Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 8

[]

2005-08-08

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Dmcdevit·t 03:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Edward Mullaney

Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - this should be speedied, surely? Tonywalton 00:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - this one's an {{nn-bio}} for sure. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above MicahMN | Talk 01:28, 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 no consensus. The votes are: 3 to keep, 4 to delete (including the nominator) -- BD2412 ^talk 03:26, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

OPX2 (software)

Advertising for unimportant software. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete: advertising and insubstantial. Mitchell k dwyer 02:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advert. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Impossible to tell, don't know this market segment. What are criteria for inclusion of products. It needs a stub template and categories too. It's hardly advertising or marketing as it is, just incomplete. DavidH 05:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Clear advertising. Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:08:34, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. May be notable, has over 10,000 google hits. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Make a stub and keep - This is an important piece of software for many companies and developers. The article, as is, is very weak, but so are the thousands of other Wikipedia stubs. --Frag 15:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's probably notable if you can get a job working solely with it. Needs much expansion though. It's not automatically an advert by being about a commercial product. ~~ N (t/c) 07:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Facts of Reproduction

Several reasons this page needs to be deleted.

1. It is rambling POV. Example: Such innuendo is usually presented in a humorous setting, a trend spearheaded perhaps by the television show Three's Company and continued the television show Facts of Life, its successors and many other shows since then.
2. It makes specific and highly debatable assertions with no citations. Example: Generally, girls are told about the facts of life sooner than boys, since they reach puberty sooner and are viewed as being more at risk to bear the burden of child raising if teen-aged preganancies occur and are carried to term and live birth.
3. It is poorly written and unencyclopedic. Example: Often, the moral message is merely abstinence, however, sometimes more creatigve alternates to copulation, such as tribadism and/or frottage (are these the correct terms?)...
4. But, most importantly, the entire article was written for the express purpose of proving a point. Quote: You all think I am just oogling her. I had an Aha! moment recently. I had no idea that boy and girls wrestle now because I went this a Catholic school system where they _still_ have some issues with it. For those of you who can stand it, the full talk page is here -- Xaa 01:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh - and my vote is Delete. Xaa 01:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Reproduction deals with this much better and there is nothing here worth merging. Capitalistroadster 01:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --JPotter 01:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect to Reproduction but do not merge. Well-formatted POV rant, no information even worth smerging. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka makes a good point; I stand corrected. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons stated above. Also, for the curious, Talk:Elizabeth Morgan and Talk:Shirley Temple are stunning displays of something-or-other by Amorrow, the article creator. tregoweth 02:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A redirect is inappropriate here, otherwise we'll have people creating redirections for "Facts of Henry VIII", "Facts of Andromeda Galaxy", etc. Nandesuka 02:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with no merge and no redirect, for reasons given by Nandesuka and Fernando Rizo. Mitchell k dwyer 02:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, gosh, delete. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as duplication after merging any acceptable content. Title too obscure to redirect, I think. DavidH 05:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. You know, a sociologist or other social commentator might be able to write an excellent meditation on the cultural aspects of the rite of being told the "Facts of Life." As it stands, this one's a delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:12:59, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Weak keep --And I wrote the thing. Come on. The city slicker goes out to the farm and gets all embarrassed. Happens all the time in fiction and in non-fiction. I will just go ask one of my nice friends do re-write it. Like that one that is that Assistant Dean of her Sociology Department or sumthin. Alright, you jus do that nasty vfd. You think I am just going lay down and die? You should talk to people who do research on AIDS: Every time they thing that they got that little bug squashed, it changes, and thereby changes the game. See ya around soon! Amorrow 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Amorrow - I would suggest you take your time here at wikipedia more seriously, based on your edits, this is all a game to you. --JPotter 22:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. DS1953 14:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Definately funny. Karmafist 15:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'BJAODN - A hilarious article, though it doesn't provide encyclopedia information, not to mention most of this stuff is already in the reproduction article. [unsigned comment by Fraghappy]
• Delete. It's not a bad joke, it's just plain bad. --Carnildo 20:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. Not encyclopedic. There's human sexuality for those people who are interested in more encyclopedic expositions. It is true the "social aspects" section of that article is sadly, sadly lacking, though. It's all spread out in separate articles. While this article definitely doesn't pass muster, the need it fills is real. As an aside, I don't know why people keep mentioning reproduction. Despite the title, the article doesn't have the same topic as that at all. JRM · Talk 21:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal essay. --Etacar11 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It is funny, but we can't keep it (put it in BJAODN). MicahMN | Talk 00:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously. It's not funny because it wasn't intended to be. -Splash 19:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a very poorly written wiki. Its strange language is confusing. But it had me laughing my behind off reading it. It does not belong on Wikipedia in this form, though. Nagaflas 04:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted per consensus →Raul654 04:22, August 16, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

CDFL

Not notable. Vanity. Advertising for a small--very small?--fantasy football league.Mmmbeer 02:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity. My fantasy football league has a longer, more interesting history. Mitchell k dwyer 02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all fantasy football leagues. Inherently non-notable. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment need clear criteria for notability of organizations and online communities. Maybe your fantasy league is more notable, but what's the criteria? Number of users? Length of operation? Google hits? If you don't play fantasy football (or aren't interested in reading about it), you may think it's all non-notable; some people think stock-car racing is non-notable, and pro wrestling isn't "sport". Would 1 million FF players convince you? 10 million? DavidH 05:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is characteristic of FF leagues not to pay much attention to the goings-on in other leagues, with a few rare exceptions. The original Rotisserie Baseball League, who counts among its owners the revered "Founding Fathers" of fantasy baseball, might be one, but it has published tens of books and its members were either notable when the league began (sportswriters of national repute, for instance) or became notable after (as published experts in baseball analysis). So, no, I wouldn't categorically consider all fantasy leagues non-notable, but your typical fantasy footbal league is not like your typical university or your typical professional league. It's just a bunch of schmoes, among whom I count myself, who love sports. Mitchell k dwyer 08:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Seems like it's been around a long time, and has a lot of participants.

Unsigned comment by Voyager640.

• Delete If this league has published any books on the subject or produced any works that other FF leagues deem notable, it might be worth keeping.

Unsigned comment by Allegrorondo.

• Delete. FF leagues are inherently non-notable, sadly. ral315 18:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --Etacar11 23:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ditto ral's comment. Karmafist 21:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Philip tiberius naess gross

Non-encyclopaedic and non-notable Dave.Dunford 02:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless references are provided. I can't verify that this person exists. Pburka 03:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax. Google has nothing, which is unfathomable for a model. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic, unverified, age 13
• Comment -- improvement and NPOV tags needed, no vote -- can't verify notability, but if person has worked for major labels and appeared in major media, well, maybe. Some 13-year-old models may actually be notable no doubt. DavidH 05:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Another obvious delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:16:05, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Delete. 0 (ZERO) google hitz --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Corrected typos, made NPOV. Voyager640 15:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - If he's not showing up on Google, he's most certainly not the next "Brad Pitt." There is a remote chance that the author misspelled his name, I suppose, but I highly doubt it.--Frag 20:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/unverified. --Etacar11 23:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark Trollinger

non-notable, claim to fame is involvement in CDFL, itself under VfD for non-notability. Sdedeo 02:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. He seems like an interesting person. An interesting, non-notable person. Mitchell k dwyer 02:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if at all possible; otherwise delete. Not notable, as with CFDL CDFL (D'oh!) above. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable within CFDL circles. Voyager640 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. prolly the guy who wrote the soon to be deleted CFDL entry. --Darkfred 17:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic vanity. Good luck with the MBA though. --DrTorstenHenning 16:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity Karmafist 21:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 21:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Squeaky citizens

Non-verifiable and non-notable Dave.Dunford 02:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unreal. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encycopedic under music guidelines. DavidH 05:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• This is a WTF? delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:17:54, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, probably untrue, and vanity. (bad spelling too). →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 15:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 23:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is pure vanity. Avalon 11:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reads like a joke, possibly exaggerated vanity. Delete either way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:50, August 10, 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. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Men and Cats

Article appears to be based on a biased internet rumor. If it is real, more citation should be given and it should be merged into cat anyway. Decapod73 02:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am a cat, and I disagree with the analysis. Sdedeo 05:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am a dog, and I disagree with the analysis. No Account 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Without citations, this article is just speculation. ManoaChild 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Absolute garbage. It's even signed. Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ
• Delete. No sources provided, unverified, original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. anything good should be merged into cat --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing useful to merge into cat, since it's not only OR, but is the opposite of the few surveys I've seen (ISTR higher proportion of males than females own cats, relative to owning dogs, with differences below significance levels). Basically, this is a load of barse and should be treated as such. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (co-signed by Nut and Bolt, kittens of this parish)
• Delete - As both a cat owner and a preferrer of intellectual women, I find this fake apparent scientific study interesting, but the fact remains that it is still fake and does not belong at Wikipedia. There are zero google hits for "Aka K. Molitov," so, even if the scientist exists, he or she is not particularly well known, and, as such, is not a credible source.--Frag 20:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as personal essay and original research unless good verifiable sources are provided prior to expiration of VfD discussion. There oughta be a law allowing speedy deletion of any article that says "studies have shown" without citing at least a couple of studies... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like a POV essay --Dysepsion 05:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. My cats agree. --Etacar11 23:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. I rather think this is actually a joke. The last sentence reads like a punchline. Sabine's Sunbird 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Essjay · Talk 04:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Michael A. Langley

Vanity. Clearly not notable. Isn't really in a band and hasn't released any must--just wants to. Mmmbeer 02:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Both the original page and the current version qualify as an article about a real person which does not not assert that person's notability. Pburka 03:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7. Apparently, he hopes to have a Wikipedia page when he becomes famous. Unfortunately, that time has not yet arrived. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, for the same reasons above. Carson.Talk 04:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was merge with democracy. No consensus to delete, but unanimous consensus that the article should not remain as it is. There is a majority of "delete"-votes but Wikipedia is not a democracy... Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"is not a democracy"

"'is not a democracy' is a common phrase." Well, so is "is not a monarchy," "is not a dictatorship," "is not a fascist state," and (my personal favorite) "is not a fundamentalist Hindu theocracy ruled by green Martians in feather headdresses." My point is, the article is supposed to be about a common phrase, but if it accomplishes that it's only a (strange) dicdef. This isn't Wiktionary or Wikiquote territory, and it certainly isn't Wikipedia territory. Just delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons above. —Seselwa 03:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "is not a Keep." Fernando Rizo T/C 03:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No need for an article on this. --Apyule 07:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Democracy. It's a common enough political statement that it deserves some clarification. — RJH 16:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. --Sleepyhead81 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Democracy, as per RJH's statement.--Frag 20:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - if votes approve, I'll merge it into the Democracy aticle. ~ Dpr 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• This "is not a keep"; I can give it at most only a very weak merge into Democracy. But note WP:WWIN#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Barno 01:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Democracy. The point is interesting enough to retain, but isn't meritorious of its own article. Tobycat 06:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bare Merge into Democracy. The article only just escapes deletion. Avalon 11:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a Democracy, thus we cannot continue this line of thought--Wikipedia_talk:Sandbox 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Vonfraginoff 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Democracy but only with a lot of clarification and cleaning up to make it more than just a simple dicdef Zaw061 14:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not worth merging. Dottore So 20:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
• Delete per Dottore So. QuartierLatin 1968 20:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dmcdevit. Michael 04:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—This phrase can be defined simply by negating democracy. --Tysto 21:05, 2005 August 13 (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 00:56, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Kevin hudak

Vanity page;non-notable figure. <-- (VfD page started by User:70.117.193.249, but not completed. Joyous (talk) 03:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Joyous (talk) 03:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete defamatory.69.209.193.114 04:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Awesome (preceding unsigned comment by 152.163.100.135 03:41, 8 August 2005 UTC)
• Delete, vanity and probable hoax. Non-notable anyway. Alphax ^τεχ 06:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable attack page and not of sufficient notability to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 06:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability confirmed. Just google him. He was the big Dean campaign mole.(preceding unsigned comment by 152.163.100.135 06:32, 8 August 2005 UTC)
• Keep, It has links and the Dartmouth Review has an entry. 129.170.239.110 06:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just needs to be cleaned up a little.(preceding unsigned comment by 129.170.237.34 06:35, 8 August 2005 UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This kind of important information must be available to the rest of the world.(preceding unsigned comment by 152.163.100.135 06:47, 8 August 2005 UTC)
• Strong delete. As it stands, this is either an unencyclopedic hoax/satirical dig in the ribs, or a libellous, completely unverified personal attack.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:26:07, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. I think. I mean, even conservatives think its bad to be rude to waiters... right? Sdedeo 09:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. attack page --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments (including the sockpuppets). Punkmorten 11:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The only usefull and verifiable bit of information on the current page is that Mr. Hudak is "president" of the Dartmouth Review. That, and only that, bit of information could be merged into the dartmouth review page. Eclipsed 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Bullshit. --Sleepyhead81 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. too many socks. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Class of 2007? Dunc|☺ 17:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless proof can be shown that he's started a trend of being an overt jerk in your conservatism. Around 50% of the conservatives i've met and maybe 10% of the liberals i've met are subtle jerks already. Karmafist 17:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. The man in question can be easily found on Google, but the article just needs to be cleaned up, as not to be such a deliberate attack on Mr. Hudak's character. --Frag 21:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as attack page. --Carnildo 22:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn and attack page. --Etacar11 23:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as attack page, also sockpuppetry. Consensus seems to have been reached. Admin? Proto t c 15:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, vanity, probably hoax. Hall Monitor 23:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Edward Phoenix

Fictional character. I can't tell if it's part of any published game. Kappa 03:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Kappa has corrected me on the finer points of the CSD. As this is admittedly fictional, it does not qualify for a patent nonsense speedy. A search of Google for "Edward Phoenix" Dungeons Dragons culls zero hits, as does a search for "Edward Phoenix" D&D. This is an RPG character vanity page. (To avoid a wall of text in this nom, I've removed my original vote, see history if you want to see it). Fernando Rizo T/C 04:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this fictional fiction, following the (non-)revelations of Google. -- Hoary 06:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. RPG character. Probably fan-made. Not D&D-cruft because D&D-cruft would be of interest to D&D players in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only "Edward Phoenix"-related sites on Google have nothing to do with D&D, so he probably isn't even a canonical character and simply fan-made.--Frag 21:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fiction character. --Etacar11 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether the Sword of Hope campaign whose article was presumably deleted was a real-D&D-sanctioned module or just somebody's local group playing and self-promoting, I can't suggest it's significant enough for a WP article. The search results reported above make me inclined to vote Delete. Barno 01:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryen Skai Johannsen

