitted to writing this in the first place, apparently for fun. Naughty boy. :) Seriously, if you haven't yet checked your talk page, thanks for your honesty and welcome to the club! - Lucky 6.9 14:23, 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 --Allen3talk 15:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Probably a vanity page. The website is down, and is not mentioned on any other webpage. Apoc2400 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, our only choice is to delete. Gets google hits, albeit irrelevant ones. Punkmorten 22:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a website. Wow. Not many of them, these days. Especially not with so little traffic it doesn't get a rank on Alexa at all. Advertising. Two people barely constitute a 'group' on the internet. -Splash 23:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Splash. Jaxl | talk 00:59, 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 speedy delete. Coffee 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read that crap and you'll agree. V.Molotov 22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Coffee 22:06, 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
Speedy deleted by Lucky 6.9. Titoxd 05:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two relevant Googles from the Floor 42 and Josh Parker gang. BTW, would another admin take a look at the Parker entry? I'm getting an error message preventing me from deleteing it as a vanity article. - Lucky 6.9 22:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind...I fixed it. No more Josh. :) - Lucky 6.9 22:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
unintended? BJAODN It made me LOL Roodog2k 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like we can zap this and BJAODN it. The author owned up to this as an experiment and has established an account. I think he's going to have fun here. If there are no objections, I'll check back later and make it go away. - Lucky 6.9 14:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OOps, edit conflict, Lucky, looks like we were thinking the same thing. Here's my original edit: Any reason not to speedy delete this as an admitted hoax now? It was funny, though. I'll add the speedy tag and see if anyone's willing to delete it. Friday(talk) 14:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put it up for speedy deletion guys, I don't really know what happens now. I'm glad you all enjoyed it :) Schalicto(talk) 10:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. I'm having a heck of a time finding the templates that add the infobox around this discussion. Anyone...? - Lucky 6.9 16:49, 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 --Allen3talk 15:32, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Alfmelmac 10:08, 4 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 --Allen3talk 15:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; me neither. Jaxl | talk 01:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; and the cat stared blankly back. Alfmelmac 10:09, 4 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 --Allen3talk 15:25, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. His asteroid work is notable. See 15462 Stumegan. Pburka 00:54, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Borderline keep — he did discover a close-approaching asteroid in 2004. — RJH 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article was missing its {{vfd}} header while being discussed here. I have replaced it. No vote. Hall Monitor 00:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I edited some of the content to be less 'vain' and added details of my second near earth asteroid discovery. [Stu Megan]
Keep. I'm ok with this article, even though it's quite short. Alfmelmac 10:15, 4 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 --Allen3talk 15:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
An advert for a book with a "limited edition/first printing" run of 270 copies. One question mark is a British Fantasy Award 2004-nominated story included within it. However, overall this is below my notability radar.
Delete. The short story collection British fantasy award nomination is covered at Andrew Hook, which might need looking at too. Hidingtalk 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles, and there are many of them now, are the doing of Sean Wright, someone who is using Wikipedia as a marketing tool. His articles are full of half truths, spin, lack of neutrality, and general rubbish. Connor Wolf 23:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, Connor, old son. You have the facts terribly twisted - YOU are the one using Wikipedia to raise your own profile. Just a quick look at your history reveals a sick Sean Wright obsession. My sorrow and sympathy for you is growing daily. And...you said you were giving up the charade, but YOU lie, my friend. Please give my regards to Uncle David and Aunty John.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3talk 15:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Advetisment for an online book.A google search for the name and the author has only one hit, and that link is down Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising. Also, that story will never become true as I really don't know any good work with so many volumes filled with that kind of bad ideas that had success and/or the writer could even finished the collection. Imaginarians? Just another story in which the topic is the battle and interaction between the "real" world (it isn't actually real, because it's real only in the story thus, in the imagination!!!) vs. imagination world. --Neigel von Teighen 23:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only a few chapters are finished. Maybe try again when it gets some press and finished or something Ryan NortonT | @ | C 23:39, 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 --Allen3talk 15:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable [23]PhilipO 23:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete appears to be nn musician vanity stub. --Etacar11 02:46, 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 --Allen3talk 15:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable Website vanity and advertising. Tysto 23:54, 2005 August 30 (UTC)
Good work, kids. DeleteAshibaka (tock) 01:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 01:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - choster 05:17, 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 --Allen3talk 15:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. -- DS1953 01:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not humerous. Not funny either. Not appropriate for encyclopedia. --WCFrancis 01:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleEating Jeffrey. Another mean-anything-you-like meme. Alfmelmac 10:21, 4 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 --Allen3talk 15:10, September 5, 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.
19:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
| Talk 20:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
| Talk 20:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
11:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
19:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]