Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 5 August 7 >

2005-08-06[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Tagged as copyvio. --malathion talk 05:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jung, tak young[edit]

Maybe this individual is significant, but this is a resume, not an article, and almost certainly posted by the subject (see Image:DSCN7012.JPG, currently on ifd, and note the username of its contributor and the email address given). —Cryptic (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Tak-Young Jung. Numerous solo art exhibitions around the world. Pburka 01:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The capitalization needs to be fixed, but I wouldn't support changing the name order unless that is the individual's preference or widespread usage. -- Visviva 13:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The artist's own website indicates that he hyphenates his first name, and the Wikipedia convention is to place first names first. Note that the artist's e-mail address is tak_young_jung, so he seems to be a bit flexible about the ordering and the hyphenation. Pburka 14:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Kappa 05:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and send to clean up. While he seems notable enough, the article as it stands is a CV. Capitalistroadster 06:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like a resume but this is not an employment agency; also, this individual does not seem to be a notable figure in history so far. UniReb 06:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously needs work, but if those art exhibitions are legit then it's definitely worth keeping. Agentsoo 12:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. VfD is not cleanup. -- Visviva 13:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from his personal website. --Scimitar parley 16:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HyTek Hosting, LLC[edit]

Delete nn webhost. Gets about 46 useful Googles with Wikipedia mirrors removed. Alexa rank for their site is about 960,000. -Splash 00:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Self Promotion. I'm putting HyTek's 2 employees up for deletion too, Joshua Stein and Andrew R. Smith. - Hahnchen 00:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Self Promotion. --pippo2001 01:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 01:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it is OK to keep this, then I think we need a micahclemens.com article :) MicahMN | Talk 03:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - <(','<) <( ',' )> (>',')> <( ',' )> <(','<) <( ',' )> (>',')> - UniReb 06:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew R. Smith[edit]

None notable vanity page. Self Promotion for a hosting company - Hahnchen 00:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Joshua Stein[edit]

None notable vanity page. Self Promotion for a hosting company. - Hahnchen 00:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nnnanity per Hahnchen. -Splash 00:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Self Promotion. --pippo2001 01:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (unless... it reaches Fortune 500) but for now it needs to be deleted. Not much time left for the company to make it to the list... yipes!! UniReb 06:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Vanity, non-notable --Dysepsion 21:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete again -- Radiant_>|< 11:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

PythonMOO[edit]

Rework of a previously deleted page (previous VfD here). Speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material was protested by the website's creator. Still appears to be a webpage of little to no notoriety. --Allen3 talk 00:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --pippo2001 01:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big Sigh. OK, I'll play along with this. The claim is that this version is significantly different from the previous version. My recollection is that it's pretty much the same, but the original is gone from view of non-admin eyes so I can't say for sure. Could some admin please do a temporary restore of the original someplace so we can compare them? --RoySmith 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most recent version from before the original deletion has been restored, and may be viewed in the article's revision history. The primary difference is the About section in the new versions. --Allen3 talk 09:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete MOOve along, nothing to see here. Hamster Sandwich 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My head is spinning... <(o_o)> ... UniReb 06:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied. The content is essentially the same; the only difference was the middle paragraph which was filled with obvious trivia (e.g. that you can use either a regular or a special telnet client to connect to it). Radiant_>|< 11:42, August 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, with a vote of 3 to 7. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Stormwind (band)[edit]

Delete, I think. They have one LP and one EP, released by a lable allmusic.com hasn't heard of. Allmusic.com has heard of a more modern artist by this name, but that artist only has 1 release (back in 2003) so fails WP:MUSIC anyway. My slight uncertainty stems from the fact that the information might have disappeared from the web because they were from the mid-80s. -Splash 00:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't find anything on this band. But there is a lot of info on a Swedish Stormwind, formed in 1997. Although just the mention of Udo Dirkschneider almost made me vote to keep. Udo is way cool. Hamster Sandwich 01:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ...unless if there can be any acceptable, creditable, notable information placed in the article about the subject. UniReb 07:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 12:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Borderline notability -- I'm more inclined to keep bands which have some history behind them. Pburka 14:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article is revised to cite some references. Most of the Google hits for "storm wind 'heavy metal'" refer to the Swedish band as mentioned by Hamster Sandwich. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at the moment. There are severe verifiability problems with this article. Would vote to keep if there was reliable sources provided for the information but I can't find any. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might be a footnote in some other articles but nn on its own. --Etacar11 04:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme normal keep, per Pburka. —RaD Man (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable.  Grue  19:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, which is there for a reason. --Icelight 22:11, August 8, 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 Marked as copyvio. – Malathion 05:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"marshall krause"[edit]

Well it's certainly interesting, and the case shows up on a google search, I just wonder if it's actually that notable. Plus also the text seems to slip into a fictional style of writing about half way through. Francs2000 | Talk 00:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Research I will bet a beer that this is a copyvio. I'll investigate. Nandesuka 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I'm tired, I forgot to check that -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries. It was a complete cut and paste job from sfweekly.com. I've replaced the text with the copyvio notice, listed it on the relevant page, and think that this should be speedy delete. Good catch. Nandesuka 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid I can't buy you a beer though. Not unless you live within a certain radius of Buckinghamshire... -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. Hamster Sandwich 01:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as agreed with Hamster Sandwich, as it may be a "copyvio." UniReb 07:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio. --Apyule 07:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. FCYTravis 02:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What middle schoolers in Hawaii do[edit]

Poorly written, bad title, 1st person, etc. etc. Joygerhardt 00:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it. Why is this stuff not speediable? -Splash 00:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now I think about, it is just an attempt to contact people so is speediable under CSD A4, "an attempt to correspond". -Splash 00:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's rather sweet actually. Delete with impunity -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --pippo2001 01:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Francs2000. I thought it was sweet too. I wish my old school had ukelele players. I probably wouldn't have cut so many classes. Hamster Sandwich 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UMHC[edit]

Delete. Just a hiking club at a Uni. -Splash 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Contains useful, cross-referenced information. Other far less informative hiking club pages exsist!. --Coops
    • Note: User's fifth edit. -R. fiend 13:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit first person reportage. I'd do it, but I'm far to out of shape...puff....wheeze... Hamster Sandwich 01:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "The club has a long history (which we'll get up here soon!)". It currently reads like an advert. Even if it was NPOV it would be of little interest to anyone outside the university. Why can't they put this on their website? Flowerparty talk 02:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - unless... if there is any significantly-notable information added onto this article soon about the club and/or its history. UniReb 07:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe mention in the University's article, but it's not even anything I would call worth a merge (or even a smerge). Every university or college has dozens or more clubs, some of them aren't even around for more than a few years. College clubs are rarely notable. -R. fiend 13:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Tobycat 20:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by UninvitedCompany. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)


Kaustav[edit]

Delete, non-notable for sure. Speedy? I couldn't decide. -Splash 00:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These Black Eyes[edit]

Non-notable fan fiction. Not even sure what all this is. Thought about speedy, decided to play it safe. If deleted, please check for articles linked to this one. RADICALBENDER★ 00:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Uhhhhh.......this is the biggest fanfiction to my knowledge on ff.net, if not in existence. It's got its own fan forum. Please explain how it is non-notable. - Sneal
    • Note that Sneal is the author of the page. Note also that I didn't vote.
  • Delete - Pretty much all fanfiction is none notable. They're not all that popular, nor are they of publishable quality. The article is also pretty badly written. - Hahnchen 01:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This wouldn't be of interest to anyone outside of the fanfiction community (maybe only ff.net), or really devoted fans of Teen Titans. Junkyard prince 01:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfic. -- BD2412 talk 01:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above.Hamster Sandwich 01:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fanfic. =P Xaa 03:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ...as it seem to have blinded me for life ...figuratively-speaking! :) UniReb 07:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's one of the most popular pieces of fanfiction on fanfiction.net, why not just merge it into fanfiction.net? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Please not that i am from Germany, so expect no perfect English.) it deserves its own entry here, as this story represents "Teen Titans Revolution".

It features many Aspects which are untouched in the Comics and the Show of Teen Titans. And as a constantly Reader of this Masterpiece, i can say that it stands with Show and Comics on the same Quality level or more surpasses it, in Dimension that are not possible in Comics or Show. extra mentioned should be the incredible lenght and the Fan Support for it, own Forum, Reviews Count and so on.

note: user's first edit. Junkyard prince 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep Please keep this entry. This is the one most remarkable pieces of fanfiction on the net to date and has an avid fan following. People should have the chance to learn about it.

note: user's first edit. Junkyard prince 17:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete, fan fiction is rarely notable and this fan fiction seems to be more notable than most, but still not conspiciously so. Lord Bob 19:00, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is there any notable fanfic? tregoweth 19:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well, a fanfic that caused fifteen people to kill themselves in glorious sacrifice to Harry/Draco slash might be notable. But at this stage, that is, thankfully, purely hypothetical. Lord Bob 20:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Then I guess I should get writing. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan fiction is not notable. Not even the one where Spock and Kirk did it. RasputinAXP 20:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn fan fiction. --Etacar11 04:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep (bad faith nomination) -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Avramopoulos[edit]

This article reads more like a resume or advertising, nowhere near up to Wiki standards, I feel it should be considered for deletion DuckKing 00:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you look in the page history there is a decent version of the article before a new user changed it to read like a CV. As this guy is a Greek politician with over 13,700 google hits to his name I have reverted the article to the earlier version and vote speedy keep -- Francs2000 | Talk 00:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - DuckKing has vandalised the page himself and then nominated it for deletion. - Hahnchen 01:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. Pburka 01:43, August 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. – Malathion 05:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Uncut[edit]

Non-notable Sonic flash on Newgrounds -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What the heck is it? Game cruft? non encyclopedic at any rate. Hamster Sandwich 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though my mind raced at "...things that you'd never seen Sonic and the gang do before." -Splash 04:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please. I beg of you. Nandesuka 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How about Sonic Deleted? Vote also applies to Sonic Uncut 1 and Sonic Uncut 2. Capitalistroadster 06:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let('s) "Sonic" out of here...! UniReb 07:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Zxcvbnm 00:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Uncut 1[edit]

Non-notable Sonic flash on Newgrounds -- Bobdoe (Talk) 00:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Jeebuz! I can't believe I read that! Hamster Sandwich 01:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think my brain just exploded Cyclone49 03:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel stupider just for having read the first few lines. -Splash 04:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will never get those brain cells back again. Nandesuka 04:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let('s) "Sonic" out of here... AGAIN...! UniReb 07:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless there's a "gibberish" language 'pedia it could be moved to Tonywalton 22:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Garbage.--Zxcvbnm 00:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B1249[edit]

I live nearby to this road. It is a none notable single carriage road, not really worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Hahnchen 00:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, If this is the equivalent of the state highway in the U.S. then it should not be deleted.Gateman1997 01:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • B-roads are countryside lanes. Pilatus 11:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hahnchen. I'm trusting that the phrase "single carriage lane" implies it is a secondary road. Hamster Sandwich 01:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct - The B designation of the road signals a minor road. Hahnchen 01:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification! 'preciate it! Hamster Sandwich 02:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A roads would be the equivalent of state highways. B roads are minor, frequently little more than country lanes. And there are thousands of them - the vast majority of which wouldn't merit articles. Unless this one is significantly notewarthy in some way, delete Grutness...wha? 02:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC) (who once lived alongside the B4031)[reply]
    • Changing vote to weak keep. The more I think about it the more I realise it does little harm, is useful, and - hell, it looks like someone is writing up a lot of them. Certainly more encyclopedia worthy than a lot of the cruft here. Grutness...wha? 04:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the last comment my vote is KeepGateman1997 17:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Clean Up - Please add in more details about the subject if possible. UniReb 07:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, roads are useful for navigation. Kappa 12:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an atlas of every road on the planet. -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete B roads in Britain are minor road, there would end up being thousands of these small stubs, which would present a rather poor image in an encyclopaedia. There might be some way of presenting the information in wikipedia, but it seems unlikely. --Tim Pope 17:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest a look at B5405 road, B876 road, and Walton Summit motorway. Uncle G 22:51:36, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
      • I looked at those articles and they all seem like minor roads as well. I don't think theres anything here that is more than directions from one small town to another. I guess if those three articles came up for deletion I would have to vote against their inclusion. I might be wrong, and just need convincing. Thanks UG! Hamster Sandwich 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • those three are now listed. --Tim Pope 11:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Grutness and Tim Pope. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, non-notable. Sabine's Sunbird 14:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep roads designated at the national level. --SPUI (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seriously, the vast majority of B-roads are lanes. This is ridiculous. Proto t c 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this entry and all other entries by the B-road vandal B-roads are minor roads; in Britain national roads are designated A-roads. Pilatus 11:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons at Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom The JPS 16:45, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as IMO graduating in the top 25 percent of your class merely means you're better than 75 percent of those in your class. There's nothing notable about it, or anything else he's done. FCYTravis 21:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shinu Chacko[edit]

Non-notable job seeker. Google returns 15 hits. RADICALBENDER★ 00:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. good luck on the job hunt! Hamster Sandwich 01:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't this be speedy deleted? No claim to notability. Sdedeo 03:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity, speedy if possible. Jaxl | talk 03:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not wiki enough... also, this individual hasn't done anything significantly notable... UniReb 07:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Earning a $40,000 scholarship and graduating first in class are assertions of some notability, so speedy would be inappropriate, but the notability is insufficient to keep the article. Pburka 14:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: for now the page will have to go on account of guidelines, but wishing him best of luck. --Bhadani 17:11, 6 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. --malathion talk 05:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of shows that are widely considered to have jumped the shark[edit]