Non-notable? Dave.Dunford 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:MUSIC, only 15 google hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Member of new band. Lose the picture as well. Punkmorten 11:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen musician vanity. --Etacar11 23:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Deanna Rix

High school wrestler; not generally notable. tregoweth 03:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, she is notable specifically because she is a woman competing in a man's field. She's received at least statewide notice. Nandesuka 03:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. She's competed at a higher level in the state than any other female wrestler. It would be a strong keep if national notability could be established. Pburka 04:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Oh heck, keep her. Let's see if she pursues wrestling in college. It will be important to see what happened to this potential leader. If only we kept an eye on Adolph Hitler when he was hanging around Vienna, we might now understand better what happened next. BTW: Do they have special Barnstars for super-fast vfd's? Amorrow 05:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep over 1,000 google hits, including news sources. First female to reach finals in a state wrestling tournament, so somewhat notable. I would like to see the article expanded.
• Weak keep kind of represents the threshold of notability. Youngamerican 16:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep because, as stated before, she's a woman competing in a man's sport. Perhaps this could be tagged and watched to see if it stays of relevance?--Frag 21:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, based upon the claims made within the article. Hall Monitor 22:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am not convinced this makes the bar. With reference to the google hits, recall the inflationary effect of newswire reprints. [unsigned vote by Dottoreso.]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 08:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Duvision

Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. I'm pretty positive this is a hoax. Google for Duvision Israel gets no relevant hits, which seems unlikely if the contents are to be believed. — Gwalla | Talk 03:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax. Notice link to Gal Vardi which was deleted ostensibly due to lack of sources, and information on which is unavailable elsewhere. Mistercow 03:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion, though. Pburka 04:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The deletion of Gal Vardi is somewhat suspicious. The logs simply show that User:Redwolf24 deleted it as (nonsense). But the cached page at google doesn't really meet the criteria for patent nonsense. Pburka 04:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The whole article is crap. Sumalia does not exist in the Westbank. Then it becomes Somalia. Mount Hiria is a garbage dump between Ramat Gan and Azor. The massacre refers to the allegation of 400-3000 which were supposedly massacred in Jenin long after this man did not die. I am quite certain the hoax is by an Israeli making fun of idiots who will believe anything bad being said about them. Yeah and he loved lemons. Redwolf24 knew what he was doing. gidonb 05:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that the articles are nonsense, but they are not Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The definition of patent nonsense is:
        1. Total nonsense - i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. That means things like "asdfasdfasdfasdfatpotatoasdfasdfasdfasdf", where someone bangs on the keyboard a lot.
        2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head nor tail of it.
        These articles clearly don't fit the first definition, and only fit the second by a willful application of incomprehension. The articles' flaws lay in their verifiability, not in their lack of meaning. Using speedy deletion for these types or articles is an abuse of Wikipedia process. Pburka 23:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, if it is abuse I am sure it was done in good faith. I know this "abuser" personally. Although he lives in Chicago, he is mostly active on the Dutch Wikipedia. This is the first time he, by chance, detected such total hoaxes here, edited, categorized etc. He improvised some warnings, hoping someone would pick up. Later he got tipped on VfD. Looking around he found this "nonsense" warning which seemed to fit the articles very well. The rest is history! ;-) gidonb 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is crystal clear that this is a hoax, as is the other nonsensical article which was deleted. Devusion was probably meant to make the non-existing Gal Vardi a appear more real. I discovered both hoaxes. Since the content is nonsense, I nominated both for speedy deletion as such. VfD is good too. No one who cares about Wikipedia will want to keep these articles. gidonb 05:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. - Stoph 06:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Complete bullshit. Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:30:42, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Delete Tonywalton 12:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 16:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete hoax. Sabine's Sunbird 00:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Multimedia in Sri Lanka

Nominated for speedy deletion because: vanity by new user. This article is not about a person, so it does not fall under the vanity WP:CSD. And being a new user is certainly not a WP:CSD. No vote from me at this time. Pburka 03:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete one way or another as link spam. I left a couple of polite notes on this guy's page and he still kept coming with self-promotion, including this same content under a different title, which seems to have been speedied anyway. - Lucky 6.9 06:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ad. Delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:32:28, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Delete : No free Advertising on Wikipedia. If the author contributed we could think otherwise. :-D Manik Raina 09:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the contents do not qualify for an entry in an encyclopedia. --Bhadani 13:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; also Web Media Studios, New Media Education, and New Media in Sri Lanka, which have virtually the same content. Tom Radulovich 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

delete- fake

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Mitch is a Bitch

Delete hoax album title created as attack against comedian Mitch Hedberg. Should be speedied but others disagree. TheMidnighters 04:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For those who are doubtful, a google search of "mitch is a bitch" hedberg returns (wait for it) 0 results. --TheMidnighters 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, on track 1 of Strategic Grill Locations (his debut) Mitch states that he's never recorded a CD before, and on Mitch All Together (his second album) he states that he has only one other CD (and the only way it would get into a record store is if he took it in and left it). Obviously, being a fan explains my zeal in wanting this attack page deleted (speedily), especially since keeping it up just encourages vandals and clogs up vfd. --TheMidnighters 05:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's up the article author to cite references for their claim. Will change vote if a reference pops up. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• I withdraw my question as to whether this should be speedied. Delete speedily. Tonywalton 12:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a rather big Mitch Hedburg fan, and I have never heard of this release. If the author of the article can provide a link or some other kind of validation, by all means, the article can stay. As for the title, I would hardly call it an attack on Mitch--those who are familiar with Mitch's style will agree with me in saying that such a joke certainly wouldn't be unexpected from him.--Frag 21:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say I'm pretty familiar with Mitch, and his style is mainly clever observations and spins on everyday minutiae, not simplistic self mockery. He never made any joke that was just a mindless potshot at himself, that was never his style. --TheMidnighters 04:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 23:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I LOVE MITCH HEDBERG! Allow me to kill this right away. Redwolf24 06:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probable hoax, or at least it has not been verified. No Account 00:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and kick the ass of meat puppet voters. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Joseph_Blanchette

unimportant vanity page about a newgrounds flash author. 70.22.174.105 04:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think he's notable enough to be on here. His site has an Alexa ranking of 65,333. Kushboy 06:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, cv-cruft, not-notable, low alexa rating. Eclipsed 09:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity jamesgibbon 10:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. an alexa rating of 65,333 doen't merit an entry, if that is the sole reason for its inclusion --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Anyone can be a newgrounds flash author, doesn't mean they're notable. The best flash, is almost never on Newgrounds. - Hahnchen 14:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep How do you figure vanity when he didn't create it? CaptHayfever 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait a sec, 70.22.174.105, Did you just forget to login, or are you on this site exclusively to get this article deleted? CaptHayfever 15:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He's an extremelely notable figure, I in fact came here to learn more about him csspeedbump 19:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• 64.142.12.122 (talk · contribs)'s 2nd edit. No registered user "csspeedbump". Func( t, c ) 02:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I reviewed his article, site, and what others say about it on google. He's not notable (yet). Tobycat 06:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 23:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not going to vote on my own page (which I did NOT create or help write), But I think being a well known Flash artist with several popular movies on the worlds most largest Flash portal (which also has a article) is an acceptable reason to have a Wikipedia page. It's not claiming I'm the best or anyhitng like that. It's citing what I've done, and fans might learn a thing or two.
  • Comment The thing is, there are literally thousands of people on Newgrounds, being such a big portal. And the vast vast majority of it is pure pure dredge. A Sample of Joseph's work (That I helped with - Joseph). I don't see anything that lifts this from all the other stuff on Newgrounds, I don't think it's any funnier, original, professional or intelligent then anything else on the portal. - Hahnchen 13:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - I'm not against Flash or anything, there can be some genuinely good stuff out there. Compare say Joseph Blanchette's work with some other random internet things - EPIC 2014 and Lawcops, by entertainment company Zeppotron. - Hahnchen 13:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Hahnchen , You should post a movie that I animated, drew, and wrote, not one I just helped with. This is one I did all by myself: (http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/105053) Just because I'm not the best flash animator ever dosn't mean I can't have a page about me. There are countless movie and TV actors as well, but that dons't stop people form making pages for lesser known ones. Making internet cartoons is very much like being a actor in many respects. The simple fact is I AM popular in the flash comunity, it's just the flash comunity isn't as well known as the acting one. If you want my opinion, I think there should be more entries for popualr flash artists from sites such as Newgrounds. Right now there are only a handful. It's not like its useless, pointless information. Imagine searching for your favorate Flash author on Wiki and getting a page about them. Pretty neat huh? Isn't that the point of Wikipedia? - LegendaryFrog 9:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Apologies - I just went to a random site on the external links section and clicked on the top movie. I still don't think that your movies have had enough recognition outside newgrounds, unlike say Xiao Xiao. - Hahnchen 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Perhaps more people need to do stuff like this for other Flash artists, like CaptHayfever did. It's a excellent resourse. LegendaryFrog 6:15 pm 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, that's very much what I was thinking when I did this. It just happened that the only Flash artists I know enough on to write are the Chapmans and LF, and the former was already well-documented here. CaptHayfever 05:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I think h'es anotable enough person too. He's a good flash artist and is extremely famous on newgrounds as it is.

• Delete not notable CDC (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep it : He's a popular guy on the internet -- Guest

• Delete risibly unimportant. Dottore So 20:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso

• Keep. He's notable enough to be here, and I'm saying this both as a Wikipedian and as a LegendaryFrog fan. -- Alex Nisnevich (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. If we delete this page, then it sounds like we shouldn't be writing articles about Newgrounds Flash authors at all. And then there's little point in even having a Newgrounds category. I figure he's a noteworthy Flash artist. Maybe not as noteworthy as people in other fields, but noteworthy none the less. Optichan 16:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. While I do recognize and appreciate the fellow's submissions, he doesn't have the level of notability and uniqueness that a person such as David Firth would have to merit for an article. Keeping this article would mean a green light for a whole lot of other non-notable Newgrounds artists' articles to be made. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC) ╫

• Strong keep, I agree with the argument about the credit we give lesser-known actors and I'd like to add that Joseph's early work not only topped the charts on both Newgrounds and Flash Player back when it was first submitted, but it has inspired a generation of Macromedia Flash artists in their work. It seems that every 1 in 3 comedy Flashes, whether in or outside of Newgrounds, revolve around the style established by Blanchette: the sitcom vibe, the character animation and the same type of humour has been echoed in countless submissions, of particular note being those of the The_Super_Flash_Bros/Double Helix team, who have already got several Flashes in the Newgrounds top 50 with their style. I don't feel that it's unreasonable to ask for a bit of recognition to a growing industry. There is obviously an interest in this subject because even if one could accuse the page of being vanity there are still people with an interest in the subject reading and adding to these articles. Besides, there's also an educational aspect with encyclopedias: you don't use them to find things you know all to well, but things you're not sure about, even things you've never even heard of. There's already a big interest, and it can only stand to increase over time.

• Not Only Keep, Expand. I haven't visited Legendary Frog's website but I've viewed many of his Flash pieces - his Alexa rating is irrelevant if he releases on Newgrounds. In fact I'm a little surprised that The Super Flash Bros do not have an article. Their work, including Decline of Videogaming, is arguably more notable than Legendary Frog's. Certainly if the Pedia has articles on the Star Wars Kid and Numa Numa, icons of dubious longevity or cultural relevance, then if enough people search for Blanchette or Dim/JT and generate this kind of talk page, they deserve to keep or gain articles. You can put me down for "Wish I'd found some content when I searched for The Super Flash Bros, and glad at least Legendary Frog got his due." Keep up the good work, Wikiers. Aug. 14 05, Frequent_pedia_user

• Keep Everyone I know has seen at least one of his cartoons. He is one of the most famous (and one of the best by the way) flash animators on the net. I mean if animutations and YTMND can have an article, shouldn't Legendary_Frog have one? I mean he's way more popular than them. Keep it. KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 consesus; kept. Dan100 (Talk) 10:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow

Tally (delete/keep/merge) (9/6/0)

Just to note that this vote needs to be closed and their is no consensus to delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2005. I closed the VfD on August 7, 2005 with a consensus to delete, and deleted the article. That VfD can be found below. User:M-filecastle brought it to my attention that the article had undergone a significant rewrite and that the existing VfD might not reflect actual consensus. (All delete votes were cast before the rewrite.) I investigated, and found that the article had indeed been revised extensively (from a stub to a decent-sized article). In the interests of fairness, I have agreed to re-submit the article to VfD for a new consensus. I am not voting in this nomination, and I will not close the new result; it will be left to the descretion of a different admin. Essjay · Talk 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as vanity, I'd say. Author of 18 books -- but all published by his own vanity press. I'd be willing to reconsider if someone could demonstrate that others look to those works as somehow seminal or influential. But that's missing from the article. Nandesuka 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)d
• Delete, non notable. Claim to fame is the industry of his own vanity press. Sdedeo 05:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ~ This man is a 'link' from another Wikipedia page. He is well known and often quoted in religious discussions.

How notable does one have to be? Yahoo has over 11,000 hits on his name alone... When entered as woodrow+babylon over 80,000 hits are found! He has sold over 500,000 books.
An addendum can be made to reflect the influence he holds on this subject.
He (Woodrow) refutes the idea that Christianity developed from pagan roots (having recanted of holding the same view) and is duly noted as a well researched 'critic' on the Original Linked Page. Wikipedians should be able to see WHY he is critical of the false allegations Hislop made. Original criticism(s) of this page were primarily that it was not very well written and disjointed.
The article has since been totally re-written (with the help of others here) and polished so as to better reflect the encyclopedic format.
The 're-written' version of the article is found here: Ralph Woodrow
--M-filecastle 06:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- this presents a clear (if slightly non-concise) reason why a published writer has "recanted" from early views. If someone, reading his early work but unacquainetd with the later, were to come here, they would be informed and allowed to view his works in perspective. It also saves an article on "Hislop -- why he was wrong" --Simon Cursitor 07:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very little encyclopaedic content, which threatens ideological bias. The wiki should reflect knowledge, not shape it. Needs another major overhaul to earn my keep vote. The JPS 12:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep In terms of Amazon sales, the best rank I could find for one of his books was about ~100k, for another text not mentioned at all in the article. Works like "The Babylon Connection" score slightly lower, around 150k, which is on the low end for notable authors. The theological debate does deserve coverage, but this bio page may not be the best place to do that, and a heavy cleanup is still clearly needed. However, messy writing isn't really a qualification for deletion. --170.2.52.28 17:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Logged out mysteriously. --Icelight 17:07, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop i.e., propaganda of a single POV and promotion of a nonnotable person: 533 unique google hits, most of which from lists at book sale websites. mikka (t) 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV/non-encyclopedic. --Etacar11 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Again? Please. The encyclopedic content of the rewritten article boils down to the following: *:Ralph Woodrow is an evangelical Christian minister. [Dates and bio-info here.] He formerly supported the theories of Hislop as to the syncretic or pagan origins of Catholicism and wrote a book saying so, but has since changed his views and written another book saying so. [Links to ISBNs of Woodrow's two books here, and to Woodrow's external site.] End article. Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style. Sorry, the good Pastor Woodrow is not the Venerable Bede or even L. Ron Hubbard, and his theories are just not notable beyond the above. Delete, again. -EDM 17:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not even about the Woodrow's book: 98% of the article is criticism of Hilsop
"Anything more than that, including minutiae about the shape of manna, ziggurats, and the like, is OR, rant, and crank. The persistent proponent of this article does himself no favors with his idiosyncratic prose and layout style."

The Original Link (found on Hislops Two Babylons Wikipedia page) finds Hislops ideas discussed in minutiae covering these very same topics. So the original article (with false assumption in detail) is appropriate, yet its crticism, by one of its most noted detractors is not? The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the original argument is to lay out the very case that Christianitys roots are pagan. The purpose of the 'minutiae' in the rebuttal is to lay out the very case that Hislop was in error. The Woodrow article IS ABOUT HISLOPs BOOK because the very link that references him (Woodrow) distinguishes him as a critic of it. Woodrows second book is about the VERY SUBJECT of refuting Hislop.

Assuming that the value of the need to view the rebuttal is found worthy of 'Wikipedians' perusal, undoubtedly Woodrows page will ultimately be expanded and 're-written' further so as to give an even more in depth understanding of the errors of Hislop.

Just as the referenced Venerable Bede finds aspects of his life, works, struggles, and ideas ... so would any 'completed' article on Woodrow. Many Wikipedian articles, within themselves, and through links, show both PRO and CON views of the subject. The article on Woodrow is following in the established Wikipedian style and allows the reader to understand how one set of ideas may have been falsely arrived at. (and WHY)

Is it 'more appropriate' to take these very same Woodrow facts and examples and incorporate them into the body of the Hislop articles, or more reasonable to provide the link to the Woodrow page that discusses them. --M-filecastle 21:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel tempted to use the {{sofixit}} template. Just because an article is in a very poor and uncomprehensive state at the moment does not mean that it cannot be improved. If you don't believe me, see the following diff on MDAC. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Reread what you wrote. Striking previous message... I feel that this is a fair point! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable in his criticism of Hislop's The Two Babylons. Though his writing is probably not the best to actually read (lots of italics and exclamation marks), it is still notable and probably the most lucid critique of Hislop's absurdities. He has also written several other widely read books on Easter and Christmas. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. How widely is his work actually read outside the narrow confines of evangelical Protestantism? OK, he rebuts the views of Alexander Hislop, which apprear very fringe to me. How can anyone become notable by refuting a fringe viewpoint? The article makes no attempt at establishing notability. Pilatus 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably notable figure in a reasonably notable religious debate. We have articles on more obscure religious figures in Wikipedia. The article can always be improved. Fire Star 04:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Usual cleanup rather delete issue. Pcb21| Pete 08:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He's a minister and he's written a few books. Does this make him notable? No. →Raul654 22:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Still reads like a vanity page/flamewar cocktail. Toss it. Dottore So 22:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A pastor who withdrew his support of a 19th century crackpot religious tract. Not too notable, IMO. Pilatus 18:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and has written several other books about various issues. Just clarifying this - the article doesn't really mention it. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • article has been incorporated into Linked Page

Please make comments above this notice to avoid breaking the discussion with the transcluded prior VfD.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 00:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow

Some sort of screed/rant/POV nonsense. And I used my 700th mainspace edit for this? humblefool® 03:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes

• Delete without prejudice against recreation as a legitimate encyclopedia article about this person. I'm guessing that Woodrow is notable enough to have an article about, but nothing from this first-person POV essay is salvageable, and anyone who wants to write such an article should just start over. android79 04:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A legitimate article could probably written in this person as he has written a number of religious books. However, this article is in such poor shape that it would be better to start again. owever would vote to keep even a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 05:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as personal promotion (sentences like My original book had some valuable information in it... show to me that he's only tryin to promote the book linked at the bottom. drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Further comment: Notice how the entry is named aafer the author, yet the text is all about the theories in the book. So, as an entry "about the author" it's a very poor one. And about the theory, there's a criteria in the official wikipedia policy at WP:NOTthat states:

Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions...

which I think that fit 100% into this case. And since it goes agains official policy, it should even bee speedied. drini ☎ 06:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity, rant, original research, crank. -EDM 06:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per the above. --Mysidia 06:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - although syncretism of Osiris, Dionysus, and Tammuz, etc. is widely discussed in the field, this article is an advert for the author, and appallingly laid out - if the book is this badly designed and formatted, I would advise people not to bother trying to read it. ~~~~ 07:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. First person. not notable. Mmmbeer 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic article about non-notable figure. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. May warrant a rewrite in neutral third-person language, but I don't think anything in this version is salvageable to an encyclopedic article. ESkog 21:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete autobiography is inherently Vanity/non-verifiable, even if the subject is notable. Of course, this should be without prejudice if someone writes a verifiable encyclopedic article. IMO, auto-biography should be CSD, but it isn't. Robert A West 21:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite completely Google gives about 8400 relevent hits [1], he does seem quite notable. The current article as it stands is just a pointless POV rant, but it should be rewritten with some relevent information. Cyclone49 00:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've gone and attempted to rewrite the article from what I found on that google search, although there was very little salvagable information. If someone who is actually knowladgable about this person expands this it would be very helpful. Cyclone49 00:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been re-written and 'polished'.User:M-filecastle

Comments

• Comments moved here to clear up votes

---

This topic should not be deleted.

The subject matter is religion.

Is Humblefool? an editor of this type of topic?

There are a series of articles that suggest that

Christianity comes from pagan origins.

• Such articles are all over the internet and on Wikipedia as well.

The debates on this topic are widespread and involve both Christians
(interdenominationally) as well as 'non'believers

Mr. Woodrow originally wrote a book - AGREEING that there are pagan roots to Christianity. It was very popular.

It (his book) took many of its assumptions from earlier works by Alexander Hislop (Wikipedia) as well as his theories regarding The Two Babylons (Wikipedia)

The Wikipedia articles on the above -2- subjects LIST Mr. Woodrow as someone who has argued AGAINST these points of view.

THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION GIVES MR WOODROWS point of view as to why he found his own earlier work, as well as the work of Alexander Hislop, to be fraudulent and in error.

Any reader of this particular subject would have great interest in understanding that Christianity, while it is accused of being from pagan origions, is NOT in fact .... and that the historical facts do not support such a claim. Mr. Woodrow, and his book REFUTE these claims.

ONE OF ITS VERY PROPONENTS (Woodrow) is now one of its critics.

What is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform the reader

to give them insight into each side of a subject and a broader understanding of the topic.

Wikipedia already LISTS a LINK to RALPH WOODROWS nameas being a critic of the Hislop - Two Babylons theory .

The LEAST Wikipedia could offer its readers is what Mr Ralph Woodrows actual thoughts on the matter are!

[email protected]

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle) drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Also: the addition of this section was user's first edit: M-filecastle (talk · contribs)

---

---

Much of what is in the original articles by Alexander Hislop
(Two Babylons) are unsubstantiated and are no more than his opinion.
Apparently Alexander Hislops saving grace (here) is that he is long dead.

Mr Woodrow is a known critic (and one-time exponent)
of those very same 'opinions'.

His POV or 'opinion' is RELEVANT for that very reason.
And although some may quible with his syntax or 'phrase-ology' ...
I would argue that the very VALUE of his words are because of JUST THAT
because they ARE his words ...

When other peoples thoughts and ideas are recorded here -
is it incumbent upon the gallery to edit their thoughts ?

Were there an article on Princess Dianna's criticism of the press (here)
- would we correct her statements for grammer or use of analogy?

In an article on the Pope, (here) would we edit his remarks
so as to reflect the Protestant view?

The views expressed are those of Mr Woodrow -
any reader of such a text link would understand FROM HIS WORDS
that what they were reading WAS HIS VIEW ...

Isn't that the point ?

[email protected]

(Previous section added unsignedly by User:M-filecastle drini ☎ 05:57, 30 July 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. There is no rule that says that anonymous votes are automatically discounted, but here, the sheer number of votes makes me suspect sockpuppetry, therefore, this time, all the votes from anonymous users have been discounted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Asheron's Call Friends

Completely nn, vanity, etc. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's getting completely ridiculous. Carson.Talk 04:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn vanity →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 06:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. That was pretty funny. Delete of course, for reasons already stated.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:52:31, 2005-08-08 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting and comprehensive. Voyager640 16:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't need a page for every nn BB community. The article's tone also makes me believe it's a joke.-128.249.162.120 16:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC) That was me, forgot to sign in. -D. Wu 16:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Original and informative, still evolving (Unsigned vote by 159.18.94.65 (talk · contribs))
• Delete. Funny, but not good enough to keep in an encyclopedia Tcwd 21:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I even post there and I want this deleted. It would take a lot more than some copy editing to clean up this article. there is so much pointless material. ACF is not a famous forum that deserves it's own Wikipedia article. --Chupon 21:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's awesome and informative. (Unsigned vote by 67.182.206.253 (talk · contribs), first edit)
• Lock, no, wait, delete. Sabine's Sunbird 00:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn forum vanity. --Etacar11 00:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Information is something to keep not destroy, whether it's riveting or fanciful. ACF has been the driving board for Vault and IGN and is currently the most posted board according to the lists. Whether it's place in the scheme of world events is small, it's still and informative article on a sub-culture of the still evolving internet society. Kcferret
  • By that rationale, every board deserves a page on Wikipedia. There is, however greater precedent in favor of delete. See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete off-topic forum articles, especially when they belong to the less-successful fansites of dying MMORPGs. Asheron's Call is notable, your forum is not. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable online community. The photo lends support to the vanity assertion as well. By the way, the photo should probably go as well as it does not add anything to the article and I cannot imagine it being useful in any other article. Tobycat 06:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (Unsigned vote by 24.229.168.45 (talk · contribs))
• Keep, but rather instead of giving it its own page, merge it into a page for VN perhaps, like with IGN and The Vestibule. User:Demosthenes3 (Vote actually by 68.85.163.157 (talk · contribs))
• Delete—Nanocultures are not individually encyclopedic, no matter how well documented. --Tysto 21:12, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity and not serious. Boojum 14:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

RiseIsrael.com

POV advert for non-notable website. WP:NOT a web directory. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 04:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert, link spam. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete
• Delete : Strong POV. Manik Raina 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Fernando Rizo --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weird. It's really not even an article, is it? Just a blurb for some pretty odd websites.Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 10:49:21, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Address to the Deil

A long Milton Burns poem. Clearly Wikisource territory. I've done the move (wikisource:Transwiki:Address to the Deil), now delete. Keep rewrite. Dmcdevit·t 05:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No problems here, good initiative. Fernando Rizo T/C 05:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in light of excellent re-write. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not Milton. Robert Burns, as should be apparent from the fact it's in Scots. But delete keep now it's been re-written. AlexTiefling 09:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes quite right. The quote on the top threw me off. Dmcdevit·t 21:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The poem should be wikisourced. However, it would be good to have a genuine article on this given the significance of Burns as a poet. Capitalistroadster 18:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Keep Great to see the content has been moved over to Wikisource. I also noted that Robert Burns article has a link over to his works in Wikisource, so we have good linkage between the two. Tobycat 06:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Changed to "keep" after rewrite. Kudos to Capitalroadster rewriting this! Tobycat 21:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have written an article on this poem which is considered to be one of Burns' most notable poems. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice one. Dmcdevit·t 17:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after excellent re-write. Good work Capitalistroadster! Hamster Sandwich 15:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 'troadster does it again! -R. fiend 15:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep - nicely rewritten. eric ✈ 18:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 20:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hornbuckle

A character in the background of a Mortal Kombat stage. Wow. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 05:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, part of the Mortal Combat universe, of interest to fans of the game. 06:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC) unsigned vote by Kappa
• Keep, creator of the article; important to MK fans and the history of the game. 07:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mistercow 10:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the love of God, apple pie, and all that is pure and good, this ridiculous entry -- fancruft at best and more likely simply a bunch of made-up nonsense, attaching a name from one medium to a completely random picture in a videogame -- must be destroyed. Nandesuka 12:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Fatality Delete, crufty non-canon claptrap. Proto t c 14:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Annihilate, nn. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 15:10, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have a fairly high fancruft tollerance, beeing something of a sci-fi fanatic myself, but this is just crazy, not to mention pure speculation, all that needs to be said about that stage is already in the Blaze article. Delete Image:Hornbuckle.jpg too. --Sherool 15:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete May be worth a reference in the main MK article, but not a separate article. Allegrorondo 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the love of Mike (or somebody). --FuriousFreddy 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This page for Hornbuckle might as well be deleted. As the creator of this article, I simply combined the bits of information into the Blaze article, since most of the information was the same. The article Hornbuckle could just simply redirect to Blaze. 18:05, 8 August 2005 (EST)
• Delete sub-trivial non-canon fancruft. --Carnildo 23:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rip it's spine out, er, um, Delete fancruft Youngamerican 13:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Hasba bill

A "proposed bill" that has been rejected by the courts and never became law. The article consists of the verbatim text of the bill.