Delete. EXTREMELY POV, and nonencyclopedic. This is what I would call an indiscriminate collection of information, which is listed as What Wikipedia is not. The basis for each inclusion on this article is opinion, and the title is written in jargon. --Zpb52 01:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Jumping the shark. Hamster Sandwich 01:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • DELETE Change my vote in light of all the new info here. Thanks! Hamster Sandwich 23:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Please note that this info was removed from Jumping the shark, largely for POV reasons. -R. fiend 13:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      How? By pasting the whole list in the article? I could see a redirect, but a merge? JRM · Talk 01:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too POV to be considered encyclopedic. For instance saying the Simpsons has jumped the shark disqualifies the article by itself.Gateman1997 01:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. As if Simpsons hasn't. Keep. -- A Link to the Past 04:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is the sort of POV battling that articles like this tend to engender. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As if I'm gonna respond to such absurdity any other way. -- A Link to the Past 17:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but "widely considered" isn't going to cut it in this case. There are no references to be found in that entire list—except, of course, for http://www.jumptheshark.com. Well, Wikipedia is not jumptheshark.com. JRM · Talk 01:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV. There's already a list at jumptheshark.com. -Ichabod 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has been here for three months and has had many, many editors. John Barleycorn 04:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to stress that a decision to delete an article isn't meant to hurt its editors. On the flip side, we will never decide to keep an article because deleting it would hurt its editors either. That nobody's suggested its deletion in three months doesn't imply it's a valid article; likewise, editing an article doesn't mean you would oppose its deletion. JRM · Talk 10:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, and duplicates a section of Jumping the shark. There's been previous discussion of what to do with examples, and "minimize them beyond what's necessary to convey the idea]] seems to have been the consensus. Even the title contains weasel words! — mendel ☎ 05:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't look back...!! :o UniReb 07:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, unencyclopedic, irrelevant, duplicate information. Bhumiya Talk 08:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV trainwreck. Do we really need List of awesome TV shows, List of TV shows that suck, List of TV shows you're an idiot if you like, and so forth? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV. Radiant_>|< 11:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For a start, I'd never heard of "jumping the shark" until a few minutes ago and the "widely considered" bit breaks naming conventions. But the content of the list is POV all the way, and even if this were to be resolved by adding references to everything (which seems unlikely) it would still be unsuitable list material for an encyclopedia and little more than an abuse of Wikipedia as a free web host. Flowerparty talk 12:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was removed from the Jump the shark page a while ago for POV (well, and size) reasons, and I'm not really sure why it wasn't challenged as a separate article until now. It is obviously POV, and practically a copy/paste from the jump the shark website, which is exactly where these debates should be taking place, not in wikipedia. We have a link there in the main article, which should suffice. -R. fiend 13:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, POV, and unsourced speculation. Kaibabsquirrel 15:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently POV. Maybe an external link to jumptheshark.com can stay. Punkmorten 18:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is what the external link to jumptheshark.com is for. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep what's wrong with it?  Grue  19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, nothing! All the arguments of the other people have been refuted. :-P JRM · Talk 20:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing but POV - Hardcore fans never think that their favorite series "jumps the shark" when their opponents would think that the series did it in the pilot episode. The list could potentially include every single series that have been cancelled - and it happens to all of them eventually Skysmith 09:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV -- Chris 20:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. That said, there needs to be a way to list examples of shark jumping outside the main JTS Wikipedia page. It's great that the Cousin Oliver and Chuck Cunningham syndrome pages have been created to list some of these JTS examples, but there needs to be more articles similar to those, and then some sort of disambiguation page to list each of the JTS categories, as I suggested in the "merge" discussion on this article's talk page, which frankly I'm surprised no one has picked up on. Perhaps that would be an acceptable compromise. [[206.72.11.46 22:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
One final comment – I appreciate JRM's comment that vfds are not meant to be personal, and that usually they're made for good reasons. Besides, I've moved on to better things, so deleting this page may hurt my pride but only for a little while. Just remember the disambig page idea.
  • Delete - too subjective to be encyclopedic. One person's shark-jumper is another person's favorite show. "Widely considered" can't be quantified. Consider keeping if retitled to "Shows that have been cancelled or will likely be cancelled at some future date". The Hokkaido Crow 01:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing but POV... --Raistlin 12:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noir (TBE)[edit]

Even if an individual piece of fanfiction is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (currently undergoing debate here), a character from it certainly is not. Junkyard prince 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, reading that has made my eyes bleed. -Splash 01:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Totally agree with you guys. Was going to vfd it myself. - Hahnchen 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Beaten to it. RADICALBENDER★ 01:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately before this scars someone. -- BD2412 talk 01:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Splash and BD2412. Delete as a public service. Hamster Sandwich 01:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's painful to even attempt to read --Dysepsion 05:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ow. Mistercow 06:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before it can cause any more damage... ahhhh!!! UniReb 07:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Really bad fanfiction Delete with extreme prejudice. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a large hammer, please. Wow. nn. And painful. RasputinAXP 20:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fanfic. Xaa 23:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The four key steps to winning the start in sailing[edit]

  • Delete, WP:ISNOT a how-to or FAQ. -Splash 01:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. --RoySmith 01:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. FreplySpang (talk) 01:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sailing. Wikipedia is kind of, sort of a how to book sometimes. Hamster Sandwich 01:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Thanks for the info. but hate to stay... gotta' delete/run!!! :) UniReb 07:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not and never will be an encyclopedia article; unless these "four keys steps" are to sailing what the "Five Pillars" are to Islam, but I think not. Flowerparty talk 12:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone wants to transwiki it to wikibooks or whatever, that's fine with me, but I've recently come to believe that transwiki votes, as they deal with actions outside of wikipedia, cannot be officially enforceable votes. -R. fiend 13:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chief'd[edit]

Delete. I don't know what this wants to be, but it sure isn't a Wikipedia article. And no self-respecting academics would write an article like that: so I reckon it's a bunch of bored student. -Splash 01:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What the heck is this supposed to represent? Its certainly not an article about anything. Hamster Sandwich 01:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like some kind of college student posse. Gazpacho 04:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent nonsense perhaps? Mistercow 06:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent nonsense.→Encephalon | T | C 06:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wiki already has a philosophy and mission! UniReb 07:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agreed, Mistercow and Encephalon. shouldn't this have been speedied as "patent nonsense"?
  • Delete - Wikipedia has been chief'd !!
  • Delete - I suspect some bored young men are being tricky, but we have taught a trick wiser than them.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 kick the ass of meat puppets. – malathion talk 06:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SimCentral[edit]

Delete communitycruft. Includes a list of neologisms too, in case anyone's unsure about deleting. Alexa rank is about 187,000. -Splash 01:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Splash. I was about to VfD this myself -Harmil 01:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this VfD should also include Simcentral.net, a redirect that points to this page. -Harmil 01:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's 16th edit. Has only edited VfDs. -Splash 02:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. looks like a cool site, let's keep it.Stpking 02:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No such user. Edit actually by 24.91.45.175 (talk · contribs). Same IP previously blanked this page. -Splash 02:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! --Xaa 03:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft. Nandesuka 04:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see no reason why it needs to be deleted. Ssmexican 04:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe a little disorganized, but not useless. To me, communitycruft would be an article on "Gwynar" (one of the words in the dictionary within the article). The article gives a basic understanding of what the topic is, which could certainly be of use and interest to people who are not hardcore fans. Mistercow 06:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently Sock Central! Capitalistroadster 07:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of socks. I hate for that to be the central reason for an article's deletion, though. Mistercow 07:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing notable there but babble! >.< UniReb 07:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable forum. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. 90,000 google results is notable enough for me. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 13:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, if you go to the end of the results, you'll see that as far as unique results go, there are about 50. That said, how notable is "notable enough"? Last I checked, there was nothing in the Wikipedia deletion policy that said an article's subject matter has to have above x Alexa rank, or more than y Google hits. Some things are obvious cruft: an article about a character from a work of fan fiction for example. In cases like this, where the subject is an internet community, I think that the term is inappropriate. Look at Wikipedia:Fancruft. Is this article of minimal interest to non-fans? I submit that it is not. I also feel that the fact that an article contains a list of neologisms does not necessarily make it deletable. It is pretty clear on the deletion policy page that the policy against neologisms is against the coining of neologisms. The policy is in fact against original research. To say that the inclusion in an article of preexisting neologisms which are heavily associated with the subject is unambiguous grounds for deletion is extremely foolish. In that case, I can go to any article I dislike and add a list of "common" terms, and in minutes, someone will surely VfD it. Somehow, I think not. Mistercow 15:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sock-puppet supported nnanity. FCYTravis 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable Internetcruft. Is that a word? It should be. Lord Bob 19:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, shows brief history on former baseball games. Hardcoremax 02:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, only mention of the great High Heat baseball series on Wikipedia. The Mike Sausage reference is prety funny too :) Huhuhenry 04:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant outside the subject matter, sockpuppet galore - Skysmith 09:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - came across this while looking at the mvp baseball page, looks interesting. Sonic1985 01:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that this user added the only SimCentral reference on MVP Baseball 2005. Meaning that Sonic1985 either "came across" SimCentral by way of clairvoyance, or has short term memory loss and "came across" it moments after adding it to the article. I find my defense of this article harder and harder to stand by. Mistercow 12:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it was also only his 17th edit. And all of these sockpuppets (with the exception of Numba1xclusive) have been following the same pattern of creating an account, spending a day editing the pages of baseball players and uploaded untagged images that should probably all go on IfD because I doubt very much they're free, and then stopping their editing. Not what I'd call the most valid votes ever. Lord Bob 18:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's little worthwhile information in the article. It's mainly about the forum and its sayings - Sempron 10:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Arello[edit]

Ad for non-notable organization, from the same user who created Dixie Randock, Real Estate Education Association and A Institute. --cesarb 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This isn't the yellow pages... please direct yourself to the nearest phone company. Thank you and good morning/afternoon/evening/& night. :) UniReb 07:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely non-notable. Amcfreely 13:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hujjat 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 22:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-threading libraries[edit]

Has too much redlinks to be useful. This could be done more efficiently with a category. --R.Koot 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This comment will probably come too late, but... it is highly unlikely that articles will ever be written for the redlinks here, if someone does it would most likely get deleted because of non-notability. --R.Koot 23:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --R.Koot 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain. The people below me are right about my self-contradictory argument. But it remains a crappy article. --R.Koot 15:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to abstain I'm not nearly smart enough to know what this stuff means. sorry. Hamster Sandwich 01:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - A category fails for this use exactly because it cannot list items which do not have articles. A list of such libraries is useful even if many of them do not have full articles unto themselves. -R. S. Shaw 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, off to a good start, and ditto RSShaw. Gazpacho 04:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, a useful article inasmuch as it creates wanted pages for undescribed libraries. Collabi 05:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redlinks are useful, categories are not adequate replacements for lists. Kappa 05:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa and R. S. Shaw. A list like this can tell users what articles need writing. Mistercow 06:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists are useful if prospective articles are all on notable topics. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - Not sure... but basically this vote is probably useless since it's "Undecided"... >.< UniReb 07:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know anything about the topic, but the nomination is self-contradictory, as we can't have a category for things which only exist as red links. Uppland 09:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the nominator has retracted his original self-contradictory motivation, but there may be other arguments for deletion which I don't feel qualified to dispute, I'm changing my vote to abstain. Uppland 07:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I do understand the topic, and the article as it stands is useless, since it doesn't even mention what platforms (MacOS? Windows? Linux? Solaris? You-name-it?) it's talking about. Re-work it as aMulti-threaded computing' libraries stub with explanation of what it's talking about and it might be worth having. As it stands, delete it.
  • Delete. This kind of information is just too fluid and article would be unmaintainable. This may be useful list for specialised website. Instead of such lists Thread (computer science) would be better worked on - it is in rather messy state. (Btw, category would be even worse than the article.) Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oy, keep this, it's actually a very useful list. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just out of curiosity? What makes this list useful? --R.Koot 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a nice extensible list of multi-threading libraries all gathered in a single place. If I'm choosing a library for an application, that's the place to start. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an extremely useless list. I'm currently in the process of choosing a multi-threading library for an application, and this list gives me no useful information: it doesn't indicate platform, it doesn't indicate license, it doesn't indicate language, it doesn't indicate type of threads, it doesn't indicate library maturity, it doesn't indicate library homepage, and it isn't complete. --Carnildo 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{sofixit}}! Seriously, though, half the battle is knowing the names of the libraries available. Google is your friend. This isn't a wiki by accident, you know. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later: rewrite. I was in a generous mood so I've made a start on adding the attributes you mentioned. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a web directory. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you don't like the external links, just edit them out. No need to delete the entire article. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please refrain from commenting on any every vote that's not in concordance with yours. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. That would be silly. This is supposed to be a discussion; if we didn't comment on one another's votes there would be nothing relevant to discuss. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I do not agree with your vote, I completly agree with that. --R.Koot 10:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that was badly said. I see now that what I wrote had very little in common with what I was thinking! =P What I meant was "Tony why do you have to pipe up on every vote that is different than yours?" Using "any" makes that sound like something entirely different, sorry. However, I still think that perhaps Tony could leave a little more room for others to make their input, and let freedom of speech have less of a volume factor. Is that more clear? - brenneman(t)(c) 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • m:Wiki is not paper. There have been four delete votes on this discussion, and I've commented on two of them: on one discussing a rewrite that was directly prompted by some criticism of the article made by that editor; on a second edit, which gave as a rationale the argument that Wikipedia isn't a web directory, I commented that the web aspect of the article could be omitted entirely while still leaving a useful article. This is useful discussion, Aaron. It's part of what we're here for, not endless bickering about how some people have more to say (and have done more edits on the article in question) than others. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --BMF81 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with the Thread article. --Naked Singularity 07:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew makinson and Sumners farm[edit]

Nothing on google about this guy, seems like non-notable vanity to me. The farm article was created by the same user: similarly I don't think individual farms are notable enough for an encyclopedia. Francs2000 | Talk 01:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero hits for "Andrew makinson" epping, and only a small handful for "Sumners Farm" or "Sumner's Farm" and many are other uses, or refer to a bus stop there. Niteowlneils 02:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Right now, I supposed to be sleeping... but I'm deleting...! :( UniReb 07:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sumner's Farm as not notable and Andrew makinson as possible vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Notability not established. --Edcolins 20:07, August 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 --Allen3 talk 14:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Mudagh machmar[edit]

This looks to be a nonnotable student club vanity article. All the "legendary persons" mentioned in the article are all currently students at the University of Amsterdam. Babajobu 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as mentioned, completely NN - 2 hits on Google, pisses me off when people don't even try to sound encyclopaedic and use terms like "legendary" to describe themselves Sherurcij 05:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn - search for Mudagh on university's own website gets 1 hit. [1] Punkmorten 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Alan Barnes (recreation of A. Barnes)[edit]

Delete. No more notable than your average college professor, fails WP:PROF. In fact, the Uni's website lists no course in Physics, so I wonder what's going on here. Clearly he's not employed there for his prowess in relativity and Google finds about 50 hits for "Alan Barnes" physicist. -Splash 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:The two articles here are identical and for the time being I've redirected the abbreviated one to the full one.-Splash 01:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone comes up with a list of his published work. Hamster Sandwich 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, maybe I found the wrong A. Barnes on the web? The one I have in mind has 13 entries in the exact solutions book. (See the citations for the exact solutions article.) Any information appreciated. Also, please compare List of contributors to general relativity with the bibliography of MTW or the exact solutions book to assure yourself that I plan to discuss only some of the LEADERS in this field over the past 80 odd years.---CH (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too sure where you're pointing here. Exact solutions is a redirect to an evidently relevant article that doesn't mention Barnes, and List of contributors to general relativity was only created today (with this particular gent added by you). Why is he teaching at a new university (mind my POV there) that appears to offer no courses in the numerate sciences, let alone physics? -Splash 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not notable, I have tens of thousands of Google hits and over twenty novels to my credit and I damn well don't see my bio on Wikipedia yet. ;-) Xaa 01:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bang goes your pseudonymity (and don't forget to put quotes around your name when Googling...) -Splash 04:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL! Wasn't trying to hide to begin with, I *always* use 'Xaa' as an online pen-name. It's even in my e-mail addy.
         ;-) Xaa 04:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn professor cv cruft. --Etacar11 04:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Splash and all, please bear with me. First, I emphasize again that I did have high standards for the persons I included in my list (others have added some other people I am trying to have moved to more appropriate lists). "The exact solutions book" is the monograph by Stephani et al. cited in Exact solutions in general relativity; this monograph is widely regarded as a standard reference in this field.
If you have an account on the arXiv you can check that Alan Barnes of Acton University has quite a few papers there, so the Barnes I described certainly does publish research papers on gtr. I'd caution you against assuming that someone employed at a university which doesn't offer physics courses cannot have an active research career in physics, since this Alan Barnes is obviously a counterexample! Academic jobs are hard to come by (especially in Britain, or so I am told), so some talented persons may choose to accept a seemingly inappropriate teaching job in order to remain in the profession in which they have been highly trained. Also, on occasion, quite distinguished retired professors have been known appointments with small colleges, simply so that they can teach from time to time.
Nonetheless, I now guess the A. Barnes I had in mind is an older person by the same name, and yes, I should have checked more carefully that I had the right A. Barnes. I have tried to contact by email Alan Barnes from Acton University to see if I can clarify this situation. I may may not have made a mistake, but if so, it was an honest mistake. (What does "cruft" mean?)
I think the best fix would be to let me correct the page once I have information about the A. Barnes cited in the monograph (some of these papers are widely regarded as important), rather than simply deleting it.---CH (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad[edit]

I did a google check and found no actual results (79,400 hits). My guess is vanity. freestylefrappe 02:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete POV. Hamster Sandwich 02:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, a POV article is not deletable, Hamster, but the lack of any citation nor clear claim to notability is. -Harmil 03:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proper and appropriate context is given to establish notability. --Bhadani 16:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Software[edit]

As mentioned in the discussion page, it's obvious spam. 9cds 02:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 06:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Evil[edit]

Non notable band's guitarist. [2] Google shows 1 hit for band and name together-Harmil 02:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band. Borderline speediable, since the article is about a real person and just says he's in a band. I've added the band to VfD too. -Splash 04:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 16 year old guitarist for nonnotable band - Allmusic.com has no record of them nor does Google have much about them. This might almost be an A7 speedy candidate. Capitalistroadster 07:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn teen vanity. Punkmorten 18:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SNOF[edit]

POV rant. If someone wanted to create a legit article, it should probably be at "Slovenomakedonski Narodno Osloboditelen Front", or, even better, whichever English translation is most commonly used. "Slavo-Macedonian Popular Liberation Front", "Slav National Liberation Front", "Macedonian National Liberation Front", or whatever. Could even be a speedy as an 'attack' and/or because if you remove the POV about all that would be left is the external link. Niteowlneils 02:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Sikon 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lustick (new article)[edit]

I am putting this up on VfD just to prevent it being speedied as recreation of a previously deleted article. Ian Lustick was deleted today after blanking by the original author, apparently after about an hour on VfD and hardly any discussion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ian Lustick). I never had the chance to see that article, so this aricle is a new article created from scratch. Ian Lustick is a full professor and department chair at a major university (UPenn) and is author or (co-)editor of a large number of publications. He is clearly notable in his field. Baseball players and web cartoonists with fewer accomplishments are being kept by default. Keep. Uppland 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. sounds good. Brighterorange 14:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems absolutely notable. Martg76 14:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professor with number of published works about the Middle East. Well done, Uppland. Capitalistroadster 14:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite well known in the field of Middle-East studies. I see his name all the time. --Zero 15:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice save. It does sometimes seem that the bar for scholars is higher than it is for athletes, actors, and politicians. Tobycat 21:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid entry. Punkmorten 22:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fantastic. —RaD Man (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The First Man Out[edit]

Delete, although I must confess to not researching this before bringing it here. Just reading it made me feel faintly ill. FWIW, the article as it stands fails WP:MUSIC admirably. -Splash 03:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The 66 displayed hits for "the First Man Out" Cleveland all appear to be other uses, and no allmusic.com entry. Niteowlneils 03:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. Collabi 05:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now patent nonsense. I would say that its current patent-nonsense-form was the result of vandalism and not grounds for deletion, except that the original author has made it the way it is now. In previous edits, it had POV and style issues, and in changing it to what it is now, the author (a repeated vandal) has removed any doubt. Mistercow 06:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now a Speedy Delete candidate as patent nonsense. Capitalistroadster 07:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as above. Punkmorten 18:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, as above too. Yeah, I know, it's almost consensus. RasputinAXP 20:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone has reverted it to its pre-patent-nonsense form. I know it was essentially vandalism, but after all, the original author made the edit. Mistercow 22:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was legit vandalism (made by author) and should not have been reverted IMO. Delete anyway. Punkmorten 23:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN. In that sort of "Plan 9 from Outer Space"/"Showgirls" kinda way. Haikupoet 03:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:36, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Chemlab.tv[edit]

Non-notable website; Alexa ranking is 3,134,670 at the moment. Delete. Joel7687 03:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nnrpgcruft. -Splash 04:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with above that this is not notable. Tobycat 20:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- Visviva 16:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platitude[edit]

This is nothing more than a long, drawn-out definition for platitude StradivariusTV 03:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand: I would argue that many of wikipedia's articles are long, drawn-out definitions. The article does give more information than a simple dictionary definition. Moreover, there is much potential for expansion on this topic. Perhaps this should be marked as a stub. Mistercow 05:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The only real difference between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia seems to be the length of the entries. Keep. Agentsoo 13:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Transwiki to Wiktionary. This is a dicdef. And I simply could not disagree any more with Agentsoo's comment above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fall somewhere in between. An encyclopedia entry should be more than a long version of a dictionary entry. But this is certainly more than a dictionary definition. The first paragraph? Yes. A dictionary definition. The second? Not so much. Keep in mind also that the deletion policy states that we should delete articles that "Can never be more than a dictionary definition". Platitude certainly can. Mistercow 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Mistercow. Where could this article possible go beyond its current state? I might be missing something here, but even if I am the article isn't worth keeping in its current state so it should be transwikied. I think the Geogre Doctrine applies here. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Care to elaborate? Agentsoo 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still feel that the article is more than a dicdef even in its current form. I think if anything it is borderline, but what it gives in terms of example and analysis of example gives more value than just a definition would. That said, I'd like to see it cleaned up a bit, and the analysis expanded. I'd also like to see it modified to more closely reflect the actual definition of platitude (a statement of deep content which has become meaningless through overuse). Examples of further expansion: history of cultural context, influences on philosophical thought, etc. I'm not saying the article is good, but it's a start, and the topic has potential. If it doesn't get deleted, I'll perhaps do some work on it. Mistercow 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per StradivariusTV. The way to fix a long, drawn-out dicdef is to get rid of the unnecessary cruft — then what you have is a concise dicdef. The article in question is equivalent to "platitude (n.) A statement of little or no worth, usually meant to encourage or inspire. From Greek foo 'flat'." — and if you go to Wiktionary, you'll see that a similar definition (with the correct etymology) is already there! --Quuxplusone 20:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 20:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xurban[edit]

Current Alexa ranking is 5,537,103. Need I say more? Joel7687 03:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in case you were wondering what my vote was. --Joel7687 03:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Joel7687. -Splash 04:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently this group has exhibited at MoMA in NYC. That in itself is evidence that they are more significant than many other art groups (such as bands) that have Wikipedia articles. ike9898 12:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ike9898's logic is good. Quite good. rincebrain 8:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete They did not actually exhibit at MoMA. The show is at P.S.1, a much smaller affiliate. This year alone, the showing this group is involved in (The "Greater NY 2005") includes 160 artists, with the express purpose of displaying works by new, little known groups/individuals. Almost by definition, being featured in this exhibition categorizes a participant as not yet notable, although singled out (albeit in a rather large group) by the art world as having potential. To continue the metaphor of music groups, potential isn't enough. Call this their first major showing. If they can keep it up, then sure, an article would be appropriate. Until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Icelight 22:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 20:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spescom Limited[edit]

Was previously marked as {{del}} for advertising but does not quite qualify for speedy deletion because we need to determine if this South African communications company really is important or significant enough to warrant its own article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, It gets about 84 useful Googles with 'pedia mirrors removed. That would normally question notability, but it could just be the Internet's likely systemic bias against South Africa. However, presuming their website [3] is telling the truth, they operate on 3 continents (N. America, Africa, Europe) which is good enough for me. This PDF link was broken, but is titled "Spescom Limited 21 Year Booklet", so they're pretty well established too. However, they are a subsidiary of Spescom Group [4], so perhaps we need an article about that with a mention of this. We don't have one, however, so we should have something rather than nothing. -Splash 04:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Limited indicates that it is a public company which probably means that it is reasonably notable. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above votes. Kappa 16:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete very little content - can be recreated if there is something wortwhile to say about this company. --Tim Pope 17:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Publicly-owned telecom company is good enough for me. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless expanded. If it is important it will be recreated, hopefully with more information. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public Madness[edit]

Delete nn band. No allmusic.com presence, one or two relevant Google hits. Please also call by the VfD for Mat Evil, a band member. -Splash 04:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unverifiable band with 16 year old lead guitarist indicates that this group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Capitalistroadster 07:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. "Mat Evil"'s page creator (vanity?) seems to have created this one just after I VfDed their first. -Harmil 16:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn bandity. Punkmorten 18:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Seems nothing more than a garage band --Dysepsion 21:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:40, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

3D-DOCTOR[edit]

3D DOCTOR IS A 2D ADVERTISEMENT Sdedeo 04:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 05:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC) (NB: I converted this user's vote from ASCII art into something less... garish. android79)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising, not notable. android79 05:07, August 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 keep (and merge). Eugene van der Pijll 20:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tesoro Theatre Arts[edit]

theater department of a high school, insufficiently notable for article Sdedeo 04:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 04:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete, May I remind you that it is an AWARD winning theatre arts department that deserves to be on wikipedia. Andyhi18 11:22, 5 August 2005 (PST)
  • Merge pared-down information to Tesoro High School. My college's speech team is AWARD winning as well, that doesn't mean they're encyclopedic enough for their own article. FCYTravis 07:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tesoro High School. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE, completely useless page. Most school's theatre arts programs (or any types of programs) have won some types of awards, that's hardly a justification. Tesoro's drama program is slightly better than average for the surrounding community, but its nothing special enough to deserve a wiki. (And I'm saying this even though I go to Tesoro) I hate to say this, but the Tesoro drama kids who created this page just want their names to be on Wikipedia for minor recognition. (hence the shameless namedropping and obvious advertisement style and lack of neutrality of the article.) Andyhi18 is Andy Hogan, a member of Tesoro Drama who made sure to include an award he won as part of an ensemble in the article (complete with his name being the one listed first) who created the article for personal gain, so he would have his name on wiki.
  • Merge worthwhile information into Tesoro High School. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. RasputinAXP 21:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the double edit. Checking the history of Tesoro High School shows an attempt by Andyhi18 to split the article. Stronger evidence for a revert on Tesoro High School and a delete on Tesoro Theatre Arts RasputinAXP 21:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 20:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Espial[edit]

Was tagged as {{db}} for being an ad, but it does not quite qualify for speedy deletion because we need to know if this software really is important or significant to warrant its own article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • From its own description, of doubtful significance. Delete. Sdedeo 04:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio from [5]. But I've heard of them, so I'll put this on my watchlist to rewrite. I remember they had some novel GUI ideas. Gazpacho 04:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 talk 14:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

List of Colditz Castle staff[edit]