• Delete: Wikipedia is not a repository/archive of things that could have, but never did happen. --Ragib 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ragib, plus this is POV and maybe copyvio (is all that text in the public domain?) Tonywalton 12:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment how about transwiking to Wikisource? Unlike the Wikipedia Wikisource is a repository for all kinds of texts, and some people might find proposed laws interesting even if they where not implemented. As for the copyright status, I'm just guessing, but surely law texts and other public documents are public domain. --Sherool 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up: Wikipedia is not a repository of things that didn't happen, but important proposed laws should be fair game. A policy that excludes this could also be used to exclude the ERA article as well. The article is bad, and needs a lot of work, but it should be kept, perhaps without the full text. --Arvis21 17:27, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This Hisbah issue is not over. The provincial government is re-introducing it with amendments and also introducing it in other assemblies. This bill is an important example of what political Islamists want to do and will be a good reference for the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.243.130 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep iff it can be re-written as an ensyclopedic article (maybe with a brief abstract/summary). The raw law text can either be moved to Wikisource, or linked to externaly depending on it's copyright status. --Sherool 19:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, but not the full text of the bill.. if that belongs anywhere, it's Wikisource. --Mysidia (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Bill text copied to Wikisource:Transwiki:Hasba_bill --Mysidia (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Tony Sidaway. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

List of schools in Wadsworth, Illinois

Not even a list. There already is a article for the school on in this "list". Kushboy 05:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• keep potential to expand this article unlike the school. Other schools in that town should be added. --Tim Pope 06:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lists of one, particularly since there is an article for the school that duplicates the information. --Scimitar ^parley 17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I added two more schools, but I think that's the end of 'em. Wadsworth's not what you might call a big town. -- Visviva 18:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Wadsworth, Illinois as a section titled "Education." Every locality article should have one. That will also help people to understand that the entries ought to be short -- otherwise, some are bound to make the author's mistake and put entire school articles here. -- Visviva 18:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a result of Tim Pope's odd approach to merging. The article is actually here; quite a reasonable school article which could use a lot of expansion. Tim has decided to wipe out most of the information about the school, move it to a "list of" article and then add tiny little gobbets of information from other school articles which he intends to keep as redirects. So don't be deceived by the insubstantial nature of the article at present. It has been edited close to death but can be restored and expanded whent he VfD is over. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wrong on several counts, I "wiped" nothing, I moved an article. The "gobbets" were not added by me. I do not intend to create redirects. Please check your facts. --Tim Pope 21:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • FIne, then you won't object to my reverting the article to its original version before you mucked around with it so that we can work on improving it. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Ask Visvia, it's his edits that have been lost. You've deleted two schools!--Tim Pope 21:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. They have their own articles. --Tony Sidaway^Talk
• Comment: Sheesh, I'll save my effort next time. I was just trying to convert this to an actual list, per its title, since we already have a suitable article on Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois. If that was such a bad idea, my edits could simply have been reverted. Very strange behavior from all sides, here. -- Visviva 23:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's hard to explain what happened as a result of Tim's "musical chairs" approach to merging, but I'll try. The article that was at Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois was a clone created by someone after Tim moved the actual article to the list article. I deleted that clone because its material is already in the edit history of this article, which I've now moved back to (you guessed it) Millburn School, Wadsworth, Illinois.
  • You gave adequate material for two school stubs, so I created those stubs with attribution. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Previous contents of artcle

Millburn School is a K-8 school facility meaning that it ranges from Kindergarden to the 8th Grade. The mascot is a mustang. . Although it is located in Wadsworth, most of the students live in surrounding or nearby towns such as Lindenhurst, Antioch, Old Mill Creek and more.

8th Grade students in Millburn usually are seperated into three different high schools depending on where they live. The high schools are Lakes Community High School (LCHS) which is located in Lindenhurst, Grayslake Community High School (GCHS) which is located in Grayslake, and Warren High School (WHS) which is located in Gurnee.

During 2004 - 2005, a local vote was issued to build a new school since Millburn was getting crowded. In 2005, it was announced that a new school was to be built in the neighborhood of Heritage Trails in Lindenhurst. It is named Milburn West and the mascot is a cougar.

{{US-school-stub}}

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

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Otche nash

I just transwikied this to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Otche nash). It's a translation of a prayer into a bunch of languages. Not encyclopedic, and as already transwikied, delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, good transwiki move. Doesn't belong here. Kushboy 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. feydey 20:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Don Smith

User has history of invalid articles. This one is about an unnotable teacher. The article itself claims to have been deleted previously. Kushboy 05:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry but he does not meet WP:BIO and WP:NOT a memorial. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Botsie 07:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Tonywalton 12:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 00:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. God wants this article to be kept. Also, Mr. Smith just before his tragic death wrote letters of recommendation to people who are destinied for greatness. (Unsigned vote by 68.189.48.55 (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 keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Jason Snell

Mr. Snell has been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia and he did not start this article although his acquaintance User:Cfarivar, who is lately infamous for surviving the longest VFD discussion since GNAA, did. Mr. Farivar has advocated an atroucious use of Wikipedia -- as personal space with self promotional benefits. He suggested readers through an article in Slate do likewise. And he has now directly exhorted a collegue to follow by starting his article for him to pick up. Self written or acquaintance vanity, just like any other low-verfication item, only weakens Wikipedia's credibility. Let's not tolerate this anymore. We must hold the line here.

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Snell seems relatively notable, at least by the low wiki standards. I hate vanity articles as much as the next guy. In general, don't worry too much. An article with no links from other pages gets little or no attention; once it does get linked from other pages (or if for some reason it generates interest elsewhere), the wonderful wikipedia world intervenes to balance things out. Take a look at CF's own article: Cyrus Farivar. It's just how things go. Sdedeo 06:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I should add that vanity articles that survive usually get their just recompense; real, unbiased information is added to them that often doesn't reflect well on the subject. Sdedeo 06:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• It should be noted, in substance, the Cyrus Farivar article is little changed (the Wikipedia section will be jettisoned eventually). Use of Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle is a new challenge that will only be more tedious (patrol new articles and see for yourself). If we choose to keep promotional/vanity articles, then we should accept our lack of control over the article. We can't verify most of the claims, leaving editors just the task of snipping egregious self aggrandizing prose, but we will be powerless to challenge the actual information. If the nature of an article is known, I say aggressively stamp it out. You can shrug dozens or hundreds of instances of unlinked vanity but that number will grow and it would be foolish not to expect damage to Wikipedia's reputation. lots of issues | leave me a message 08:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• I am happy to accede to the wishes of the community either way -- only you all can judge whether I am a worthy subject for inclusion in Wikipedia. I did not create the page or ask for it to be created (and I have a user talk page, regardless), but I did modify it in order to add some facts about my background that the page's creator did not know about. (And actually, it make me consider that the early days of publishing on the Internet are not well-covered by Wikipedia, which may lead to further articles regardless of the results of this particular vote.) Thank you for your time and consideration. Jsnell 21:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One addition: I ask you to please vote based on the merits of this article and its topic. As is clear from lots of issues's introduction, this VfD has been generated because of the politics of Cyrus Farivar's Slate article and the ensuing VfD discussion there and here: #vfd_I_think_you_should_see... Jimbo Wales: vfd I think you should see... Jsnell 22:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep based upon existing precedent. Hall Monitor 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Issues of politics and reputation aside, the subject is of very minor interest. Contributor details should be kept to user pages. Dottore So 21:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
  • I guess it has to do with what you consider "minor interest." To members of the Macintosh community, I'm a pretty well-known figure. The key here, in my mind, is: what is Wikipedia supposed to be? A source for information on as many possible subjects as possible, even those that are fairly obscure but still relevant to a wider audience than a small circle of friends and family? Or a source for information that's both broad and extremely narrow. As Jimmy Wales has put it himself, it's not as if there are space constraints on Wikipedia -- that's one of its assets. If this article is truly of interest to nobody, it should be deleted. But how do you define "minor interest"? Is Adam C. Engst interesting? Frankly, I am getting quite confused about Wikipedia's VfD subculture. What's the point of Wikipedia if not that I can look up someone obscure like Carl Steadman (who founded Suck.com and should have his own entry), as well as looking up Albert Einstein? Jsnell 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I do understand your point, but should every reporter and every columnist from every major and minor newspaper and magazine have a separate entry since they can, by defining their own ground, claim to be a "pretty well-known" figure? It seems unnecessary, particularly when we have user pages for contributor bio info. Dottore So 17:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • User pages are for bios of wikipedia contributors; articles are for topics that someone might come to Wikipedia to learn more about. I think an argument could be made that everyone who has a byline for a major publication/web site should be a candidate for a Wikipedia entry, just to promote transparency -- that way, readers would have the ability to find out exactly who is writing the articles they're reading. (It's even more important since many newspapers and magazines print only a bare byline, with no other biographical information to tell you anything about the perspective of the person in question.) I guess the question is, what's the true definition of someone "important enough to be in Wikipedia"? And should the community be extra vigilant in deleting articles about people, or extra lenient in giving articles the benefit of the doubt because what's unimportant to you may be very important to someone else? I'm obviously trending toward the lenient side, but I do see both sides. Jsnell 18:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Snell provides a very reasonable argument. In addition to Cyrus Farivar, see Jesse Liberty (and the accompanying VfD debate), who is also a contributor to Wikipedia. Is there a list of Wikipedians with articles available? Hall Monitor 18:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Good points. But I think it should be a question of lingering or lasting importance and some kind of reasonable standard with this regard should be iterated. I note that there are almost no entries that I can find for New York Times reporters or even critics (whose role as arbiters of popular tase elevates them to a higher importance in terms of who they are). This is also true of someone like James Taranto, editorialist for the WSJ. If they are deemed by the community (through omission) to be below threshold, I think surely the same applies in this case. The existence of other entries of marginal interest does not promote the point. Anyway, just my $0.02 Dottore So 19:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I want Wikipedia to become the last reference of all interests. As an inclusionist, I bulk at the suggestion that an article should be deleted due to limited interest. However, there can be no compromise between inclusive interest and factual integrity. Whenever Wikipedia includes a low-verifiable subject with even a minor interest in becoming better known, quality chips away. Not surprisingly the author will be an acquaintance or the subject.

I don't want to eliminate these journalists because only Mac users will query their name; actually, I am upholding neutrality and verifiability, which are some of the central tenets behind how Wikipedia works. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I think that any published figure should have a Wikipedia page--if someone chooses to create it--as all writers have bias. The more information about a writer, the better the context in what they write is placed. This is true for computer journalists and writers at small local papers as for New York Times writers. The case that more well-known print journalists don't have Wikipedia entries demonstrates a bias by Wikipedia contributors, who are certainly multifarious, against mainstream media. This is well-known as Wikipedia is itself a stance against mainstream, single-voiced/publication-voiced media. If you remove Jason Snell, then Wikipedia also has to have a VfD for every single figure of any sort that someone believes hasn't contributed enough. There should be a very weak test for adding a biography, because the mere presence of a biography doesn't confer any authoritativeness nor an expectation that anyone will ever find such. Insufficiently well-known people will never have their biography read. They may post inaccurate information, but this is true on any obscure topic that no one ever reads. Any biography of anyone with sufficient reputation will be read and corrected. Further, there's nothing wrong with the subject inserting their own opinion because Wikipedia is designed to push toward the mean. A subject who persists in perpertuating known lies will not be able to persist if they are sufficiently observed. Disclosures: I found (did not create) a stub entry for myself, and fleshed it out. Someone had added Adam Engst and put a link to me. I did not create the entry. It has since been edited, showing that I have at least some minor interest to someone, otherwise no edits would have taken place. Disclosure: I write for Macworld and know both Jason and Cyrus. I have no vested interest in their particular biographies appearing or disappearing, nor my own. I edited my own biography with the expectation that it might be deleted. User:Glennf:Glennf 09:44, 13 August 2005 (PDT)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Verona pizza

Not notable outside of Ayer, Mass. Google search for "'Verona pizza' ayer" yields 24 results all of them business directory hits. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertisement at the least. Kushboy 06:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Manik Raina 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. same reason; no unique logic here. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn pizza place vanity/ad. --Etacar11 00:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Rules for the Direction of the Mind

Just transwiied this to wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Rules for the Direction of the Mind). It is quite simply source material, the text of a seventeenth century treatise. As it's not encyclopedic and now transwikied, delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete now that it's on Wikisource. Might also want to "transwiki" links that currently point to this article as well. I fixed the authors article but I see a few more articles link to it. --Sherool 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been re-written as an ensyclopedic (stub) article, so I changed my vote to keep. --Sherool 18:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite. One of Descartes' most influential works is surely encyclopedic. -- Visviva 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite per Visviva. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless re-written. --Carnildo 23:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it has been transwikied. Vegaswikian 05:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 14:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ulster 1912

I did a transwiki to Wikisource. A poem like this belongs there. Kushboy 06:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• You need to finish the transwiki before it can be deleted. Transfer the article history and list it at the Wikisource transwiki log. Ask me on my talk page if you need help with this. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete now, concur with nominator. And the link is wikisource:Ulster if anyone's interested. Dmcdevit·t 09:01, 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 delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Angry dragon (sex move)

Speedied, which I canceled because the myth, noted as such in the article, appears from a Google search outside of the Wikipedia entry.

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Still contains nothing to fit it into wikipedia. Manik Raina 09:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This stuff is on urbandictionary already, and should stay there. Hahnchen 14:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for many reasons, one being that whatever this is, it is not a "sex move", it is a form of sexual assault. Sdedeo 01:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• leave it - For a dictionary which, in my mind, seems to have *everything*, it only makes sense to leave it. It is a term that I've heard more recently, as of late. Such as "hand job" or "anal", it's quickly becomming a term that shows up more often. Yes, it is sexual assault, but regardless, if someone mentions the term, another will want to know what it means. Wikipedia has the answer.
• Let it be - There is no rule stating that topics on UrbanDictionary and Wikipedia must not overlap.
• Leave it or cross reference a bunch of unusual sexual acts on one page (bigger article). It shouldn't be deleted just because of its graphic definition.