A huge table full of non-notable people. Is there an expectation that there will be articles about all of these people? If not, what does this table serve? If so, do all of these people deserve articles? John Barleycorn 04:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • It is a required spinoff from the Colditz Castle article if you would have bothered to look. To quote the top of the list page "This article has been spun off from Colditz Castle; please see that article for more information on the camp itself." As the primary article on Colditz Castle is already WAAAAY beyond recommended length, spinoffs are required. Keep and please go vfd something less useful.  ALKIVAR™ 04:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I don't understand the hostility. Are you assuming that I did not read the very first words in the article? Does spinning the non-notable off from a longer article somehow make them more notable? Please explain how this information is useful. John Barleycorn 04:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep I assume you wouldn't have deleted it if it had remained in the main article, so you shouldn't try to carry out a "punishment deletion" now that people have followed Wikipedia's request and broken up a long article. I've never looked at either article, but the annoyance felt by someone who has edited them is quite understandable in my opinion. Osomec 05:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well for starters the grounds "Not notable" is not valid for VFD. Not to mention the fact that yes these people are indeed notable as most are referred to in the Colditz Castle article I turned into a FA (using exactly this kind of "not notable" detail). I find it extremely amusing that the Harry Potter article which has several spinoff lists, in particular a list of characters (all of which are fictional) is perfectly acceptable, yet a spinoff list of REAL PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED goes up for vfd. Perhaps I did act hostile, I'm sorry, but the more I see this the more disgusted with WP in general I become.  ALKIVAR™ 05:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am baffled. I have no idea why anyone thinks I am trying to punish anyone about anything. I will admit that I had not looked at the Colditz Castle article and just happened to run across this, but if I had encountered that article, I would most certainly have begun a discussion on the Talk page as to why this information was necessary. Since the information is now all that exists in the article under discussion, then, yes, VfD is the appropriate place to discuss the matter. Why would I want to punish anyone with whom I have had no dealings, and wouldn't anyone who has worked on any article under VfD discussion also be annoyed? Why is annoyance at this article being listed here be of any more significance than the annoyance of any other person at their information being listed for deletion? Please, everyone, calm down, I am not trying to start a war or even an argument, just a discussion. I see that you are somehow arguing that every real person deserves an article? John Barleycorn 05:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry but VFD is not the place to start the discussion. First the talk page, then to RFC, and THEN to VFD is the appropriate order, If you are unsure its always best to ask other people first, get a few opinions, ask the writers of the article on the appropriate talk page FIRST. VFD should be the LAST place to go to discuss article content, unless its obviously junk like User:XYZ's Band's Fan page.  ALKIVAR™ 05:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because they are making legitimate contributions to a major article, which often isn't the case, and people only split articles like this because Wikipedia asks them too. They have been very diligent, and this is the response.Osomec 05:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Colditz Castle is one of the best-known and most intriguing locations of the Second World War - a person studying it could find such a list of staff a great resource in tracking down further information Sherurcij 05:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and thank Alkivar for serving the users by moving this material out of the main article. Kappa 05:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly. But point out that non-notable is valid in VfD, it is used hundreds of times in VfD every day and, in the extreme, is a reason for speedy deletion on-sight. -Splash 05:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised someone's actually found a full list of the Colditz Castle staff. It was one of the more notable events in WWII. I agree with Sherurci on this. --Dysepsion 05:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is mere Colditzcruft. WP is not toilet paper; delete. -- Hoary 06:21, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents makes it quite clear that "not notable" is grounds for deletion. "For the purpose of the list below, notable is strictly defined as being very likely to get a consensus to keep if listed on VFD. Similarly, not notable is defined as being very likely to get a consensus to delete if listed on VFD." I'm straddling the fence on this one. It seems to me that the article is right on the borderline between "notable" and "not notable". Does anybody have any precedents they'd like to use? I'm currently leaning towards "not notable", and suggesting that ALKIVAR and Osomec think about starting a website dedicated to Colditz Castle for such trivia (which could be linked to from the Colditz Castle article). But it could well be that ALKIVAR's and Osomec's rudeness is coloring my judgement. Could we maybe stop voting on this for a week and come back when cooler heads might prevail? crazyeddie 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete had a chance to think about it. crazyeddie 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Colditz is undoubtably notable, working as a private guiding it isn't. Similarly, Alcatraz was notable but that doesn't mean that a list of every person who worked there would be. Capitalistroadster 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. If nothing else, this information will date quickly, and a seriously doubt anyone's going to update it in the years to come (yeah, maybe once or twice, but what about 5 or 10 years down the road?). Articles like this may make wikipedia full of extrememly marginal, but at least accurate, information for the present moment, but they will only cause wikipedia to be full of misinformation in the near future. I bet there's an external link that can provide this information. -R. fiend 13:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fuck it, didn't notice the years. (Well, the title made it seem like it was the present staff.) No vote yet, I have to think about this one. -R. fiend 13:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A list of those who tried to prevent the escapes is as useful as the unchallenged lists of those who escaped and attempted to escape from Colditz castle during WWII. Listing the German staff helps round out the article by showing another part of the German side of the story. If Harry Potter can list fictional characters, then we can list real German POW camp staff. DonBruce 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A major difference between this list and a list of Harry Potter characters is that very many of the Harry Potter characters have their own articles, which the list of characters links to. I don't think any of the staff of this German POW camp are notable to merit their own article. crazyeddie 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven edits before this, only one to an article (most to Talk:Colditz castle). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as Capitalistroadster. --Tim Pope 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Excessively long (I fail to see the need to list EVERY person who worked at Colditz Castle, Lance Corporals and the like strike me as unencyclopedic trivia) but it's a historical resource. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some obscure information is going to lack notability but still be useful to scholars and researchers. I disagree that the information is trivial. Obscure, yes, but potentially useful. Since wikipedia is not paper I'd like to see this information retained. Tobycat 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup This seems to be fairly important, but I can understand why it was considered for vfd. The page is simply a list, with a brief reference to the parent page. A nice introduction (could be copied from the parent article) explaining the significance of the list would go a long way. ManoaChild 21:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. As it stands it's really just a list, but some preamble (at least mentioning the dates covered in general) would improve this no end. Tonywalton 23:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly - a credit to Wikipedia in my view jamesgibbon 23:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for nonnotability. Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sabine's Sunbird 14:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't se the point of this; it is clearly non-encyclopædic. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's historically significant why is it non-encylopedic? David D. (Talk) 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    The Castle is historically significant; the list of staff isn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - List of non-prominent people in a prominent place is not any more prominent than they are - Skysmith 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Doesn't offend anybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.2.18 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 August 2005
  • Delete per Mel Etitis. It certainly didn't belong in the main article, but by itself does not merit an article. Details are good, but excesive detail (Would the daily menu over the entire history of the castle be useful as it's own article? Probably not.) doesn't have a home. --Icelight 23:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tries very hard, but lots of question marks which will never be filled, and lots of gaps; it is neither fish nor fowl. Table does not allow for promotions. Includes "one from the totally separate SS concentration camp". "These are the named members of the German staff from 1939 to 1945 at Colditz castle" doesn't fill me with confidence. Without access to the books listed as sources, none of it can be trusted; of no use to scholars or researchers. None of the sources look like official German personnel manifests. Keep the commandants, ditch the rest. in the midst of it someone has linked the word 'legal', which is... touching.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like this list could be a useful reference. There are references provided, even if they don't look like personnel manifests. Maybe at some point someone would be able to fill in some question marks, perhaps descendents of the staff. 4.240.162.109 03:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the descendants were to do that directly, their additions would probably be dismissed as unverifiable, and rightly so. The additional information would have to come from books. There's probably much more to be written about Nazism and its appeal to many people, but perhaps not very much more in the way of Colditzcruft that's waiting to be published: as a sizable and apparently insatiable market for works about Nazi trivia (uniforms, etc etc) has existed for years, there has long been a big commercial incentive to publish. -- Hoary 06:17, August 12, 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. – malathion talk 06:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

El schlong[edit]

Delete nn band. No allmusic presence, about 85 useful Googles with 'pedia mirrors removed and no domain-name of their own [6]. -Splash 04:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And a silly name. Delete. Agentsoo 13:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Echternach Ed Comics[edit]

Delete utterly non-notable comic. No Google hits so also unverifable. I wonder if I am falling for an attack page here? -Splash 04:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Allen3 talk 15:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I Must Not Chase the Boys[edit]

Delete. All that about a music video? It didn't even make it to no. 10 apparently. It's actually a copyvio from here, but that might just be the anon author given the nature of the site. -Splash 04:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... Wow. Redirect to Play (band) or Delete. POV essay, musicvideocruft. android79 05:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, significance not stated, and if not a copyright violation, then original research. Mistercow 05:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to Allmusic.com, the single did not chart in the US and the Replay album reached #67 on the album chart. [7]

According to Top 40 charts, [8] , this song was top 20 in Greece for three weeks in 2003 but did not achieve chart success anywhere else in the world. We don't have an article for the Replay album which would be the logical place to merge this with. See change of vote below. Capitalistroadster 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Play (band)#Replaying in 2003 seems reasonable. Punkmorten 18:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable video. Kappa 12:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replace with redirect as above. Radiant_>|< 13:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus nut[edit]

Seems to be original research. I just don't believe it exists. No sources, at any rate. Only heard the word used to insult Christians Superm401 | Talk 05:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nominator no longer supports deletion. Superm401 | Talk 00:21, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I googled " 'Jesus Nut' Helicopter" and it seems to be a real thing. Example: Helicopter Blog. The article needs more work, though. --Kushboy 05:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - similarily googled, found a reference stating Jesus Nut is the singular nut that holds the hub onto the mast. (If it fails, the next person you see will be Jesus). at Helicopter Page > Terminology. Another reference for a RPG states A helicopter may only land on open ground. Helicopters may not land closer than 12 inches, measured from the Jesus nut, to another helicopter or obstruction. and a few others. If there's an actual name for the specific hexagonal nut, let an article be made about it. Sherurcij 05:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just did the same thing as Kushboy; it exists even if it's a little obscure. Ideally I'd like to see the term mentioned in the helicopter article, and "Jesus nut" linking to it. Mistercow 05:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Little more than a substub at the moment. Capitalistroadster 08:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusing title but definitely keep. Agentsoo 13:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess, though it is close to a dicdef. I actually expected the article to be about folks like Jerry Falwell. -R. fiend 13:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It either exists (which seems to be the consensus) or it's a very widespread urban legend which still makes it notable, albeit in a different way. as far as only hearing it used to insult Christians, I've always heard it used by Christians as a metaphor ("Just as without this single nut holding things together, the helicopter would be lost, so too would we be lost without Jesus holding us together...") -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the expanded version CanadianCaesar 20:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to main rotor retaining nut and Redirect from Jesus nut and Jesus pin.--Jpbrenna 21:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I now think it should stay. Can I withdraw the nomination? Superm401 | Talk 21:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • By the looks of the vote, I think the article is safe. (Another keep just to make sure). 23skidoo 00:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 13:15:25, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • Keep. David | Talk 17:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Sikon 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph E. Hayes Jr.[edit]

Delete - while I have no (urgent) issues with his linked webcomics having a wikipedia article, I definitely don't feel that every webcomic artist should also have their own personal page where they mention that they're "available for commission" and such. Sherurcij 05:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, if he's authored three notable webcomics. Kappa 05:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa's arguments. Perhaps the line about commissions should be left out. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. Mistercow 05:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I took that line out. Kappa 12:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless we are imminently running out of resources to be an encyclopedia. —RaD Man (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on being an author/artist of 2 or more notable works with separate wikipedia articles as long as it remains "neutral".Ann Vole 01:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as NN vanity without claim to significance outside a college. FCYTravis 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Lewandowski[edit]

Delete. Non-notable vanity of the kind that a speedy tag just keeps on disappearing from (although it's been rewritten a bit now). To the closing admin: Image:Todd.jpg needs to go too. -Splash 05:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Ironic that an article about someone who claims to be such a fantastic columnist is so poorly written. Andypasto 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^Let it be known that the subject is not the author of the article

  • See WP:CSD: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance." Speedy. Junkyard prince 05:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, but the author has removed the speedy tag at least 3 times. -Splash 05:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm hoping an admin will come here and agree with me, tag or no tag. Junkyard prince 05:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Sdedeo 06:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Joseph[edit]

Tagged for speedy for no claim to notability, butfounding a company is a claim. Not sure how big the company is, so not vote. Kappa 05:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Mercury Insurance the leading writer of automobile insurance in California taken from their website. They also have a biography of the founder, stating The eldest son of a restaurateur, George Joseph was born in 1921 and grew up in West Virginia. During World War II, he served in the Air Force as a B-17 navigator, flying some 50 missions. Afterwards, he attended Harvard on the GI Bill, graduating in 1949 with a degree in mathematics and physics.

  • Keep and expand. According to Yahoo business, this company had $2.67 million billion in revenue in 2004 and 4,300 employees [9] That makes its founder notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 09:50, 6 August 2005

(UTC)

  • KeepIt was 2.67 Billion--Porturology 14:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect--he's notable only for the company. Meelar (talk) 17:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand - per the company's website, the company plans to expand its operations to 40 states. George Joseph also has had some significant involvement in California lobbying, campaign contribution controversy, and the repeal of some parts of California's Proposition 103.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New-look NHL Free-Agent signings are causing anxiety amongst fans.[edit]

A non-encyclopedic personal essay. It's even signed. Delete. --Dmcdevit·t 05:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing more than commentary--Dysepsion 05:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV essay that does not deserve its own article. Kushboy 05:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, commentary and NPOV, take your pick.Gateman1997 07:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author seems to have mistaken Wikipedia for a personal blog. Flowerparty talk 13:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides its non-encylopedic nature, who is Brain Leetch? I know a Brian Leetch who won the Stanley Cup. --Madchester 19:56, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL. Delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 13:12:22, 2005-08-07 (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. --malathion talk 05:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Furious Gypsies[edit]

  • Delete: Advertisement; not notable KBi 06:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page. Mistercow 06:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Un-encyclopedic. vanity --Dysepsion 21:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 13:13:02, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Munson[edit]

Non-notable. The opposite of a vanity page - he is a user here (User:Chuck0), User:Hall Monitor is posting his home address, where he went to school and so forth, Chuck tried to delete it today repeatedly. Right now Chuck's banned for breaking 3RR trying to remove his address and whatnot from the page, discussion page and whatnot. This is just harassment of a Wikipedia user. He is not notable - Google "book chuck-munson" search yields nothing, Amazon.com book search yields nothing. Has a few thousand hits on Google due to his Internet postings over the years, but this does not make him encyclopedia worthy. More importantly Hall Monitor is just harassing a user of Wikipedia by posting his home address and whatnot which Chuck does not want posted. Ruy Lopez 06:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weird, very weird, on all sides. Chuck0 seems upset that someone is naming the county he lives in. Anyway, Delete, nn. Sdedeo 06:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following debate below, keep -- I trust claims of Munson's notability in anarchist circles. I leave it to someone else to sort out the weirdo edit war! Sdedeo 01:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree entirely with Ruy Lopez's reasoning, but we come to the same conclusion. Munson seems happy to use Wikipedia for publicity, but objects to having an objective biography. The information that User:Hall Monitor and I have recently adde to the article is relevant, ordinary biographical info- year of birth, colleges, name of blog. This is all material that Munson himself posts on the web currently, so his claims of invasion of privacy are preposterous. Munson has posted, repeatedly, his address on the web. This article merely said what city he is in. However, since the subject demands control of his articles to his own personal tastes, and since he is marginally notable, I say we delete this article and then his other projects. He says the articles are keeping him from earning a living and they certainly aren't feeding anyone here. I'd propose that if this VfD is successful then we should nominate the bundle of articles as well. If Munson isn't notable for starting them, then they likely aren't notable either. Infoshop.org, Alternative Media Project, Breaking Glass Press, and Practical Anarchy. The last appears to have an independent existence (Munson is no longer editor) and might be more notable. hasn't published in a over a year. -Willmcw 06:40, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently, in Ruy Lopez's world, county of residence counts as "home address" -- that, or he's deliberately exaggerating. Also, since when is including where [one] went to school and so forth a form of harassment in a biography? But he's right about one thing: Delete as non-notable, vote contingent on deletion of Infoshop.org, Alternative Media Project, Breaking Glass Press, and Practical Anarchy, per Willmcw's reasoning. --Calton | Talk 11:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. chuck is very important in some circles- he does a lot, as can be seen from the above list of his projects. infoshop.org is probably the premeire site of anarchist information on the internet, and is certainly notable; chuck, as its founder, should remain as well. infoshop gets a lot of hits each day. no books about him, but due to his outspokenness, prolific publishing of newspapers and on the internet, and the fact that virtually every anarchist in the US knows who he is, i think he is notable enough to warrant a keep. as for his demands of control, i don't see this as any reason to eliminate the articles. if anything, he's a more interesting subject now that he has launched a boycott of wikipedia. he says he is going away, so we won't have to worry about his demands for control of biographical information. --Heah (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's fine to request that specific personal information not be posted; that's no reason to delete an entire page about a noteworthy personality. Voyager640 15:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chuck is a clear and interesting writer. What must a person do to get an entry about them? Invade Poland? rhh1 16:23 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chuck has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major publications, because of his leadership among anti-corporate globalization activists and expertise in social movement organizing. Just delete irrelevant personal info, and retain an entry about his political work and writing. YF 16:24 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting mini-controversy here. My research shows that this guy is notable in the anarchist community. I think we need to be cautious determining notability for people/things within the anarchy category because, by definition, they place themselves outside the mainstream. As such, we should not expect mainstream websites and commercial outlets like Amazon to validate notability as effectively. What we do know is that this guy has published a book that's fairly notable within his community and he's done the same with some websites. I don't think his prior behavior on Wikipedia or his attempts to control his biography content should be relevant to this VfD. Tobycat 16:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this article as well as Infoshop.org and some other related ones. I don't understand his behavior with regards to this article. I actually e-mailed him once to ask him to verify the information there (that I didn't add) and he just started removing stuff without explaining. I understand and share his concerns for security culture (I'm assuming that's his objection?) but there was nothing there that was more than basic biographical information. --Tothebarricades 17:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Chuck Munson should have his own Wikipedia page -- and should be able to make changes to it when somebody posts something as privacy invading as his home address on it. Chuck is well known in radical librarian and anarchist circles. He's the founder and co-ordinator of Inforshop.org, a well-used anarchist website. His page needs to stay up. -- Jessica Books, NY, NY. 17:58, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.123.48.63 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2005
  • Now this is an odd controversy, and it brings up an interesting question: Does someone have a right to say "no, you cannot post a biography of me" or not? If he was a public figure (Politician, Hollywood Star, etc), the answer would be more obvious. But, he's not. Really not entirely certain how to assess this. I'm going to ercr on the side of caution, and say that since he's technically a private citizen (after all, notariety in 'Anarchist Circles' is not the same as being a notable public figure), he should have a right to have this removed if he doesn't want to be public. Delete, for now. Though if this story hits one of the major media outlets, well, he then becomes a public figure, so all bets are off. =/ Xaa 22:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability. Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Worth keeping and developing further surely. Coqsportif 02:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tobycat. bpt 06:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being notable "in anarchist circles" isn't too damn notable. --Nate Ladd 09:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme weak keep, per sockpuppets. —RaD Man (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "keep." Chuck was way out front on infoshop. Certainly original creative thinkers in any field belong here. editing issues should not affect decision on the entry.--Kathleen in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.229.42 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 7 August 2005
  • Keep Chuck not liking the fact that someone is posting his county of residence is an inappropriate use for a VfD. --Bletch 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interested parties may want to read Munson's account of this on his blog, [10], in which he unfortunately gets most of the facts wrong. -Willmcw 23:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why is there even a discussion about keeping Chuck? As a librarian I am opposed to this censorship in the form of deletion by a mob, and I am also opposed to efforts to invade his privacy by blocking Chuck's attempts to remove sensitive personal information from his entry. While Chuck may be notable in small circles that are not to everyone's taste, he is indeed notable. I have learned and gained a great deal from my short, mostly online, association with Chuck. I am sure that many people have learned and gained from him. If you don't like Chuck's entry or don't think he's notable, don't read it. Perhaps the entry on a non-entity like Don Saklad would be more to your taste. -AmyM, NM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.167.120.200 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 8 August 2005
  • Keep. The individual is notable within the anarchist community, but should not be allowed to censor his own article against the wishes of other editors. Hall Monitor 15:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Article needs some work, and there should be a little more to assert notability, but seems good enough. Sean Black 03:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non-notable. --jenlight 04:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page / non-notable. -- in_on_the_killtaker 23:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it! Vanity page! Sorry, I don't have a user thingy. -Dan O, Philly, PA 2005.08.11
This is not a vanity page. I didn't create it and if you've followed this controversy, I've been trying to temporarily keep some personal information off of the entry so I can find a job. People who know me can tell you that I'm not vain or interested in self-promotion. At the same time, it's laughable that a few people think that I'm non-notable. I happen to be a notable anarchist, activist, and librarian. I've been profiled by the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Kansas City Star. I've been interviewed by other newspapers and magazines, including media outside of the U.S. On most days, I wish I wasn't so notable. Chuck0 15:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On most days, I wish I wasn't so notable
Don't worry. You're not. If you haven't already, why not vote for it's deletion? --jenlight 20:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am notable! This entry shouldn't be deleted, in fact, Wikipedia needs to have more entries on activists in various movements. These people are more notable than much of the obscure stuff which is covered by Wikipedia. 24.94.181.211 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In case it isn't clear, 24.94.181.211 = Chuck0 = Chuck Munson. -Willmcw 23:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete reason. --24.229.198.147 20:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC) Total waste of space and bandwidth.[reply]
  • Strong Keep Fits the Wikipedia requirements. Munson is notable for anarchist activism. I don't understand why this discussion is even necessary. Rstandefer 15:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 08:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1950_British_Lions_tour_to_New_Zealand_and_Australia[edit]

Has no information. Is just someone posting "hello i am hugh" Kushboy 06:45, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

This could have fallen under the CSD, or speedy deletion. Someone else put the tag there, so the article should be gone in a little while. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. I won't blame anyone for bringing this to VFD rather than speedying it. Simply being a musician is often viewed as an assertion of notability by many, and if the subject is truly not notable, it will usually rack up delete votes anyway, as we can see here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Clark[edit]

Not informative. Tried to find more information about subject and could not find anything; therefore, I think it Clark not notable. Kushboy 07:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Think that could be speedied, really. Mistercow 07:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Kappa 11:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like a vanity page. Mistercow 17:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps, but it still doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Actually in my experience real vanity pages tend to be much longer and more detailed Kappa 18:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Vanity included in CSD as of July 19, 2005. Mistercow 21:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nope. Kappa 00:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles. Am I missing something about the phrase "This page is an official policy on Wikipedia." Mistercow 01:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • That page is misnamed, the actual policy says nothing about vanity. Kappa 02:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I read the page. It looks like it's about vanity to me. Just because it doesn't say the word "vanity" throughout the page doesn't mean it isn't about vanity. In any case, whatever you want to call it, the policy described on the page directly applies to this article. Mistercow 07:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete oneliner, can be recreated if and when worthwhile amount of information is found. --Tim Pope 17:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, Nandesuka 01:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn artist. --Etacar11 04:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as a redirect. -Splash 22:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear_pollution[edit]

Very POV. A commentary. Not enough to salvage and merge with anything. Kushboy 07:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research/essay. Terminally POV. There wouldn't be anything left once it was excised. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purificare and mergere with radioactive waste. --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. User Alex Bakharev has now turned it into a redirect to Nuclear waste which is a logical destination should anyone search on this term. Tobycat 20:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. Xaa 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. Punkmorten 23:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I support the redirect, but that should not have been done until the VfD was closed. -- Visviva 10:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:14, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sheepish Productions[edit]

Probably vanity, fails Google test (zero hits). [11] --Alan Au 07:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not seem notable. I think it's a high school group: "departure of the creators from Alfred Deakin High School" Kushboy 07:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • I smell vanity. Google-free vanity. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not find this group on Google, but have seen some of their work in film festivals and thought I would try Wikipedia...very impressed it was on here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.16.66 (talk • contribs) 2005-08-06 13:35:53 UTC
    • A user had removed this and replaced it with his/her own text. Keep an eye on this. Kushboy 14:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a huge Sheepish Productions fan having seen their work in Sydney film festival. --SimonWoolford 05:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User only has 4 edits, 2 of them here. --Etacar11 14:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It reads like a company flyer. Delete. If the original editors can come up with a strong article describing the company, its financial, social or cultural importance, and reference it responsibily, that'll be fine. As it stands it's an ad.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 13:06:35, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • Come back in a few years, boys. Delete.DS 15:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A film-festival company is noteworthy, even if they aren't internet promoted. Keep ClintonShifcofske 18:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edits are to this page. --Etacar11 14:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any proof that they really were in a film festival. The unsigned comment is fishy because the article is very new and it would be highly coincidental that someone searched for it on Wikipedia during its time on here. Also, an update: their website now has pictures of them and of the night of their formal. They seem very young.~~ (Unsigned comment by Kushboy (talk · contribs))
  • I do think this page needs work and more information. If this can be provided - Keep (Raiders 08:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sockpuppet alert! Can I vote again to delete? Pleeeeese? - Lucky 6.9 05:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly more information needed. However, an Australian film festival group is worthy enough for an article. Keep. (The Horse 12:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 03:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely KEEP. Rising Australian film production companies need to be supported. Deleting this article is deleting the hard work of someone out there. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. (220.245.212.75 11:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of pages in the Wikipedia namespace, Wikipedia:All pages by title and Wikipedia:All pages in the MediaWiki and Template namespace[edit]

Outdated, unmaintainable, and redundant with Special:Allpages. Radiant_>|< 09:12, August 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 --Allen3 talk 15:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Shobuz[edit]

Given the author's username, probable vanity. In any case, notability not established. --Alan Au 07:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nonsense. --Ragib 15:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and redirect to List of sexual slurs. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoochie[edit]

Nominated for deletion in accordance with WP:NOT section 1.2.3: Wikipedia is not a slang, idiom, or usage guide. This article is a slang definition. The Literate Engineer 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Isn't that list also a violation of the same WP:NOT section? The Literate Engineer 03:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps move to UrbanDictionary. Oh wait, that's not part of wikimedia ^^ Mistercow 08:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per Punkmorten below. Mistercow 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The Literate Engineer's Comment - Section 1.2.3 also states the following, "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." If this aritcle were to be omitted, then it’s also plausible to delete the slang article from the wikipedia, as well as List of sexual slurs, and other slang articles such as bimbo.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 15:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

French dragon[edit]

Since there's no context whatsoever, I can only assume it falls under WP:NOT regarding Original Research: namely, this is from someone's personal fictional universe. As such, it doesn't belong. The Literate Engineer 08:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete, the guy is a rpg player just fooling around.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

De-perimeterisation[edit]

Not so much an article as a jargon-filled mission statement, along with some distinct POVing. Possibly too much of a neologism to transwiki (?), so it either this needs a massive clean-up or deleting. About 1000 google hits with or without hyphen. Grutness...wha? 08:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a neologism / jargon. Tobycat 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:57:26, 2005-08-07 (UTC).
  • Delete. Rd232 11:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC) As a newbie, I will admit that my initial attempt to create a wikipage that describes this new information security concept, had an excessive number of shortcomings. I am trying to understand the expectations of Wiki, and have started to edit based on the learnings I have achieved. I am working to achieve the "massive cleanup" and would welcome pointers amd feedback. What I can say in defence of not deleting the word is that having come to the Wikipedia to better understand and define the concept I was surprised to find it missing. Thus my ham-fisted attempt at adding it. I had never done so and thus the short comings. I am reading the MANY and various pointer pages. help or coaching would be welcome Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally could someone help me understand how not to be accused of POVing? I am trying to ensure that the page is written neutrally. Adrius42 22:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Project namespace/Alphabetical index[edit]