Could be covered in Sexual slang --Cheese Sandwich 02:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 14:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Deontology as consequentialism

Original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --DrTorstenHenning 08:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I would urge caution here. The subject matter is a serious avenue of study in the philosophy of ethics, and is encyclopedic. It needs some serious attention, most importantly its writing needs to be NPOV. It is in serious need of references. Are there other articles in the Philosophy sections that touch on the subject matter? If there is already a good article on it I'd urge deletion for duplication. If there is no other article, I'd urge applying the clean up tag and bringing it to the attention of the philosophy experts on Wikipedia.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 11:06:40, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

  Reply I'm sure that in the field of philosophy I cannot say that I am an expert, but I am rather confident that there is almost nothing relevant going on in this field and that attempts to reconcile deontology with consequentialism are simply flights of fancy. Realistically, they are polar opposites; it's like trying to reconcile oil and water. I believe that one philosopher advanced a "deontological consequestialist" theory of some kind, but it was more of a suggestion than anything, and I'm not sure that he actually supported the theory personally. Anyway, this article is a personal essay. --malathion ^talk 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Re Reply. I understand how you feel, but I'm afraid I am unpersuaded. You seem to be giving us reasons why you feel deontology may not be reconciled with consequentialism. That's fair as far as it goes, Malathion, but it doesn't quite address the issue, does it? I think the issue is the encyclopedic merits of the subject. This truly should not necessarily take into account how "true" a conjecture is, or even how many people themselves agree with one or more of the conjectures. For example, no one today believes in the pre-Copernican idea that Earth was the center of the solar system, but that does not mean an article on Ptolemy and his astronomical theories should not be written. No one today believes some of what Plato had to say about politics and philosophy, or what Aristotle had to say about medicine, but that shouldn't stop anyone from writing just such articles. In 5 years time, some genius Cambridge physicist might show that Einstein's light constant is in fact no constant at all; I doubt any of us would be rushing to remove articles from Wikipedia in that eventuality. Now, I am no philosopher, and I really cannot tell you for certain how widely the above problem is studied. However, I don't think it's as bad as you suggest; I seem to remember RM Hare writing on the subject just before he died (see his Sorting out ethics, for example). Of course, if it stays it's going to need a massive rewrite, as it's got all kinds of problems.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 22:49:18, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

• Reply I understand the NPOV policy. My point is not that I dislike this article because I disagree with it, but because everyone disagrees with it. RM Hare was not a "utilitarian consequentialist" and he advanced the idea as a flight of fancy. No one else takes the idea seriously. That makes it unencyclopedic. Further, this article is a personal essay about the author's own ideas, and not those of Hare. That makes in original research. --malathion ^talk 00:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reply Malathion, you continue to miss the point. Ptolemy's theories of planetary motion were a flight of fancy. Aristotle's idea of the number of teeth women had was a flight of fancy. Much of Galen's anatomy was a flight of fancy. Most of Hippocrates' therapeutics were flights of fancy (indeed, all of medicine was a flight of fancy until about 150 or so years ago). Yet all of these things have a place in Wikipedia (and every other reputable encyclopedia) — and rightly so. Wikipedia is a scholarly record of things about us and our world and our past. If it were restricted only to those theories and "facts" which are held by contemporary society to be true or plausible, then an astonishing amount of our scientific, religious, cultural, philosophical and artistic heritage will find no place in it. That we don't believe Hippocrates' quackery or the Intelligent design peoples' fantasies ourselves, does not mean that a record of these beliefs and thoughts should find no place in an encyclopedia. Now, as I have said earlier, I am no philosopher. I have no idea how much scholarly activity is contemporarily centered on this subject. I do know that it has been debated in the past, and it engaged some of the best minds in philosophy. Certainly that has been my impression. Now, like very many other things, it might be deeply flawed, but that is not intrinsically a reason for it not to have mention in an encyclopedia. If you know something of the subject, I will have no objection if you rewrote that article to say "The idea of deontological consequentialism is held by most philosophers today to be little more than a flight of fancy. Etc etc etc..." That's fine (I'm assuming that assertion is factually true). If it stays, it will need a complete rewrite anyway, because as I (and you and the others) have pointed out earlier, it's very badly written. I'm only saying that I am mystified by your reasoning — that to find place in an encyclopedia, a subject or theory or thought has to be true or held to be true by contemporaries. That's absurd.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

PS. Do you realize you wrote "utilitarian consequentialist" when you were talking about the deontology-consequentialist relationship?—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 02:04:35, 2005-08-10 (UTC) This was a silly thing to ask, and I'm striking it with apologies to Ryan.—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:21:35, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that this essay is original research. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Malathion/Ryan, I was addressing your argument that an article has to be about things that are held by contemporary thinkers to be wholly or largely true before it may be included in an encyclopedia. This is an erroneous belief. Your point about WP:NOR on the other hand is a very good one; I am rather inclined to view this essay as poorly cited, rather than wholly unacceptable.

Having read once more Hare's "Could Kant have been a utilitarian?", I am inclined to think that the earlier claim that Hare advanced this subject as a flight of fancy is in fact a flight of fancy. Hare was making a serious effort to form a bridge. Be that as it may, I don't think WP will suffer a real loss with the deletion of this article. The problem with what to do with an article or stub that 1. is of encyclopedia value but 2. is poorly written and referenced, is vexatious. Editors like Tony Sidaway usually move to "save" anything that isn't actually incomprehensible gibberish; other editors with higher standards about what should find a place on WP often vote to delete. If I had to describe my own view, it is far closer to the second than the first; by this I do not mean that the former are "wrong," in fact both "types" of editors usually act within WP policy/guidelines. In this particular instance, I feel the page should not be deleted for reasons already elaborated. Summary of what I think should be done: 1. Keep the page. 2. Reduce it to a stub with only verifiably true details of the concept, with references. Kind regards—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:21:35, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

• Delete original research. --malathion ^talk 16:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

James fletcher

• Delete. nn/vanity. --DrTorstenHenning 07:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and possible speedy. I don't think playing Dungeons and Dragons is even an assertion of notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops it was apparently Warcraft III, and not D&D, but that doesn't make much of a difference. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google doesn't say much about a WarCraft III player by the name of James Fletcher. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ╫
• Delete, vanity. If this page is deleted, please nominate Image:Lordjamesfletcher.jpg for deletion as well. -D. Wu 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,. vanity, and NN --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete vanity, NN --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of this article is also apparently defacing Wikipedia pages and removing the VFD notice from his page—none of which makes him notable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. I'll move it to the proper capitalization. -Splash 00:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The stolen child

This is the full text of a William Butler Yeats poem. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:The stolen child). It is not encyclopedic, and should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 08:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Sherool 16:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it's re-written. --Sherool 18:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Given that it is a poem by a notable poet it would be good if we had a legitimate article on it. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite as article. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten --Carnildo 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand. I added a bit on the Waterboy's adaptation and recording of it, which I think is enough to make it a viable little stub. Hopefully it will be expanded further. I can try, but I'm no poetry expert. -R. fiend 15:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it should be moved to The Stolen Child. -R. fiend 15:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per R. Fiend. Thanks to R. Fiend for writing a good little stub. I have done some preliminary research and there is definite potential for expansion in the future. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have further expanded the article. Capitalistroadster 11:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Robin Cook resignation speech

This is the full text of a Robin Cook resignation speech from the UK government. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Robin Cook resignation speech). It is not encyclopedic, and should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 08:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it represents a notable event jamesgibbon 10:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The notable event is represented in Robin Cook. Wikisource is the best home for this. The JPS 12:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per JPS. Qwghlm 13:19, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's already found its way to wiki-source, and should be shown the door here. --Scimitar ^parley 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Already transwiki'd and can be linked with the Robin Cook article. Capitalistroadster 18:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, transwikied. feydey 20:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since what needs to be in Wikisource is there and what needs to be in Cook's bio article is there. Barno 01:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Rd232 21:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Carnildo's vote becomes a keep, so only the nominator still votes delete. -Splash 00:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge

Full text of an eighteenth century treatise. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge). It is not encyclopedic, and should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 08:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as per nom. Note: the transwiki was deleted as a duplicate of existing text. The text can be found here: Wikisource:A Treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge --Sherool 16:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep The current stub is better than nothing --Sherool 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: can't anyone be arsed to write a stub? Dunc|☺ 17:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even if just a stub summary. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten. --Carnildo 23:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: User:Duncharris has graciously written a stub article. Collabi 18:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Tryst with destiny

This is the full text of Nehru's speech upon Indian independence. I have transwikied it to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Tryst with destiny). It is not encyclopedic, and should now be deleted. Dmcdevit·t 08:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep : Strongly vote for keeping this page . There exist precedences of speeches being kept in Wikipedia . Do see this. Manik Raina 09:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Manik, do click on your link and discover that there are articles about the speeches, but not the full text of the speeches alone. Sdedeo 10:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Sdedeo , Just to understand you better, are you saying that if this page contained some description and background about the speech and the text as excerpts, this page would be, in your opinion, permissible into wikipedia ? Manik Raina 12:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Manik -- yes, precisely. Sdedeo 00:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, extremely notable speech, you wouln't try to delete the Gettysburg Address I hope. Kappa 13:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite to describe the speech and its importance, not full text. 12.22.156.139 17:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. notable speech, could use some bachround info though. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Description of the speech's significance and consequences should be in this article. Full text should be on Wikisource, not in the WP article. Delete transwikied text, mark for rewrite/expansion. Barno 01:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Strong keep as notable, but should be about the speech. As above, really. Proto t c 15:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - in the current form and with the current contents. Now, there is scope for this stub to grow to a potentially good article, wherein the portions of the speech may be reproduced depending on the contexts of the further edits. --Bhadani 15:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Had some thoughts, so I'll share them with you all. I have some objections to the rule that important speeches are okay if they are substantiated with some background information. I feel this background info is desirable and definitely helps the reader and makes the article more encyclopadeic. But the absence of this information does *not*, IMO make grounds for deletion of an article from wikipedia. This is a personal opinion and opinions differ. Do let me know what others think. Alternatives like {{attention}} or {{cleanup}} could be pursued. Do let me know what you all think. I'm new to wikipedia, please be gentle :-) Manik Raina 09:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If all that an article contains is the text of the speech, then it should be on Wikisource, which has been designed for, and is exactly the place for information such as that (the same policy applies with lyrics, text of books, etc etc). Proto t c 15:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - pamri 18:06, August 10, 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 (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue

Delete this rambling mish-mash that duplicates the Ten Commandments article; it's full of original research (see Talk:Ritual Decalogue); the topic could easily be redirected to the Ten Commandments article where the uniqueness of the word "Ritual" could be explained; "Decalogue" already means "ten commandments/utterances"; anything deemed suitable could be added to the Ten Commandments; as it stands, this article merely adds gratuitous clutter to a serious subject.IZAK 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. IZAK 09:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• To make sure there are no doubts, I'm going to be verbose: Salvage anything worthwhile from this article and merge it with Ten Commandments. Then delete this article and recreate it as a redirect to Ten Commandments. Now, voy a volver a mirar la revista de «Battlestar Galactica» por SciFi... Tomer ^TALK 09:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no consensus to put the material into Ten Commandments. Do check the talk page. Pilatus 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not in the least duplicate the TC article. There are two Decalogues discussed in biblical scholarship, the Ethical and the Ritual. I made this a separate article because it's not the common understanding of the "Ten Commandments", and I didn't think people would appreciate having it in the main TC article. Izak and Tomer, if you would prefer to divide that article into two sections, Ethical Decalogue and Ritual Decalogue, I would have no objection. In fact, I would prefer it: I agree with you that that's where it belongs. I was merely attempting to avoid the edit war that I thought might follow.

Please delete any original research. I agree the article's a mish-mash; I'm not the person to write it. I came to Wikipedia to read up on this topic, and it's a rather egregious omission on the part of Ten Commandments article not to mention the Ritual Decalogue. Better a mish-mash, which will improve with time as other editors play their part, than silence. Please improve the article to make it more respectable, wherever it ends up. kwami 09:57, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Hi Kwami: It is rather poor form to "create" articles out of thin air, and then admit that they are in fact "mish-mash" to wit! May I suggest that you first learn how to do things in the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Writing an article is not the same as putting down in writing the stream of consciousness of one's mind about any given subject. All you are citing are philosophical and moral aspects, perhaps, of the Ten Commandments...otherwise articles could become splintered in 6 billion ways as each person on Earth comes along and has "thoughts" and "ideas" that they may dredge up from the Internet or wherever. We must be more responsible than that in creating a respectable and coherent online Encyclopedia that conforms to accepted scholarship. What you say here merely re-inforces the need to delete the article (and place anything of value on the Ten Commandments page.) Thanks. IZAK 10:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. I'm prepared to accept the criticism that the article is mishmash, because I know I'm not the best writer in the world. But these are not my opinion about the TC, or dredged up from the internet. They are accepted scholarship, and can be found in standard biblical commentary. You can perhaps find better sources than I. This material needs to be in here somewhere, preferably in the TC article. It should be clear that according to much biblical criticism, there are two distinct Decalogues. One is not a "philosophical" version of the other, at least not according to the sources I've cited. (There will of course be other points of view which I have not found.) kwami 11:28, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

• Keep or merge as above. kwami 09:57, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
• Delete. anything good should be merged with the Ten Commandments article. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 10:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ten Commandments The term is notable. Pilatus 12:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. Consensus at Ten Commandments is to have that page to refer to the Ten Commandments proper, and the term Ritual Decalogue or Ceremonial Decalogue is notable in the literature. Clean up, remove original research, then it will stand. Pilatus 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ten Commandments after reducing to the bare bones. This is nothing but a vehicle for the documentary hypothesis (although it goes back to Goethe) and has no other notability. JFW | T@lk 13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if you don't like the Documentary Hypothesis, it's still notable. Hey, even though I don't like Creation Science, the term still belongs in an encyclopedia. Pilatus 13:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems entirely based upon limited philosophical thought — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then turn into a re-direct. If there is anything worth keeping, it could be merged with Ten Commandments, but this is not crucial. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a slight mention could be made in the Ten Commandments article, but this info primarily belongs in the Documentary Hypothesis article. HKT ^talk 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Arcadian 17:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge As per Tomer's suggestion Robertbrockway 22:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteAs per IZAK's suggestion Kuratowski's Ghost 23:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Interesting, valuable and scholarly. The vehemence of opposition to this article is clearly ideologically driven - read the talk page. Alternatively, add as a section of the Ten Commandments article and redirect. ntennis 04:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• DeleteAs per IZAK's suggestion. This article is based on flawed analysis of the Old Testament DRosenbach 12:21 11 August 2005
  • It's not up to us to judge if the scholarship is OK, that would be original research and pushing POV. What counts is that the Documentary Hypothesis is a notable view. Yes, the article needs serious reworking. Pilatus 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not in favour of merging these with the Ten Commandments article since it is an unrelated set of injunctions. Which set may be Moses's original set may be open to debate, or not, but it's the other one which is known today as the "Ten Commandments". IMHO merging the articles would be misleading; but the article as it stands looks already interesting, NPOV (or if some people think it isn't, it can be made so), and it can also be seen as useful in that it's easier to remember "Ritual Decalogue" than "Exodus 34" which is the place where to find it in the Bible. -- Tonymec 23:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per kwami, Pilatus & Tonymec. Mish-mashery is a necessary first step for many a good article. I appreciate that this is not orthodox understanding, and it needs to be cleaned up to reflect this, but the sources already cited show it is one scholarly understanding, and notable enough for its own article outside "documentary hypothesis" or "Ten Commandments".Lusanaherandraton 11:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject deserves its own article. COGDEN 19:50, August 15, 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 (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