This is not really an index; rather, it is a list of two-letter combinations, each of which links to a query of Special:Allpages. The problem is that this isn't really a useful way of searching through Wikipedia namespace, and most letter combinations (e.g. "FK", "QZ" etc) will not yield any useful information. Radiant_>|< 09:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete The page doesn't even seem to work correctly. It certainly does appear to be a useless page. If folks come along and say that they are actually using it, though, I'll reconsider my vote. Tobycat 20:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Advogato[edit]

"Advogato is a website for free software developers that uses an innovative trust-metric to minimise the need for maintenance." Advertising has no place here, and certainly not in Wikipedia namespace. Radiant_>|< 09:19, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I must agree with Radiant on this one. If it has a purpose other than advertising, it is not evident from the article.Tobycat 20:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but noting that earlier revisions of the page suggest that it was intended to be a cross-reference between Wikpedia users and their Advogato usernames. — mendel ☎ 16:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep absent a general policy barring user lists of this sort. After the community's embarrassing failure to delete Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world and other political lists -- lists which are actually toxic to the encyclopedia-building process -- it's hard to see what's wrong with this one. -- Visviva 10:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -Splash 22:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 22:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Alternative outlets[edit]

Basically advertising, within Wikispace, for other Wikis that aren't Wikimedia sister projects (e.g. Everything2, Anarchopedia and Jnana). While I'm sure some of those deserve their article in mainspace, I don't see any point in this list in this namespace. Radiant_>|< 09:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, people should be able to find similar projects which might suit them better. Kappa
  • keep seems useful, one could post a link to it on user pages of people who have articles VFD'd. --Tim Pope 17:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a damn good idea. =) Keep. Xaa 23:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very useful. —RaD Man (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful outlet for texts that are not relevant here but could be relevant elsewhere - Skysmith 10:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hillsborough[edit]

Reads like the introduction to a murder novel. Dr Gangrene 11:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And a bad one. Delete. Agentsoo 13:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-encyclopedic. Delete. Punkmorten 19:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another obvious delete→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:54:31, 2005-08-07 (UTC).
  • Delete. The Butler did it. David | Talk 13:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -D. Wu 21:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Visviva 10:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Ideals[edit]

Was originally deleted by VFD vote, then subsequently undeleted by VFU vote. This VFD is part of undeletion procedure. The reason for its earlier nomination was that it would be original research, and that the website mentioned in the article is non-notable per its low Alexa rank of 760,000. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 12:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I vote Keep, just as I did last time. But having read the VFU page in question I'm not sure if my vote will count anymore, so there we are. =/ I think the article could be expanded, and I think more citations are necessary, but that's simply a matter of legwork. And I still think that this article is necessary, since articles like Democracy have become the battle ground of entrenched camps of wikipedians. Xaa 14:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it matters, I've worked on the article a bit and added citations. You may wish to take a look at it again. =) Xaa 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as personal essay and original research, unless much better evidence is provided that this is not just personal musing about a phrase. I am not convinced that the phrase "democratic ideals" has any specific meaning beyond the combination of the meaning of the noun "ideals" modified by the adjective "democratic." I note that the Columbia Encyclopedia uses the phrase in a few articles but does not have an article under that entry. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawing my vote: no vote. I still don't like the article, but I do feel that Xaa has made a serious effort to meet the worst objections. In its present form, it doesn't do Wikipedia any harm. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This phrase is used widely by politicians and, as evidenced by the newly added citations in the article, is also discussed by social scientists and other researchers. The recent modifications to the article make it less problematic than before. Though it still needs work, I believe that it has value and should be kept so that it can continue to mature. Tobycat 21:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonably good article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. --Apyule 08:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase shows up constantly, and the usages should be documented. Since it is a concept in standard curiculum in California, clearly it means something specific to large notable organizations. 66.30.79.242 16:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperdynamics[edit]

This page has been made for advertising purposes and is disguised as an article. Check the pages history. cheese-cube 13:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clever attempt at hiding advertising...though difficult to see what good it would have done for the company. Tobycat 21:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising! Salsb 02:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:51:44, 2005-08-07 (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 Already redirected. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Russ: NeoPopRealism[edit]

Appears to be vanity and/or advertising. This is a CV, not an encylopedia article. -- The Anome 14:38, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Note: The VfD tag was removed from this article the same day it was listed and not replaced until today. Because of the low number and ambiguous nature of the votes, I am re-listing the article so the process may be completed. I am not voting. -- Essjay · Talk 13:25, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Even if the artist is notable, the article is a bleeding mess and needs to be moved to the proper namespace. I'll change my vote to keep if someone can establish notability (maybe her own art exhibition or something along those lines). Fernando Rizo T/C 19:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. The publications section of Nadia Russ' website points out some news coverage, including a NYT Magazine blurb. Good enough for me. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

__ Here more info on notability: [[12]].
"Delete" was based on first version, when it was just number of art exhibits. New version made after note 'delete'. Article will be developed. <unsigned comment by User:67.191.39.103 at 11:38, 5 August 2005.> Fernando Rizo T/C 20:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to an appropriate name if kept - current name is nonsensical. FCYTravis 18:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Anthropology basic topics[edit]

A short list of topics we want covered in anthropology - but all of them have already been covered, and the list hasn't been updated since february 2003. This has seriously outlived its usefulness, and it doesn't have any content worth archiving since it's just a list. Radiant_>|< 13:33, August 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 --Allen3 talk 12:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

GlobalCom Software Limited[edit]

Not notable [13] - brenneman(t)(c) 13:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete: NN company, never heard of it in Bangladesh. --Ragib 14:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN company missionstatementcruft. Tobycat 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.bogra.info and Bogra.info[edit]

Not notable per WP:WEB - Alexa, however there may be systemic bias working here. brenneman(t)(c) 13:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As a Bangladeshi, I can attest that there is no systemic bias working here. This is NN and pure promotional material. --Ragib 14:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ragib. No Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert and style. Note though that WP:WEB is not a policy yet. Mistercow 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

SKHM[edit]

Not notable. Google:SKHM+energy yields 3,560 hits. brenneman(t)(c) 13:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what the cited Google results are supposed to indicate. It is clearly some kind of New Age crap, but with 3,560 Google hits it may well be comparatively notable New Age crap. However, I suspect that this is a copyvio from somewhere, and in any case it is not written as an encyclopedia article. Delete unless completely rewritten. Uppland 14:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's either copyvio from [14] or posted by them. Either way it's unencyclopedic promotional POV material. Tearlach 17:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Jamstick[edit]

Delete, self-proclaimed neologism.FreplySpang (talk) 14:02, August 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 keep. - Sikon 11:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lustick (new article)[edit]

I am putting this up on VfD just to prevent it being speedied as recreation of a previously deleted article. Ian Lustick was deleted today after blanking by the original author, apparently after about an hour on VfD and hardly any discussion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ian Lustick). I never had the chance to see that article, so this aricle is a new article created from scratch. Ian Lustick is a full professor and department chair at a major university (UPenn) and is author or (co-)editor of a large number of publications. He is clearly notable in his field. Baseball players and web cartoonists with fewer accomplishments are being kept by default. Keep. Uppland 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. sounds good. Brighterorange 14:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems absolutely notable. Martg76 14:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Professor with number of published works about the Middle East. Well done, Uppland. Capitalistroadster 14:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite well known in the field of Middle-East studies. I see his name all the time. --Zero 15:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice save. It does sometimes seem that the bar for scholars is higher than it is for athletes, actors, and politicians. Tobycat 21:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid entry. Punkmorten 22:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fantastic. —RaD Man (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --malathion talk 06:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild[edit]

POV magnet, created by editors pretending to be Muslim, so as to act as a strawman-opponent to their real point of view.

  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 14:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think you are the first editor that has ever accused the creator of this project, Striver, of just pretending to be a Muslim. -- Karl Meier 22:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearer with Saduj al-Dahij ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Insh Allah. -- Darwinek 08:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lol :) -striver
  • Keep, but the constitution should be NPOV, like the constitution of SIIEG. Otherwise DELETE. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 16:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless they change the guidlines to allow all people interested in Islam to join, not just people with a single POV. --Quasipalm 16:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where does it say that you need to have a pov to be allwode to enter? --Striver 04:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 17:19, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Take it to meta.  Grue  19:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely against ethos of Wikipedia Proto t c 10:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup the "constitution" for neutrality. mikka (t) 22:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Dv 10:00:56, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete For the same reasons as other sub wikiProject Islam guilds. __earth 17:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as User:Quasipalm, I feel this is a good idea only if non-Muslims should be able to join. That appears to be the case at the moment. Hence, keep. ObsidianOrder 11:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WiseSabre 20:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepHeraclius 22:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:37, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Brash[edit]

Notability not established. - Motor 14:44:20, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

  • Delete. No allmusic entry, no relevant google hits. Punkmorten 19:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Might even fail criterion A7? Punkmorten 19:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it would have to be about a "real person". The bands CSDs all failed. -Splash 19:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here, nothing verifiable. -Splash 19:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 17:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Icedawg[edit]

This information has already been speedily deleted twice, however the user, who has been warned about it, doesn't appear to agree. So why don't I just delete it again? Because the user posting the content appears to have access to more than one IP: they were warned on 200.91.69.149 (talk · contribs) and have reposted the content on 195.93.21.38 (talk · contribs). Pending other IPs leaping in to repost the content I am taking the deletion up a stage to see if they get the general idea. By the way the content is patent nonsense. Francs2000 | Talk 14:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Double Gravity Bookset and The Double Gravity Trilogy and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/The Double Gravity Trilogy and Grice Design Work & Co[edit]

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Double Gravity. Fan fiction. Also The Double Gravity Trilogy and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/The Double Gravity Trilogy. And Grice Design Work & Co. And Double Gravity Ships (sorry, there's already a vfd on this one; the tag was removed from the article). Joyous (talk) 15:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. nn. Searching for "Double Gravity" on google yielded 576 results, but I couldn't find any about this series of books. Amazon does not know about the books. ManoaChild 22:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, this stuff seems to be fan fiction. Do they even have a deal with the Star Trek people? --Etacar11 04:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And shouldn't anything to do with this that's not vfd-ed be vfd-ed? (I'm lazy at the moment) --Etacar11 04:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm not so lazy, all vfd tagged and pointing here. All related to apparent fan fiction and a small publishing company who I assume would be hauled into court by Paramount/Pocket Books if they published Star Trek stories and tried to sell them... (right?) --Etacar11 05:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbering Kate[edit]

Another load of Barse - certainly unverifiable - and almost certainly bs --Doc (?) 15:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Special Air Service. Has already been done.-Splash 22:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UKSF Selection[edit]

The article is a simple cut and paste from Special Air Service. There is no reason to duplicate this information, and since selection varies between special forces it makes sense to include selection policies in articles on individual forces. -- Necrothesp 15:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. No need for a WP:VfD. Pburka 16:07, August 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 No consensus. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the British Army/Alternative Structure[edit]

This was created as a subpage of Structure of the British Army by somebody who didn't like the former article. It largely contains the same information in a different format, with a number of inaccuracies and misspellings. While there is some information that could usefully be transferred and integrated, in general the existence of this article is completely unnecessary and confusing. -- Necrothesp 15:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

CHERUB Forums[edit]

Nominated for speedy because of advert, but that's not a WP:CSD. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 15:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's not advertising, just informing. I talked about the page, I never said anything about whether it was good or not.No.--Commander gree 21:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:09, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of things widely considered toyetic[edit]

Subjective, POV, weasel words in the title. Delete. Kaibabsquirrel 15:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inherently POV and unverifiable. Pburka 16:06, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep neologisms from Freakazoid Delete subjective, divisive lists. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, listcruft. Punkmorten 23:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant. Would be actually "list of cartoon characters" or something like that since toy manufacturers have attempted to turn most of them into some kind of toys. Quality controversial... - Skysmith 10:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. For better or worse, this is both a part of marketing history and animation history. The latter has been oftentimes accused (rightfully, at times) of creating stuff merely just for the sake of having a toy to market. Likewise, marketers have been accused of taking the most innocent stuff and creating mercenary merchandizing licenses out of it. It's somewhat of a dark footnote in what passes as (recent) modern history (though others may disagree), and I think it should be retained.--Mitsukai 00:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Delete. In retrospect, A Man in Black has a point. I'll go ahead and move over some of the examples to the toyetic article and this one can be deleted.--Mitsukai 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and redirect to How to Start Your Own Country. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

King Danny Wallace I[edit]

Was nomintaed for speedy because not notable & vanity. These aren't valid WP:CSD, so I've moved to VfD. (No assertion of notability is a CSD, but the article asserts that the subject is king of a sovereign nation and is the subject of a BBC programme. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 16:03, August 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. – malathion talk 06:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denailing[edit]

Violates WP:NOR. Lacks references. Sounds like an essay. Probably violates WP:NPOV. Could possibly be merged into Torture. Alphax τεχ 16:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If it existed in medieval times, it didn't go by that name. I'm not even going to go into style. Mistercow 18:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "courtesy of the delicious quality of agony perceptible by fingertips" Oh come on. Some people read about this for educational purposes, this guy sounds like he enjoys it a little too much. (preceding unsigned comment by 24.124.85.164 22:45, 6 August 2005 UTC)
  • Delete There is an almost pornographic quality to the piece, which is inappropriate, not to mention unsettling.
  • Delete The style of the article is inappropriate and there is little to no indication of factual accuracy. "... questioner felt "cheated" that more delicious agony could have been extracted" This is an encyclopedia, not a comic book. - Shadowe 03:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't like how it sounds? Then we clean it up, we don't delete it. Wikipedia contains many articles on various methods of torture, getting rid of just this one (and leaving the rest) doesn't make sense. People have definitely had their nails ripped out as a form of torture, it's fact and not fiction. Clean it up, don't censor! Commking, 11 August 2005
    • I don't think this is an issue of censorship. The problem is that we cannot verify that any torture has gone by that name. Have people had their nails ripped out as a form of torture? Most likely, yes. But do a google search for "denail" or "denailing". For "denail", you'll find a bunch of people who can't spell "denial". For "denailing" you'll find sites where people are trying to remove nails from lumber. Now let's narrow down our "denailing" search by adding the word "torture". Two results. Maybe there is a kind of torture called "denailing" and only two people have ever decided to mention them in a web page. But with no sources referenced in the article and no Google results, we aren't going to be able to clean this page up. Mistercow 08:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 22:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man X Collection[edit]