War crimes in Manchukuo

Article has valuable intent but consists solely of a POV rant; material concerning this topic can be put into Manchukuo or Manchukuo (administration). --TJive 09:36, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and merge. Mistercow 09:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very little content to merge with anything else. Doesn't seem like much of a rant to me, but I don't think it serves a useful purpose in its present form. --Scimitar ^parley 17:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't delete. Clean up. --Dysepsion 18:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or cleanup. there is nothing worng with the subject, but the article is substandard and doesn't do justice to the subject. Cleanup and add more info and links and it should be good. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, rants without details, nothing new compared to Manchukuo. Pavel Vozenilek 03:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Pierre Levesque

Ooh! Ooh! Very exciting -- elaborate hoax page. Claim to be a bio of "Pierre Levesque", but the article history shows [2] that it's actually the creation of "Michael Burke and Aaron Schlosser of the independent film organization, "Prospect Hill Productions". PHP appears to be "non-notable" (their only 'productions' being on local public access cable), so as the non-notable hoax of a non-notable group, I vote delete. But! Nice try! Well done. Advice for the future: to avoid being caught and rise to internet hoax fame and fortune, keep a low profile on VfDs! [3] Sdedeo 09:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and the authors should consider the wonders of the Uncyclopedia for their future work. Eclipsed 12:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree. <drini ☎> 15:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Heh. Pulled this up as a Random Page, would not have given it a second thought but for the obviously anachronistic picture (note to future hoaxers: you'll have to do better than that). Get your own darn fake buzz site. Delete. Jgm 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable hoax. Hall Monitor 23:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

List of gay icons

is a list, not accurate, no explination for why some of these people are on the list. (23:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC))

Note this discussion wasn't listed when it was created, I have therefore just listed it under August 8th, not August 7th. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Fix the list, don't delete it. BlankVerse ∅ 02:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless someone can present outside sources for the existence of "gay icons" (specifically as "gay icons") and objective criteria for inclusion, stands as original research. siafu 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fis where necessary, but no reason for deletion. -- AlexR 09:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fix it, don't delete it. -- Commking 11:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote was actually by 210.49.108.115 (talk · contribs) - could you please log in before voting? Many thanks. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clean up, don't delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. David | Talk 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - needs attention, not deletion jamesgibbon 10:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Having a "significant following among the gay community" is an extremely vague criterion, thus the very definition of gay icon is invalid. Punkmorten 11:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Inaccurate? Template:Sofixit. (I love that template. I think I'm going to make use of it a lot from now on.) CanadianCaesar 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Though it's definitely odd at the moment... Dawn French and Hugh Jackman are on there, but Noel Coward and Erasure aren't? WTF? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, though this needs a lot of work. Virtually every actress or singer could be listed here, so I think a very firm criteria needs to be established. IMO this list can and should be cut by up to 50%, however I lack the personal knowledge (or interest) to decide who goes; I'll leave that to someone else. 23skidoo 16:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- what makes Princess Di, or Carol Burnett a gay icon as opposed to just a regular icon? The current criterion for this list is really anyone who has a following in the gay community. The number of followers is undefined, and subjective. For instance, suppose I am gay and think that Jani Rita is a good role-model. I could include him on the list, particularly if I have a gay friend who agrees with me. It's inherently flawed, just as a List of heterosexual icons would be. A list of icons who are gay is encyclopedic, a list of icons liked by some gay people isn't.--Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What's the set criteria? As per Scimitar, anyone can be listed. --Dysepsion 18:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Scimitar. -feydey 20:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep clean up and set a criteria.--WolFox 20:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if there is not a list of Heterosexual or bisexual icons, why should there be a list of Gay icons, I would suggest a list of Icons who are gay, but not a list of Gay icons. (Mac Domhnaill 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. Deleting the category is OK only if the list is kept. CDThieme 23:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Inherently point of view category designed to make a point. Sure to attract endless misleading entries. Osomec 00:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I usually vote to keep random lists as this, but what it takes to be a gay icon is a vague, and in most cases, unverifiable standard. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:Philwelch marked everyone on this list as Category:Gay icons as a test for Wikipedia:Merge some redundant lists to categories. Using the category tag on each person's page lets the expert for that person decide whether or not they are a gay icon. -- Norvy (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The X-Men? Bruce Willis? Princess Di? Carol Burnett? As far as I can tell, any person or character with any following that happens to include some homosexuals can be included, according to these vague criteria. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, but keep none the less. Youngamerican 13:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm gonna have to go with delete here. Entirely subjective lists like this always deteriorate into crap as users add anyone who comes into their mind to it. Bruce Willis? Is every "hunky" guy as well as every flaming queen to be included, as well as nearly everybody in between? If the list is fixed I may be persuaded to change my vote, but I'm not convinced it can be. -R. fiend 15:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Criteria for inclusion on the list too vague; don't really see how it could be fixed. Sliggy 16:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is perplexing to me why Category:Gay icons was kept in a recent CfD. Hall Monitor 23:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

See also Category_talk:Gay_icons#Qualifying_.22gay_icons.22, a question which was never answered. Hall Monitor 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete out of date cliché. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hopelessly POV. Since "Gay icons are sometimes also popular with heterosexual fans", how is that different from someone who is simply very popular? ManoaChild 02:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the quality of the list is poor, fix it don't delete it. — OwenBlacker 20:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Its not the quality, but the impossibility oif choosing a standard. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 20:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Romeo Bravo ^=/\= 21:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep were it not for the fact that I know there is such a thing as a gay icon and there probably could be a good article about them I'd say delete. I agree with all of those who have said that there is basically no justification for any of these people to be considered gay icons and thus in my view this article serves very little purpose. It seems very arbitrary and doesn't meet the standards that seem to normally be applied to other Wikipedia articles in terms of detail and in terms of original research. I don't really want to see it trashed, but if it were come up for a vote for deletion again in a few months and nothing has changed I would very likely vote the other way. Each person on the list should, at the very least, have enough of a following as a gay icon to warrant a section in the original article otherwise it would appear to me to be very arbitrary. Some of them seem to be very improbable to me... Mr. Clean?? is this really a substantial portion of this imaginary cleaning man in an unusually clean outfit's cultural context? Gabe 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this list is far too expansive. You've got almost half the celebrities in Euro-American Pop Culture on the list!70.243.39.62 04:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Knowledgepreneurs

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of not-yet-notable management terms. Francs2000 | Talk 10:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• You need to think outside the ball!
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faethon387 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 August 2005
• Delete - meaningless entry. This is perilously close to nonsense. Naturenet | Talk 10:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Management talk and nonsense are sometimes hard to tell apart, which keeps me from asking for speedy. --DrTorstenHenning 11:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neologism. ManoaChild 12:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism, with original research. Eclipsed 12:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete managelogism. Buzzwordwise, that's the way the flagpole crumbles. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Starblind. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Brian Milmo

This page was speedied a few days ago as nn-bio, but reappeared today. Since it has been rewritten slightly I put it up here, but it's unquestionably nn with 2 google hits Punkmorten 10:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. nn/vanity. --DrTorstenHenning 10:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy a directors cut

This film isn't listed in the Internet Movie Database. I found references online to New Guy, The Director's Cut, a 2002 dvd release. This article appears to be about another film of questionable notability altogether. -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 11:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn amateur film. ManoaChild 12:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I consider an IMDB entry to be the absolute minimum inclusion criteria for films and their makers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can provide a link to a noteworthy festival showing the film. IMDB is sometimes VERY slow about updating info, especially with small films like this, so having an IMDB article on a recent movie isn't neccesarily a fair basis on which to judge a movie.--Frag 21:25, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn film vanity. --Etacar11 00:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Why would you hassle this article? Wikipedia isn't just for professionals. I have seen many articles like this.

Unsigned comment above contributed by 81.156.237.92, who also blanked this VfD. Users first edit. -- Longhair | Talk 10:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: i too have seen articles like this (Unsigned comment by 212.139.38.16 (talk · contribs), first edit)
• According to the article: Created only for the enjoyment of the director's and the actor's entertainment, the movie is not officially listed nor available for sale. That makes it unverifiable. Delete. If there are other articles like this, they should be deleted too. --Metropolitan90 14:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Save: It's ridiculus to undermine one article's credibility to another; a website article is independant, too, just like a movie, so your arguments of non-professional artices is extreme and unjust. (Unsigned vote by 212.139.42.76 (talk · contribs), first edit)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Character displacement

I'm not sure what to make of this - it appears to be either original research or spam. Alphax ^τεχ 10:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• merge to article on evolution. This appears to have some validity, but there is little content here. The links don't work, by the way. ManoaChild 12:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup/Expand or Merge with Evolution. Google search for "Character displacement" +evolution has over 10,000 hits. Eclipsed 12:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I change my vote to STRONG KEEP. It's a fine stub. Eclipsed 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and allow for organic evolution. Kappa 12:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Owwwww! (grin) Weak keep based mainly on Duncharris' comment below. Barno 01:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - leave room for expansion. We have too few science articles and too many on TV shows and primary schools as it is. Google scholar has plenty of hits. The concept makes sense to this trained biologist at least. Whatever you do, Do not merge with evolution - it's far too specific for that. Dunc|☺ 16:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete its a lecture! Yes, there are problems with other articles being kept, but that should not be an excuse to drag down the quality of all of wikipedia. Probably falls under origional research based on the reference. If kept it really, really needs a rewrite. Vegaswikian 05:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The link to Duke University lecture you mean? I added that in after the article was created, as an example of the 10,000+ pages I found on the topic. I leave it to others to find better links. Eclipsed 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Eh? This is a fine stub. Keep. Sdedeo 07:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Grutness. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kansas State Historical Society

Oh dear. if this wasn't so sad it would be BJAODN material. No doubt an article could be written about this society, but this sure ain't it - this is "start again from scratch" time. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as criteria #1 and/or #3. This deserves a real article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Starblind. More work from User:Maoririder, I expect we'll be picking up the pieces for a while now. I've gone through a bit of his work and merged, redirected and expanded where appropriate, other things I put on my watchlist and might VfD or redirect later. CanadianCaesar 13:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You're both right, of course. Speedied. Grutness...wha? 14:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Mobile army surgical hospital. Now for the justification of making such a call when nobody voted "redirect". The article is an essay, and as has been pointed out, such essays should not be in Wikipedia, therefore I will be removing the essay from the "front line" by converting this to a redirect. However a number of users want some of the content merged with Mobile army surgical hospital. This is not all that easy to do, and since I am a lazy administrator, I cannot be bothered to do so. Instead, I will give other users a chance to do the merging, so I will leave the history intact. Anyone may now look into the history, and merge parts from this essay at their leisure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want an easy link to the essay just use this link. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

M*A*S*H developments in Korea

Should be merged with Mobile army surgical hospital Gorrister 12:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment If you think it should be merged, why are you nominating it for deletion? A merge does not involve a deletion. I have merged several articles myself, and I'm not an administrator and I didn't need to go through VfD. Please read Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. Or, if you're nervous about merging something, slap a merge tag on it as opposed to a deletion tag. CanadianCaesar 12:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mobile army surgical hospital. Invalid deletion criteria. — RJH 16:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, signed personal essay with lots of POV content. jamesgibbon 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Signed personal essay, lots of content, mostly encyclopedic but I haven't compared closely with the established article. Probably delete but should be reviewed first for anything needing to be merged. No obvious need for a redirect from this title unless something real gets merged. Barno 01:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Starblind. Closing. Essjay · Talk 06:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Andyman

Do I need a reason? This is a nonsense entry. I'd SD it as pn, but its borderline readable, so I'll leave it up to this forum instead. Delete Usrnme h8er 12:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Victor Rivera, 2nd nomination

This article about a wrestler was undeleted following consensus at WP:VFU. This is therefore a procedural VFD debate in which I will abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I guess. No reason not to cover pro wrestlers. I should note that the original deletion was due to an unrelated article, and I do not disagree with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, professional athlete. Kappa 13:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, pro athelete. Regarless of how real his sport may or may not be.BillyCreamCorn 19:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Professional actor. --Carnildo 23:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why put it up for deletion, just needed to be cleaned-up a little. And needs more info, but I can take care of that though. — Moe ε 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Amanda Dickison

Created by a vandal to provide a source for his repeated vandalism of Families. The IMDB offers no results for Amanda Dickison - but Dickinson. Normally I would just redirect, but it offers no encyclopaedic content anyway about a minor actor: Wikipedia is not a listings directory. Since the vandal created it and is the only person (other than stubsorters) editing it, it is liable to grow into a very inaccurate article - 50% is already inaccurate! I've asked the IP several times to provide source, but (s)he keeps reverting aimlessly. The same user has done this before with Mark Wingett (see edit history); using an article for a minor actor to promote his vandalism of Mr Burns! The JPS 12:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Going by the mention of London's Burning the vandal can't even spell the name correctly – per imdb (s)he's talking about Amanda Dickinson anyway, who doesn't appear to have any connection with Families. Tonywalton 13:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete General criterion #3 CanadianCaesar 14:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Said user on *.dialup.xtra.co.nz is apparently obsessed with adding unverifiable "facts" to articles on British actors. That person never provided any sources for the claims, avoids the talk page, but is very persistent. Misspelled article on hardly notable actress, without useful content adds up to a delete, as far as I am concerned. I am willing to reconsider if some real editor wants to keep it or even better, promises to look after it. Rl 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• This is a clear hoax by a repetitive vandal, speedy delete. The user changed the article Families to say Amanda Dicksinson instead of Amanda Wenban (Which is an actor in the series, per IMDB). This is "promoting vandalism" again. —kooo 18:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD #3. Hall Monitor 23:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

ANWE

A no-name band, or something. Probably vanity. --Jamieli 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nnv <drini ☎> 15:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio/Fast Delete - Just a cut & paste from the band website.--Frag 21:21, 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 transwiki to Wikibooks:Cookbook. Will submit this article to the transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Binagoongan

Wikipedia is not a reciepie book Usrnme h8er 13:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a recipe book. This might find a home in the wiki Cookbook instead. Eclipsed 13:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks:Cookbook 192.18.1.4 14:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Raymond Dimech. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Intergalactic_communicator

An article about a fictional device in a fictional childrens' cartoon that allows people to communicate with alien dogs. If there were enough communicators for the entire world, then people would know more about there pets or wild animals. More Information later this week. (Last edit: 16 June 2005) Garrett Albright 14:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete <drini ☎> 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting to fans of Krypto the Superdog, which is a real childrens' cartoon apparently aired daily on Cartoon Network. Kappa 16:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect useful information, but an individual piece of equipment on a cartoon show doesn't merit it's own page. For instance, the Phaser might deserve it's own page, but for the rest of Star Trek's weapons, Weapons of Star Trek suffices. A brief mention in the main article on Krypto the Superdog in place of the link should suffice.
• Merge into Human-animal communication, an article I just created a few minutes ago. This would fit in the fiction section perfectly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge to Krypto the Superdog. Nandesuka 23:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge. Everything you need to know about this fictional thing is in the line Kevin wears an intergalactic communicator, enabling him to understand and speak to Krypto (a Labrador Retriever) in the Krypto the Superdog article. Sabine's Sunbird 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, subtrivial fancruft. No information that needs to be merged. Martg76 04:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Period. --Calton | Talk 05:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Starblind's suggestion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete, so merge. However this character is already given an entry in Krypto the Superdog, so I will call this a redirect. If anybody wishes to merge more content there, use the history tab to access the old versions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Kevin_Whitney

Character in a cartoon series not notable enough to get his very own page. Garrett Albright 14:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Krypto the Superdog <drini ☎> 14:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 16:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No reason this can't be covered in the show's article. Gamaliel 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, but regardless, CLEANUP, as the article is quite sloppy in its current state. People need to learn how to write articles that use more than three words per sentence.--Frag 21:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at work merge with Krypto the Superdog. Nandesuka 23:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Beverley linux users group

Beverley is a small market town. I don't think such a small and none notable group should be in wikipedia, almost a vanity page. - Hahnchen 14:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, agree with above, unless someone can add to the article an assertion of notability. <drini ☎> 14:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete manifestly NN. David | Talk 14:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. -- Visviva 12:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Games you can play with your pussy

Probably nn, definitely non-encyclopaedic, possibly a copyvio, rude, just plain bad. Delete Proto t c 15:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like a copyvio from a review on Amazon.com. Either that or someone's doing some clumsy promotion of the book both there and here, Hardly worth going to the copyvio procedure, though. Delete Tonywalton 15:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sexist but funny.Allegrorondo 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, published book. Listing the chapters is fair use. Kappa 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just listing the chapters is encyclopaedic? 192.18.1.4 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• • It doesn't just list the chapters, it also describes what the book is about. Kappa 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless somebody writes an actual article. Listing the contents is little more than advertising. Flowerparty ^talk 17:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup/Copyvio It's a real book, but, as pointed out above, it does just copy an Amazon.com review. This article is on a valid topic, it just needs a lot of work.--Frag 21:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless rewritten. Nandesuka 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Copyvio. Amazon sales rank of around a million, so not worth re-writing as an article. --Carnildo 23:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think Amazon sales records go back to 1978. Kappa 00:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's unencyclopedic, but hardly sexist (where on earth did that come from?) or "rude". Just rather funny. I've got two lovely pussies at home that love to snuggle up to me in bed, and I enjoy playing with them in the morning when I'm feeling energetic. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless rewritten. Youngamerican 13:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus - no votes). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

RENAC Society

Non-notable fotball (soccer) fansite, possible vanity. The article is also wrong to call it a press agency, on the "about the site" section on the site they clearly identify themselves as a fansite dedicated to Aalesunds F.K.. It's professionaly done, and maybe interesting for fans of the club, but I see nothing that would establish it as a notable site. I'm not a big fan of the Google and Alexa testing, but in this case I guess I could mention that searching for "RENAC society" on Google prduce only 22 hits (most of wich seems to be unrelated, or Wikipedia mirrors), and it doesn't have an Alexa rank at all. I added the site as an external link on the Aalesunds F.K. article, that should be more than enough. My vote is delete obviously. --Sherool 15:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC) \

• Err... not sure how to vote on this one. There is a norwegian web site for the RENAC Society, so likely it's valid.[4] But the site is in norwegian, so I'm not sure about the notability. — RJH 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I linked to theyr english site abowe, sorry for not making that clearer. The URL is: http://english.renac.org/index.php , content is pretty much the same as on the Norweigian version. --Sherool 17:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Beelzebub. This all appears to have come out in the wash; the redirect is already in place and the main discussion transported to another VfD. -Splash 00:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Belzebuub

Promotional page for non-notable character. See Google on Belzebuub. Tearlach 15:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: page moved to Mark H. Pritchard, VfD refreshed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mark H. Pritchard. Tearlach 20:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Beelzebub. --Scimitar ^parley 18:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Belzebuub is a notable character. He is known by tens of thousands of individuals who have been greatly affected by his life and work. It is arrogant of you to state that he is "non-notable" when people around the world take part in his courses and read his books. See Amazon on Belzebuub

Adreamsoul 21:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Belzebuub. --Adreamsoul ^parley 16:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Just get rid of it, apparently nobody on Wikipedia has an open mind enough to find the information of any use; from what pure nonsense i've seen here, nobody here is even worthy receiving this information. Since the only spiritual beliefs that matter to Wikipedians are those of the corrupt organizations already in existence; anything that isn't already corrupted by mainstream mediocrity and greed should be deleted. Only corrupt mainstream-accepted information is allowed on the Wikipedia (i.e. information from organizations that collect large sums of money from their members "on behalf of god"), not information from individuals who give away electronic copies of their information and seek no financial support from their students. Good luck finding any truly valuable information from an organization founded on the pervasive principles of modern day religious organizations. I'm sorry that I'm not like everyone else, and I'm sorry that Belzebuub has a different way of portraying himself than most people. I hope that reading the article didn't offend anyone's fragile constitution. Adreamsoul 20:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Beelzebub. --Carnildo 23:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Aaaaah!! They say if you wikilink any particular spelling three times, you summon the Beast! Revert! Revert, I tell you! Barno 01:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- the book isn't doing too horrible on Amazon and it seems well-reviewed. Author may become more notable in his field at a later date. --Howcheng 15:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no support for the POV claims in this article. If the book is notable, write an article on it, not on its non-notable author. Zoe 18:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot the outrageously POV aspect: Known to history as a famous demon, Belzebuub later repented in the internal worlds with the help of Master Samael Aun Weor - wanting to transform himself back into a Being of light. To do this, he was given a physical body with the name of Mark H. Pritchard. Is that supposed to be an encyclopedic statement? Tearlach 03:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

i don't see why the wikipedia should discount this information merely because it is of a spiritual nature. Channels and other spiritual leaders have done a great deal to help humanity. The work of Belzebuub has helped many people achieve the ability to perform Astral Projection; it has also helped many people to become aware of higher spiritual states. I, honestly, cannot see the harm in displaying such ideas. Adreamsoul 03:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not the ideas, but their presentation from a single point of view. If kept, the material would need presenting in a way acceptable to both those who believe it and to the majority of readers who think it extremely unlikely that some guy in Australia is literally the incarnation of a reformed major-league demon. Tearlach 10:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying it would be more likely if he was from someplace other than Australia?  ;) Zoe 19:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Zoe. It happens quite commonly elsewhere. I actually am the incarnation of Asmodeus. A man called Obi Khan Wenobi, showed me the error of my ways, and I'm a being of light now. Tearlach 23:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope you have fun poking fun at new age spirituality, obviously you have none yourself. You're so damn intelligent to make fun of what you don't understand. Adreamsoul 21:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I attempted to make the article more neutral. The body of the article about Belzebuub's life has been changed to more of a neutral perspective. I have also added a section of criticism; please add your criticisms to it. I hope that this makes the article more valueable to the wikipedia. Adreamsoul 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Scimitar. Show me material by noted authorities in Judeo-Christian mythology (in this case, I would prefer Jesuits, but there are other choices) who says this guy is a demon made flesh, and I'll think about a keep instead. Ken ^{talk|contribs} 12:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think that the "Jesuit Authorities" know? What makes you think that because some religious entity is established that it is correct? Just because something has been around for a long time doesn't mean it is legitimate, take the catholic church for example and all of the corruption therin. Adreamsoul 13:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesuits are Catholic and more than legitimate authorities on theirs and other religions. If they said he was, I'd listen too, despite not being religious. -eric ✈ 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Catholic church is one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. They have committed so many crimes against humanity throught history: pedophile preists, getting the top Nazis out of Germany after WWII, selling indulgences to "pay your way to heaven", sending children on crusades and then selling them into slavery... It is beyond me why anyone would ever trust such an organization. There is no such thing as spirituality within such an organization. God help anyone who tries to get spirituality at a church, they have none! They have encouraged individuals like yourselves to do whatever they can to discredit anyone who claims to have spiritual information that is different from theirs. Maybe you should delete the wiki on catholicism if you really want to do the world a favor! Adreamsoul 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Beelzebub. --Ceejayoz 17:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect (unless the Jesuits arrive! huzzah!) -eric ✈ 21:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jacques Chiron

Not notable - one of many students, etc. who made a car run on alternative oils - one paragraph blurb in National Geographic - Tεxτurε 15:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - so my vote is clear - Tεxτurε 15:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge possibly with an article on alternative feuls, or whatever else, it's only 1 paragraph so it shouldn't be too hard to squeeze in somewhere, as non notable as it is--172.141.193.91 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, and probably vanity. And merge where?, it wouldn't fit anywhere, there are tons of people who operate alternate fuel vehicles . There is no list of people who use alternate fuel vehicles, so it would stick out like a sore thumb in an article. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 01:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Reading Sherool's vote, it appears to be a keep which gives 2k-1d. Since no copyvio has been applied (and a quick Google doesn't turn it up), I'll just close this as a keep. -Splash 00:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Cosmos (Transformers)

Non-notable, delete or merge Frenchman113 16:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, comprehensive coverage of fictional topics is one of wikipedia's strengths. Kappa 16:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Looks like it might be a copy of Hasbro's blurb. Gazpacho 16:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, hmm yeah it does look a lot like the "bio" of him from the comics (not 100% sure, I only have the Norwegian versions -- somewhere). If it's not a copyvio I don't see any particular reason to delete this. Lots of transformers have seperate articles (although if someone wants to listify some of the minor characters I won't mind). Could do with some wikifying though. --Sherool 17:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Only delete vote came from the nominator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Advanced Design System

• Delete simple advert, non-notable program. 170.2.52.28 16:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

*Author's Reponse:This was posted by me. I don't know why I got logged out all of a sudden. --Icelight 17:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am not the author of the page in question. I'm the nominator of the VfD, but when I made that post, I was accidentaly logged off. --Icelight 22:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, as the software has some slight significance. --Frag 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP significant electrical engineering software (also applying to synopsis, cadence, orcad, ...) 132.205.95.43 01:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as bad faith user contribution. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 02:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag

Delete - Even the title is original research. Homey 16:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV, OR fork of Flag of Canada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As DoubleBlue. Even if it weren't POV and OR it belongs in Flag of Canada, not an article with an unencyclopedic title like this. JPD 17:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IMO the title isn't OR, it's patent nonsense. The rest is... POV, and redundant. A redirect would serve no use whatsoever. CanadianCaesar 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Zhatt 17:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even anything worth merging. DJ Clayworth 18:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV original research. - SimonP 18:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be original research. --Carnildo 18:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This was a POV fork from the original Flag of Canada article that I removed before. From what I found out from the Heritage Department, the French tri-color or the Irish flag had no influence in designing the flag at all. The only flag that even came close was the flag of Peru, which was used in an argument to not adopt the current flag (see pg 100 in "I Stand For Canada)." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. CJCurrie 21:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:CJCurrie. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Air brake (cartoon)

A seperate article on a stand-off between Tex Avery and Leon Schlesinger over the ending of the 1941 Bugs Bunny cartoon The Heckling Hare. Already discussed in the same amount of detail in the article on the cartoon itself, and can be expanded from there. Delete, no redirect FuriousFreddy 16:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no redirect Jeff schiller 21:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. useful + true = encyclopedic . --→ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 00:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's not useful (it belongs in the article on the cartoon), and it's not even true (Schlesinger didn't replace the ending; he simply cut the final two falls off of the end of the cartoon, which is why there is such an abrupt fade to black). --FuriousFreddy 16:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Change to Delete. in light of it being false. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 17:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Heckling Hare is the place for this. But I wouldn't oppose a redirect. -- Norvy (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Tiny web servers. Already done. -Splash 00:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Scrinchy

This appears to be vanity page for a small program the creator made. Google for 'Scrinchy web server' returns 0 hits. There exists another product with the exact same description called Scrunchy (23kb tiny webserver), which is a legitimate program (available on freshmeat), so this could be a spoof of some sort as well, but I don't know what the motive would be. Either way neither of these is encyclopaedic. Darkfred 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn as per the discussion below, this has evolved into something more appropriate --Darkfred 21:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am the creator of Scrunchy, which I have renamed Scrinchy because the former name has a connotation I dislike (ask any woman). I have never put Scrunchy on sourceforge, but I put it on Freshmeat. If you search today on either SF or FM you will not find Scrunchy; you will find Scrinchy on FM. So just keep the Scrinchy page, it would be reckless to remove it. (anonymous comment by User:207.245.94.146)
  • Comment Sorry was thinking freshmeat but typed sourceforge. I actually think your project is quite cool myself, don't take it personally. However, the bar for including products and programs on wikipedia is quite high. Your program has not yet reached the point of encyclopaedic notability. Apache has, but then apache runs 57% of the web. Hundreds of millions of computers use it daily. --Darkfred 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • more comments There would be no problem if you created an article on tiny web servers, there is lots of info to cover like embedded , server-on-chip systems and minimalists servers like your own. The topic would be interesting to enough people to be an article. You could even link the word Scrinchy into it. --Darkfred 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • All right, I've created a page for the ones I've found... Tiny_web_servers (anonymous comment by User:207.245.94.146)
    • Thats a good start. Still not encyclopedic but would function as a stub. you can redirect the old article to the new one. (see Wikipedia:Redirect for information on how to do it) And i will withdraw my nomination for deletion. I have also cleaned up the formatting of these comments, look at the wikicode if you want to see how comments are usually formatted.--Darkfred 20:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Training Simulator Datastream Addendum

Delete. Not verifiable or notable. This article describes a science-fictional computerized language translator that, according to the author, is "used by a lot of soldiers in science fiction books and movies." No specific books or movies are identified. I have found nothing to indicate that this particular terminology has any notable or widespread use in science fiction. --Russ Blau (talk) 17:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ditto: no notability established. Also, 0 hits on google for the phrase. Eclipsed 18:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to refer to an item from the "Splinter Cell" video game, not noteworthy. Allegrorondo 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 14:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Peter Fossett