Non-encyclopædic: it's merely a commercial collection of already-existing computer games; moreover, it doesn't yet exist. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC) To add to my inital coment: it seems at the very least a bit fan-crufty to have articles like this. The usual principle is that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball; why is that different for computer games? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep upcoming, verified games. It's essentially the same thing as Mega Man Anniversary Collection, which has a healthy article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable collection of notable games. Kappa 18:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the games will have significant differences vs their original versions, and the collection will have unlockable and bonus features. Maybe it will be stubby until the release later this year, but there IS enough information for it to have its own article distinct from the articles for the 7 games that make up the collection individually. --Boco XLVII 18:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiably in produciton. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. --malathion talk 06:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//fragment[edit]

Can't make much sense of this, but it doesn't sound notable. Deb 16:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's got something to do with .hack, although its notability escapes me. DS 17:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless somebody can make sense of it - there are several other .hack// ... articles, so this is probably an anime episode or a game or something like that ... - DavidWBrooks 17:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup. A quick Google search shows that it is an MMO that has been released in Japan, ostensibly to be imported to the U.S. I don't think it needs to be deleted, as it is certainly significant, but the article is useless as it is now. Needs NPOV and cleanup. Mistercow 17:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to cleanup. The subject of the article will become more relevant in the upcoming year. Right now it is only useful as a reminder of a new game. For those who doubt whether the game exists at all, there is an IGN press release on the subject. [[15]]
  • Send to cleanup. This is factual, as there are any number of articles that discuss this found all over the net. This different from being an anime, as it is being made into an actual game, and varies from being a simple console game, as it will also be used for online play.
  • Send to cleanup. As above. There is more info now about it being an MMORPG. -- Bubbachuck 20:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was CLOSED. Nominator has recommended delisting, and the nomination was in effect an accident anyway. Splash 17:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck (Pokémon)[edit]

A one-off Pokemon trainer with no personality or backstory. Makes only a single appearance in a single matched trio of Pokemon games. Non-notable gamecruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strong Keep Gym leaders, like individual Pokemon, are notable. He is important in Ash's quest on the show and important to the player in the games. Let PAC expand it a bit. Ryan 11:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. D'oh, didn't do my research on this one. He's a recurring character in one of the manga. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep per Ryan. The Pokemon Adoption Center is actively working on expanding Pokemon stubs into real articles. With some 25+ members, the PAC has expanded 50 stubs in the past week alone and nearly 200 articles total. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • If the nominator says delist, then there's really nothing to talk about, is there? Almafeta 12:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the gym article. Not-notable enough for a standalone article.Gateman1997 17:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was CLOSED. Nominator has recommended delisting, and the nomination was in effect an accident anyway. Splash 17:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugsy (Pokémon)[edit]

A one-off Pokemon trainer with no personality or backstory. Makes only a single appearance in a single matched trio of Pokemon games. Non-notable gamecruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Gym leaders, like individual Pokemon, are notable. He is important in Ash's quest on the show and important to the player in the games. Let PAC expand it a bit. Ryan 11:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep As above. The Pokemon Adoption Center is actively working on expanding Pokemon stubs into real articles. With some 25+ members, the PAC has expanded 50 stubs in the past week alone and nearly 200 articles total. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. While Bugsy only appears in one matched set of games and one episode of the anime and no chapters of the manga (I checked before posting this VFD), this is better off merged than deleted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is getting ridiculous. Wrong yet again. Bugsy appeared in multiple chapters of the manga, see [16] for evidence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - This needs expanding, but we can sort it and going on past record with pokémon, we'll do it very soon! --Celestianpower talk 12:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although PAC so far has centered on species articles, we're almost out of those, so next will come characters and movies (including deciding what articles are too trivial or indepth to be useful). Almafeta 13:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Johto Gym Leaders. Not worthy of a seperate article.Gateman1997 17:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was CLOSED. Nominator has recommended delisting, and the nomination was in effect an accident anyway. Splash 17:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brawly (Pokémon)[edit]

A one-off Pokemon trainer with no personality or backstory. Makes only a single appearance in a single matched trio of Pokemon games. Non-notable gamecruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Gym leaders, like individual Pokemon, are notable. He is important in Ash's quest on the show and important to the player in the games. Let PAC expand it a bit. Ryan 11:31, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG Keep Notable recurring character from multiple games/episodes. The Pokemon Adoption Center is actively working on expanding Pokemon stubs into real articles. With some 25+ members, the PAC has expanded 50 stubs in the past week alone and nearly 200 articles total. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delist. While Brawly only appears in one matched set of games and one episode of the anime and no chapters of the manga (I checked before posting this VFD), this is better off merged than deleted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is patently false. Brawly appears in several Manga chapters. See [17] for evidence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • By all means, then, please help me expand List of Johto Gym Leaders. It's look a bit sparse at the moment. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, they need individual articles. You can't just do something as sweeping as that with no consensus or discussion. At least just trial it, don't redirectise the articles with battle info in them! I'm going to revert. --Celestianpower talk 12:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This needs expanding, but we can sort it and going on past record with pokémon, we'll do it very soon! --Celestianpower talk 12:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PAC seems to be the rebirth of the Wikiproject Pokédex... Almafeta 13:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by UninvitedCompany. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

K.Grafstein[edit]

This article seems to be an auto-biography of a non-notable person. It seems to violate Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. Fbergo 16:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:30, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:TheGamer and TheGamer[edit]

non-notable information on some internet user (originally on TheGamer, and moved to an non-existing Wikipedia user at User:TheGamer) secfan 17:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Userpage where no actual user account exists. Delete. Uncle G 22:41:45, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Keller Williams Realty. There was nothing here that needed merging.-Splash 22:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Williams (real estate)[edit]

Article was listed for speedy because of no assertion of notability. The subject is the co-founder of a billion dollar business. I vote to Keep or Merge and redirect to Keller Williams Realty Pburka 17:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Unless there's something except the size of the business that's notable. Keller Williams Realty is VFD as it appears to be purely an advert.
  • Merge into Keller Williams Realty, which is a decent stub, and not an advert. android79 01:12, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per android, notable business=notable business man CanadianCaesar 03:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CartooNOVEL[edit]

neologism. DS 17:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - deleteGOOFINESS is a term coined by me after seeing that article - DavidWBrooks 17:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PRPoet has not only deleted the VfD notice, but blanked this page, twice.DS 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE TO PRpoet: DO NOT BLANK THE VfD NOTICE. THE PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS ON THIS PAGE, NOT DELETE THE PAGE ENTIRELY - FURTHERMORE, DELETING THE PAGE ENTIRELY WON'T WORK, SINCE YOU'RE NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR. STATE YOUR CASE HERE, AND WE'LL VOTE ON IT. IF YOU BLANK THIS PAGE AGAIN, I WILL REPORT YOU ON THE VANDALISM-IN-PROGRESS PAGE, AND YOU MAY BE BLOCKED FROM FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS. DS 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just rv'ed again - they'd once again deleted the VFD notice. Tonywalton 00:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - apart from anything else this'd be a neologism, as stated in the article.

Note that there's also a "Cartoonovel" page (as opposed to CartooNOVEL) with identical (pre-VfD) content. I've replaced it with a redirect to CartooNOVEL to avoid having to keep up with two lots of rv'ing when they remove the VfD notice (hopefully they won't rv the redirect page). If the "Cartoonovel" page is also reverted I'll VfD that as well. Tonywalton 00:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Admins should take note of actions of the users in this case and take appropriate action if neccessary
  • Delete neologism and advert. - Motor 07:48:05, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Reeks of self-promotion. Owen× TALK 13:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — NN/self-promition. — RJH 15:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endurance 3 hawaii[edit]

Another of Maoririder's stubs. Either delete or clean-up substantially and merge to Discovery Kids. Also, the formatting of the title is incorrect. So, if the vote is to keep, that needs to be addressed. -Soltak 17:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable TV show, useful article. Please address title formatting issues before bringing things to VFD. Kappa 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the vote were to delete title formatting would be irrelevant. Therefore, I chose to defer fixing that until the vote is resolved. -Soltak 18:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. - Sikon 11:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Hair Forever[edit]

Completing nomination started by Billhpike on 24 June 2005. -- Norvy (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No votedoesn't mention much usefull info but could be expanded Billhpike 03:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • So put {{expand}} on it, or stub it like I did. Gazpacho 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to exist, was notable as being totally unannounced and random, even for Adult Swim. I doubt, however, that it gets a series. Weak Keep. humblefool® 04:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If the show does exist, and this article describes the show truthfully, why should it be deleted? There are plenty of articles on equally minor cultural achievements. matturn 3 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
  • They've announced that it is going to be a real series, premiering in December, along with new episodes of Aqua Teen. ZJP 5 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)
  • They're currently recording new episodes, I'm not sure when they're planning to air them, but I know the show's not dead. bluehysteria
  • Keep It's a new series coming later this year. It's really funny. AshTM 07:33, 10 July 2005 (UT
  • Keep The show was the funniest ever, dont delete it, it was a show on Adult Swim--Kit fisto 06:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why was this nominated for deletion anyway? --Kamasutra 02:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inappropriate listing on VfD. I've left a message on User talk:Billhpike. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:23, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The show exists (I have it on MPEG) and it's hilarious! Can't wait for the new eps Adult Swim keeps announcing for the fall EmiOfBrie 22:03 CDT, Aug 1, 2005
  • Strong keep even though the show SUCKS. --Infobacker 19:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It one of the perfect examples of the conflict between the AS: Comedy and AS: Action.
  • Keep. Poor quality of the article calls for a cleanup tag, not vfd. -- Norvy (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard of it, but it has an IMDB entry and Google hits out the wazoo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep IMDb-proven, notable TV show CanadianCaesar 20:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the sockpuppets are right. —RaD Man (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Rob Online[edit]

A personal web site. I have not yet found any third party evidence that shows that it is important or significant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seems vanity. Especially since its creator is "Rob Online". But I could be wrong. Kushboy 19:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if the site is famous, newsworthy, or in any way notable, the article certainly doesn't say so. Seems like just an average personal homepage. A very, very bad Alexa rank of 3,784,034 doesn't help, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mistercow 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic proverbs 2[edit]

No vote. This had a previous VfD, and I'm relisting it for the reasons given in my closure note there. Original nomination said "Delete this because there's virtually no content to it. It's a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, a link to a list of Scottish Gaelic proverbs at Wikisource, a link to proverb, and some external links, held together by a dicdef".-Splash 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Fever vs Malaria[edit]

Very few people would search for this article in particular. It is best to move all the dialogue to the two respective articles about Malaria and Yellow Fever. HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 18:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee, I wish Malaria and Yellow Fever could just settle their differences and stop all their fussin' and feudin'. Ok, ok... merge into the relevant articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • merge if there's useful contentBorisblue 09:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge if there's useful content — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopaedic, nothing in there that isn't in Malaria and Yellow Fever already. Pilatus 14:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adds nothing to the 2 real articles. -R. S. Shaw 05:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', nothing to merge.--nixie 05:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

FinCech[edit]

Sounds useful to a very limited number of people, and Wikipedia is not a mailing list directory.

  • Delete if it's just an internet mailing list. If it's an actual cultural society with a headquarters and meetings and such, possibly keep, though the article fails to make that clear. It only gets 61 Google hits, either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:11, August 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 No consensus. --malathion talk 06:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild[edit]

Totally inappropriate. A POV based dividing of editors works against NPOV policy, not towards it. Wikipedians should work together, not as US vs THEM but as a whole. Dividing people, classifying them into distinct group, is how ghettos form, and how racism starts. To try this is to claim that editors of belief X must all believe what everyone else of belief X is. US vs. THEM, is a false dichotomy. Truth is not black and white, there are many many shades of grey. To push one POV, or to try to balance only one side of the scales, leaves the other side unbalanced, making the system push naturally toward the POV of the balancing side. This is not appropriate. This is not right. This is not a wikipedian way of behaving.

It wouldn't be up for VFD if it was like those 4 projects. But it isn't. It is explicitely for editors with a single POV, not a single interest. Wheras those 4 projects are for anyone interested in their subject, whether pro- or anti-, this "guild" is explicitely for people only with one POV. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Certanly not, where did you get that idea from? --Striver 11:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete __earth 17:06, August 10, 2005 (UTC) zereshk, its not malicious intent. Shia could still be dicussed under Islam. FYI, 3 others guilds within project islam, namely sunni, SIIEG and another one that I don't remember are being considered for deletion too.
  • Keep ObsidianOrder 10:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. --malathion talk 06:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Sunni Guild[edit]

Totally inappropriate. A POV based dividing of editors works against NPOV policy, not towards it. Wikipedians should work together, not as US vs THEM but as a whole. Dividing people, classifying them into distinct group, is how ghettos form, and how racism starts. To try this is to claim that editors of belief X must all believe what everyone else of belief X is. US vs. THEM, is a false dichotomy. Truth is not black and white, there are many many shades of grey. To push one POV, or to try to balance only one side of the scales, leaves the other side unbalanced, making the system push naturally toward the POV of the balancing side. This is not appropriate. This is not right. This is not a wikipedian way of behaving.