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 2.3% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact know to mankind.Gaius Cornelius 15:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Fosett and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. PedanticallySpeaking 14:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, not only did he not win the election, he didn't even get 3% in the primary. I don't even know if that even qualifies him as a politician. Even the real nominated candidates in Congressional elections are rarely notable if they don't win or do something that sets them apart. There's 435 of them every 2 years, going back to the 18th century, and there's many more failed "candidates" in the primaries. -R. fiend 15:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, just to clarify, I know there weren't always 435 going all the way back over 200 years, but there still were loads of them every 2 years throughout the nation's history. -R. fiend 17:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Uh, probably merge, or something. I can't think of anything significant he did to garner significant attention. I know he got some minor notice from bloggers who were attracted by his economically-very-conservative-yet-socially-moderate stance, but as far as real media attention I know of very little (only the one Enquirer editorial already cited in the article). I agree with PedanticallySpeaking that it is important to have a complete record of the election, however I think that the current situation with separate articles for all is overkill, and that (s)merging them all into the Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 article is probably not a bad course of action. Imagine if we had an article for every candidate in the California recall election! (Oh wait ... do we? I really don't want to check, because I'm really afraid of what I might find.) In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I have a personal relationship with the subject of this article. To elaborate on what R. fiend said: I don't think he considers himself to be a "politician" either. He's a teacher and a "lawyer in rehab" for now. Aerion//talk 22:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP or MERGE. This was one of the rare competitive Congressional elections in recent memory, and one of the few to get national attention. At the very least, the information on each of the candidates up for deletion should be moved onto the main page for the OH-2 election. --JamesB3 16:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The primary reason this garnered national attention is because it was a special election. If this occured during a standard election cycle, these men would be even less than historical footnotes. Soltak 16:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know about that. There are often up to 3 or 4 special elections every cycle. How much did you hear about the special election in North Carolina last year? That was a district drawn to represent a Democrat and a Democrat won easily. Ohio-2 is a district drawn to represent a Republican and yet, for whatever reason, a Republican almost lost. It's important to note all the people involved so that the reader will get a picture as to why this election was different. I'm not saying they have to have all their own pages, but at the very least they should each get a more expanded mention on the central page for OH-2, and a link to their own websites, if they had a website. I also wanted to mention that out of all the OH-2 candidates up for deletion, I think Peter has the most grounds to keep his own separate page, as he was the only one who seemed to be noted by the local media as having a good future in politics. --JamesB3 16:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If I had to choose I'd say that Fossett was probably one of the most irrelevant candidate. Jean Schimdt, a Republican, was chosen by Portman to succeed him. Fosset challenging Portman's pick as a Republican was a sure way to fail quite spectacularly, something he did. 2.3%? Doesn't seem very bright to me. Soltak 17:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • He placed 6th out of the field of candidates, and he was specifically praised by the Cinci Enquirer, which may indicate a future run for him. Considering that Schmidt gave the weakest performance of any Republican OH-2 nominee in over 30 years, maybe Fossett wasn't too wrong after all. --JamesB3 18:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Schimdt's relatively poor showing has nothing to do with Fossett. It was directly tied to the backlash against Bush and the Republican party building because of increased numbers of killed soldiers in Iraq, a disturbing number of whom call Ohio home. To assume that anything Fossett said or did impacted Schimdt's campaign or vote count is illogical. If Fossett does run in the future, and manages to get more than a statistically insignificant portion of the vote, he can have an article. Until then, he's just a footnote. Soltak 19:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't feel that Schmidt's performance had nothing to do with Fossett, but you were the one who said that he didn't "seem very bright" for running against her. You connected the two and I went along with your train of thought. As for the rest, I think that based on his coming in 6th and the comments of the Enquirer, there is enough there for at least a small article. But as long as some of that information is moved over to the main OH-2 election page if or when Fossett's page is deleted, the deletion won't bother me. --JamesB3 19:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • When I said "seem very bright" that was in response to what you characterized as Fossett's "good future in politics." I meant that his future in politics didn't look bright. Now that you mention it, running against a member of your own party endorsed by the seat's previous holder isn't too bright either. Soltak 19:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
            • I have no personal opinion on Fossett. What I said was that the Cincinatti Enquirer had praise for him, and that seemed to suggest he may have a good future in politics. They are one of the leading conservative papers in the city, and probably in all of Ohio, so if they see something in him, then they must have had some basis. I don't know why Portman endorsed Schmidt but she was not the choice of a lot of power brokers in that district and she will probably be lucky to survive her next primary. Anyway, I guess this is off topic. --JamesB3 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Who told you that Rob Portman endorsed Jean Schmidt? That's outright wrong; Portman officially endorsed no candidate in the primary. That reason for claiming non-notability is bogus. There are other ones that are pretty valid. The rest of this discussion belongs elsewhere, which is where I will now take it. Aerion//talk 01:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Wikipedia is a recond of events as much as it is an encyclopedia.Torbjorn 10 Aug, 2005
  • Delete WP has pretty well established by now that it is ( WP:NOT ) "not an indiscriminate collection of information" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely non-notable. Sdedeo 01:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• keep it is relevant
• Keep. Agree with Pedantically Speaking and JamesB3. At the very least, this information should be merged into the article about the district or the election. It would not bother me at all if Wikipedia had articles about every candidate who ever ran for anything. Wikipedia has the capacity to have millions of articles, and articles about minor politicians do not detract from the encyclopedia. Academic Challenger 05:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Meelar. Nabla 21:40:30, 2005-08-18 (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 14:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Bemmes

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 1.5% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind.Gaius Cornelius 15:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Bemmes and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Bemmes has run for office before and been elected, contrary to the proposer's statement above. PedanticallySpeaking 14:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. -R. fiend 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge for reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Fossett. As an aside, "only ran for one office" may not mean much here, since this is a recent campaign. One or more of them could easily run for office again and win that election. --JamesB3 16:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ... they could also use Judo to save the world from attacking space slugs too, but we don't include articles based on possible future notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. Aerion//talk 03:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Pedantically Speaking. Academic Challenger 05:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Morgan (Ohioan)

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.9% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My dad ran as an independent a few years back and got 8%, and even he isn't anywhere close to deserving an article.--Frag 21:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind.Gaius Cornelius 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Morgan and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett, only more so. Did he get any votes that weren't friends and family? -R. fiend 15:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge for reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Fossett. As an aside, "only ran for one office" may not mean much here, since this is a recent campaign. One or more of them could easily run for office again and win that election. --JamesB3 16:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hell, I could run for President and win, in 2012. Where's my article? -R. fiend 16:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See (lengthy) opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. Aerion//talk 03:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Pedantically Speaking. Academic Challenger 05:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

David R. Smith

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.8% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My dad ran as an independent a few years back and got 8%, and even he isn't anywhere close to deserving an article.--Frag 21:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Smith and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. PS -- the purpose of wiki is not to provide people with attention. Sdedeo 18:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. -R. fiend 15:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge for reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Fossett. --JamesB3 16:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett (I wish these had all been listed together, or something). Aerion//talk 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with PedanticallySpeaking.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 14:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Steve Austin (politician)

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.5% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at one-half of a percent of the vote, doesn't even seem to have been a "serious" candidate. I will say, though, that that is one of the meanest-looking politician pictures I've ever seen. He could stare down the other Steve Austin any day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My dad ran as an independent a few years back and got 8%, and even he isn't anywhere close to deserving an article.--Frag 21:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Austin and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He doesn't need an article to make a complete record, just have his name added to the list of candidates. We don't decide the important candidates, the voters do. And other candidates should be discussed on other pages. DJ Clayworth 14:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. -R. fiend 15:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge for reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Fossett. --JamesB3 16:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. (Just a few more to vote on...) Aerion//talk 04:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. AGree with PedanticallySpeaking.

Academic Challenger 05:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Douglas E. Mink

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.2% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My dad ran as an independent a few years back and got 8%, and even he isn't anywhere close to deserving an article.--Frag 21:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Mink and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. Basically, what this article says is "this guy has 100 friends over the age of 18 in Ohio." -R. fiend 16:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge for reasons given at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Peter_Fossett. --JamesB3 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. (Almost there...) Aerion//talk 04:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. And apparently he has run for other offices. Academic Challenger 05:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 14:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Sinnard

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 2.0% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--minor candidate who's never held a significant office. Very inspiring Toqueville stuff about standing up for his beliefs and participating, but he only managed 47 signatures on the nominating petition. Meelar (talk) 19:26, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Sinnard and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. He has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. And Sinnard had to have had more than 47 names--you needed fifty to make the ballot. PedanticallySpeaking 14:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the most part, local officials DO NOT have their own pages, unless you're talking a large town, or they have some other reason for notability. The mayors of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a city of nearly 200,000 people, and Lansing, Michigan, state capital and home of nearly 120,000 people, don't even have articles. ral315 22:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. -R. fiend 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. Aerion//talk 04:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge for reasons given at VfD/Peter Fossett. --JamesB3 02:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with PedanticallySepaking.

Academic Challenger 06:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 14:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Stanley Katz

Non-notable politician. Only ran for one office, in 2005, garnering 0.2% of the vote in the June primaries. ral315 18:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable Soltak 18:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete less than non-notableAllegrorondo 20:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a repository of every fact known to mankind. Gaius Cornelius 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep strongly. Proposer has moved that Katz and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. Katz has an article so to make a complete record of the election. I do not think it fair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some of those he proposes for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. PedanticallySpeaking 14:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Peter Fossett. -R. fiend 16:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• [s]Merge. See opinion on VfD/Peter Fossett. Aerion//talk 04:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--candidates this minor are not notable. There's no way he deserves his own article, as opposed to being mentioned in a table listing the results. Meelar (talk) 13:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge for reasons given at VfD/Peter Fossett. --JamesB3 02:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with PedanticallySpeaking.

Academic Challenger 06:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Morno

Neologism. Cursory Google search shows that the word is likely Portuguese, but probably does not mean "a typo for moron."--Mitsukai 18:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently it is a somewhat common usage on Usenet and other on-line forums to deliberately misspell "moron" this way, but that alone doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn neologism. I dispute the statement that it is a common on-line word. ManoaChild 21:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Village Preschool of Saratoga

This is a non-notable school. It has not established notability in the article nor can notability be established for it. DELETE. BillyCreamCorn 19:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

*sigh* This article was created for the sole purpose of making a point. Please see Talk:Village Preschool of Saratoga for details, while it lasts... —RaD Man (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, looks like WP:POINT. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It would have to be a ridiculous article to fit WP:POINT first off, secondly see the talk page, this is my own preschool from when I was a kid, why would I want it deleted. This is a baseless personal attack by RuMan. Gateman1997 01:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to create articles just so your "coworker" next door can delete them, be my guest. —RaD Man (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Come on, now, people... Universities, sure. High schools, great. Middle schools, ok. Grade schools... well, maybe. Preschools? Not a chance. This is not even a seperate "school" per se, but rather a prechool program at a church [5] Really, think about this one, folks. Don't just see the word "school" and blindly vote to keep for no other reason than "school" was in the title. This is not actually a school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm willing to see whatGateman1997 may have that makes this school notable, but if its nothing more than what is up now, delete it.
• Delete non-notable preschools (and that's just about all of them). --Scimitar ^parley 20:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real place --malathion ^talk 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more nurserycruft. Dunc|☺ 22:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this nomination seems weird to me Yuckfoo 23:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a church preschool. I'm happy that it exists, but a Wikipedia article? -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Proof that not all schools are notable. --Carnildo 23:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stop the insanity. Gamaliel 23:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• No vote. I haven't made up my mind about private preschools. They're probably not particularly verifiable in the sense that public institutions and private schools for older children are, because of the apparent lack of regulation of preschool education. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Sabine's Sunbird 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Bicycle, for the usual reasons. Keep up the great work, Gateman1997. —RaD Man (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Come on now, a preschool? Unless something mindblowing happened here, no thanks. - Hahnchen 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I like to consider schools on a case-by-case basis. This would have to be a really important preschool to be included here. Sadly, it is not. Carbonite | Talk 00:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, by which I mean delete. --Deathphoenix 04:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This vote shows what editors think about the include all schools view. We need some reasonable criteria to judge schools. Vegaswikian 06:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with you completely with respect to the "include all schools" view; there are clearly not many who subscribe to such an extreme view. We do have some pretty good criteria to apply to schools: verifiability and neutrality, on those we can all agree. If someone comes up with an external school report on this preschool that uses reasonable standards applicable to early education, I'll change my vote to keep. Your mileage may vary. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Tony, surely you'd accept that the information is in principle verifiable, and as such meets those criteria? This seems to be a well-written, short article that, while it's not essential, wouldn't harm to keep. Philip Arthur 06:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• WP:POINT or not, it's good to set a precedent. Delete. Proto t c 09:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Unless this school can show some claim to fame other than just being a school, it doesnt belong here. In my opinion, this would require something like: a) being the site of some groundbreaking and widely accepted work in early child development; or b) being the site of some notorious tragedy. 12.22.157.254 13:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe i'm a keepoholic, but i do see grounds for expansion... and even if not, some information is better than none at all. Beta m (talk)
• Delete. Just a pre-school program at an apparently unremarkable church. Niteowlneils 22:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in light of consensus I'm changing my vote to delete. Gateman1997 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see how it harms Wikipedia to have a short, well-written article on this preschool or how it helps it to have it deleted. There's plenty of work to be done in fixing rubbish articles without wasting our time trying to get rid of the good ones. Philip Arthur 06:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Ah, but this isn't a good one. It's vague. Delete because, as Niteowlneils says, it's "Just a pre-school program at an apparently unremarkable church". -- Hoary 07:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preschools are not inherently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Some preschools might be notable, but not this one. Salsb 14:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Philip Arthur. Unfocused 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete indifferentiatable from other pre-schools --Tim Pope 16:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Carbonite. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:53, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable preschool program. Really! DES ^(talk) 21:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• D, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. No Account 00:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very rarely is a preschool notable. This one is not. Jonathunder 17:43, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
• Detete— Until the Fighting Pacifiers win a state football championship, delete, delete, delete.
• Delete not notable. feydey 15:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not assert notability. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:21, August 18, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Arttron

I suspect this character is not notable. Deb 19:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this could probably be a speedy. Some Google hits, but not related to this subject (mostly gamer usernames, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- Visviva 12:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)