  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wikinonsenseBillyCreamCorn 21:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe this is a good faith effort. Also, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a project, that is designed to make sure that a specific PoV is not misrepresented, this according to Wikipedias NPoV policies. -- Karl Meier 21:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no different from a wikiproject for Canadians or whatever. Kappa 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild --Striver 02:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Darwinek 08:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ridiculous concept. Gateman1997 00:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inappropriate Wikiproject.  Grue  11:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. cleanup constitution for NPOV. mikka (t) 22:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete __earth 17:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC) for the same reasons as the other 2 guilds (Shia and SIIEG).
  • Keep provided non-Sunnis can join freely. ObsidianOrder 11:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bens face[edit]

Could not find any information on 'Ben Hall' or anything notable about a 'Bens face' or a fuame. Kushboy 19:33, August 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 No consensus, so keep. --Allen3 talk 21:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

List of celebrities with breast implants[edit]

Largely unverifiable trivia. tregoweth 19:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • The only problem I see is the speculation. This should be removed. I suggest Keeping any celebrities who have publicly confirmed or denied having breast implants. Pburka 20:51, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Excuse me? You probably did not mean that but the sentence comes out as if the denial would mean confirmation - Skysmith 10:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the "rumored" section is eliminated.BillyCreamCorn 21:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The rumour section seems to have gone but we are still listing those 'either self-admittedly or with high probability' - that's nonverifiable and encourages OR (mind boggles?) - so delete unless someone is willing to reduce this to verifiable --Doc (?) 21:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — semi-speculative. The bottom section should probably be on a different page or moved to a breast implant page. — RJH 21:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Excellent content, but needs to be sourced. lots of issues | leave me a message 22:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable topic. Kappa 00:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa CanadianCaesar 00:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, unverifiable. Pavel Vozenilek 02:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainalbe, unverifiable. Pointless and non-encyclopedic as well. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 02:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But rename it to List of people with breast implants (including only notable people of course). It would be better. --Edcolins 10:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiotic, completely non-encyclopedic topic. Unverifiable.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:33:16, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aardvark. Radiant_>|< 13:14, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The addition of those who have denied and spoken out against implants adds legitimacy to the topic. It should be expanded (no pun intended) with some introductory material to make it more of an article than just a category-in-disguise. Speculative information should be removed and a criteria should be established for inclusion otherwise 99% of porn stars could be listed. 23skidoo 14:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, half of this list is speculation and the rest is unencyclopedic.Gateman1997 16:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic list.  Grue  19:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, enecyclopedic list -user:Fallout_boy
  • Delete, highly speculative list.--nixie 22:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not unverifiable in principle. Needs references and discussion of criteria. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Shouldn't the latter two sections be deleted even if the article is kept? After all it's a list of people with implants, not a list of people the tabloids suspect of having them or people who don't have them.Gateman1997 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, some of the material doesn't really belong. It should be removed. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we cannot know for sure who had this done or not. Even if some do come out and say that they got it done, many others are just pure speculation, which could fall under Original research. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when did every piece of information on Wikipedia need to be supported by an external website? In most cases general consensus is sufficient. 80.203.101.87 11:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Towel. -Splash 23:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drycloth[edit]

I'm not clear whether this is a synonym of Towel or something else, but surely it doesn't merit a separate article. Deb 20:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Towel. --MicroFeet 20:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to towel sounds harmless. I've never heard the term before, though. Flowerparty talk 22:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you follow the link to Washcloth, there are in fact several similar pages. I'm going to redirect them. Flowerparty talk 22:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

*beep movie*[edit]

Nonsense. Delete--MicroFeet 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty content Delete --kpturvey 15:27, 6 August 2005 (CST)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:31, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Jascer[edit]

Nonsense. --Ian Pitchford 20:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by FCYTravis. Closing. Essjay · Talk 05:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Evilgelical Christians[edit]

Frivolous and polemical use of the article namespace: the content of the article was a redirect to Fundamentalist Christianity — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Patent nonsense by User:CheeseDreams speedy delete with prejudice (it wouldn't be so bad if it were actually funny}. --Doc (?) 21:12, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smiteth into the depths of digital doom with great alacrity. ;) — RJH 21:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Ultra Rev.[edit]

If true, nn. But probably a hoax, the Church in question doesn't seem to have a pastor by this name [18] --Doc (?) 21:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does according to the site you referenced. --64.185.140.252 22:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK that was careless of me - I can now actually verify the self-proclaimed title from his blog [19] - but it is still very nn, so delete --Doc (?) 22:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you please clarify the terminology you used: "nn". Regardless, I created this entry, and intended it as serious and worth expanding in the coming days (because of the curious relationship between the indivual's ordaining denomination and the church he serves in), and no, I'm not Evans. However, I've reviewed the policy on deletions and whatnot, and suppose this could be considered a vanity article, though I didn't mean to use resources for useless material, or waste your time if you view it as such. My apologies if indeed this is how you take it. I respectfully vote keep. --64.185.140.252 23:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
replied on userpage --Doc (?) 00:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, clearly some sort of weird inside joke. Sdedeo 02:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Agree with Sdedeo about this being an inside joke. ManoaChild 03:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Cleo (1958)[edit]

This article is improperly designated and is a direct duplicate of a section of another article. The article duplicated is here: Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What article? Punkmorten 23:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an article on another Hurricane Cleo, but this appears to be a different storm. Since nominator didn't specify what article this allegedly copies, I'm voting keep, though it does need to be wikified. Changing vote to delete as duplicate. For some reason I had the impression the two articles were on different events. My original point remains that improperly formatted articles are not a criteria for deletion, however. Be bold. 23skidoo 23:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kappa 00:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did anyone actually read the article instead of just looking at the title? The article on Hurricane Cleo and the article up for deletion are, as the nominator said, on the exact same subject. Delete the dupe. FCYTravis 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hurricane Cleo and redirect. This has different information. There's no reason to bring this to VFD; a merge and redirect will solve the problems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. No merging or redirecting from this article should be performed because it is a copy/paste job from "Catastrophic" etc article mentioned in the VFD header. Delete it for being a duplication of data, and merge info into the real article. It's also incorrectly named (it's about the 1964 storm, not 1958). I would speedy it if I had caught it before E. Brown did, it has no business existing. --Golbez 04:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete information and redirect. Keep link if a proper page can be made with sufficient information, but this is the wrong storm!!! CrazyC83 19:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reason at all to keep the link. Hurricane Cleo in 1958 was an extremely powerful storm - but never came close to land. See so for yourself: [20]. The article should be purged with prejudice and the creator should be chided. --Golbez 20:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Am I allowed to vote, be it that I am the accuser?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waist shake[edit]

Neologism. (80 unique googles.) "At the end of the article, the teacher states, "Luckily, the "waist-shake" craze has died down, but if it ever pops up in the urban dictionary or Wikipedia, we'll know who to blame."... looks to be a case of WP:POINT.

  • Delete Flowerparty talk 21:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -D. Wu 21:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, --Veemonkamiya 04:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, remove offending reference --Dibabear 18:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Added by 84.167.207.172, 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Flowerparty talk 16:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia ain't paper! It doesn't harm you to keep it up.
    Added by user:ChoobWriter, 15:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC); user's 12th edit. Flowerparty talk 16:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm very surprised I forgot to sign it. Also I may not have done that much editing, but my account is nearly two months old so that should be noted. ChoobWriter 14:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Those who want to keep this item need to explain why it has any encyclopedia merit. -- Visviva 15:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, slang term. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Static Octopus[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, no notable members. feydey 22:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above; in addition to failing WP:MUSIC no hits come up on Allmusic.com. RasputinAXP 22:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. I find it an interesting article. Just because no hits come up on Allmusic.com, doesn't mean it's not of merit. Are we not building Wikipedia to become the definitive resource and if so, then how we can compare it to other sources? User:Matt.whitby
  • In fact, this band is headed by Tery Daly, who although perhaps unknown to you is VERY well known on his music scene. As the publisher of <anofollow" class="external free">http://www.Starcityscene.com">Starcityscene.com</a> a site that covers and promotes the Lincoln, NE music scene, Tery makes a big contribution to his local scene in that role and in his role in The Static Octopus.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:09, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Beathoven[edit]

Self-promotional, vanity..NN content. See WP:NOT EdwinHJ | Talk 22:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You shouldn't just jump to the conclusion that everything like this is vanity. I have stripped the page down and improved the spelling & grammar, and it seems more acceptable now. Whether this is a relivant page at all is open to debate though.. Perhaps it should be moved to Wiktionary. When the Wiktionary is complete, it will certainly include popular culture words, even obscure ones, such as this. | Gubby 1:16, 7 August 2005

  • Delete, promotion, and the logic of the article also escapes me. feydey 23:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xaa 23:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contrablonial[edit]

Nonsense - unfortunately I don't think patent nonsense (although I won't object) --Doc (?) 22:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Patent enough that I would've {{nonsense}}d it. Anyway, if the broken English doesn't convince you, zero googles might. —Cryptic (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nonsense per google. feydey 23:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, speedy wouldn't hurt either. Punkmorten 23:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense, neologism. ManoaChild 03:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 23:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Williams Realty[edit]

Pure vanity/advertisement page Tonywalton 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete If it was a well known realty company then maybe, but wiki is not for advertising. --Dysepsion 23:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should've done my research. Didn't realize they were around here in the West Coast albiet not really known compared to other real estate companies in the same area. --Dysepsion 06:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known real estate agency, at least in my area – my current home was sold by a KW agent. This is a good stub and I don't see why it's being called advertising. android79 01:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Major real estate agency with over $1 billion in annual revenue. Why was this even nominated? 263,000 google hits! Pburka 01:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero notability. Ejrrjs | What? 01:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. website shows over 800,000 listings; if we have requests for ERA Real Estate and Century 21 then why not this one? RasputinAXP 01:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable business CanadianCaesar 03:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a major company in many parts of US. Quickly spreading through my area of New England. It gives good basic info for a stub, keep.
  • Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rubber Bandits[edit]

Not notable, advertising. feydey 22:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn comedy duo vanity. --Etacar11 04:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... before word gets out and their anonimity is ruined forever. Flowerparty talk 06:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable secfan 16:07, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "no copies were ever actualy [sic] sold"? Not notable. --IByte 11:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And no, editing the sentence in question is not going to make me change my vote. --IByte 15:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These guys are going to be pretty big in Ireland. (Unsigned vote by 83.71.96.168 (talk · contribs), third edit)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Youth finances[edit]

First draft of an essay. Unsalvageable. Unclear if the title subject should even be an entry.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This isn't an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what it is. Part of it is advice on the dangers of using credit card irresposibly. ike9898 12:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV essay. Func( t, c, e,  ) 22:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopaedic. Stephenb 14:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inertdynamo.com[edit]

Alexa: not in 100,000, vanity and promotion. Cannot be put to CSD. feydey 23:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Isn't 'up and coming' a euphemism for 'not notable'? --IByte 23:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable.BillyCreamCorn 23:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN/Advert. --Ragib 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I own this website and I vote to take this off wikipedia. An "overzealous" friend put it on here, sorry. (previous unsigned comment by 68.56.146.174 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Dust devil monster[edit]

Non-notable. Low-level RuneScape character.Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 23:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 (only content is an external link) --cesarb 00:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devrim[edit]

The page is empty, with only a link for outside information. Created by an anonymous user. Delete --Pc13 23:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've now tagged as a speedy delete, no content and no context CanadianCaesar 00:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 and redirect to Keller Williams Realty. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Keller[edit]

Vanity/advert along with Joe Williams (real estate) and Keller Williams Realty Tonywalton 00:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hell (DragonBall Z)[edit]

Delete-anime-cruft.--Zxcvbnm 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 13:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boobies (The Thread)[edit]

nonsense thread that doesn't really apply to anything, can't think of a reason it should exist Ovulator 00:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article about a thread on an internet forum. I don't think it gets any less notable than that. - Thatdog 02:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Internet threads are not notable. 23skidoo 03:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete threadcruft. Sabine's Sunbird 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharsh[edit]

So-called Israeli private militia, founded 3 months ago, dedicated to the "Silly Revolution." No Google hits (other than their own website), no sign of any independent news coverage, and the same editor added silly edits to Passion fruit regarding this group.[21] It appears to be non-notable, and perhaps a hoax. Delete. Willmcw 21:55, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

The "Silly Revolution", while still rather unknown, has real substance to it, and the events described - although not "serious" by nature - did actually occur. Unfortunately for international interest, all media coverage of the organization has remained local - meaning no english-language links are available for reference (besides our own site).

The use of Wikipedia was intended for precisely this reason - to bring our movement to a broader international audience. Whether or not this is a legitimate use of Wikipedia is for you to decide, as we have no intention to force our ideology on anyone, but we do believe that our entry is not completely without merit. "silly" does not, in our opinion, necessarily equate with "Dumb", "pointless", or "superfluous". I think that Wikipedia readers/users should be allowed to decide for themselves how much thought (or lack of it) our militia deserves.

Independent Links regarding "Pharsh" and the "Silly Revolution" (unfortunately in Hebrew):

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3119283,00.html (please note almost 250 (!) responses)

http://food.nana.co.il/article.php?id=1017 http://b.walla.co.il/?w=/3900/754267 http://news.msn.co.il/news/Yellow/Internal/200507/2005072921802.htm
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?format=wm&ak=null&S=DAF82FC95EB24C5F9DBBD4CE3A8A9414&ClipMediaID=71895
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART/967/087.html

DardaDos 15:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. we are anything but a "private" militia

  • do you really think what we wrote constitutes propaganda? (in the classical sense). I would also be more than happy if someone else wanted to look through our site, read the articles, see the interviews, and write an "objective" entry on us. Volunteers? DardaDos 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pharsh is not an unknown organization. Its activities have been covered by all the major news outlets in Israel, including press, television, radio and internet sources. Indeed, coverage of Pharsh has been so widespread that several satiric shows complained of the "oversaturation" of media by Pharsh. In addition to news articles, editorials have apeared in the press including the nations leading daily newspaper. While irritating, Pharsh is unfortunatly not a minor cultural phenomen in Israel.

Yaron Nahari

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_6&oldid=1081091754"