Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 8 August 10 >

[refresh]

2005-08-09[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Alpha II[edit]

  • Delete non-notable fancruft Soltak 00:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional entity, like so many on Vfd recently. Kappa 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it's not notable, it's a trivial detail about the episode The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode). There is no room for expansion or improvement of this single-sentence article. unsigned comment by User:Ben-w
  • Merge to the episode article, per unsigned previous comment by user User:Ben-w. WP:FICT. Barno 00:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable fictional entry, especially considering it pretains to the Borg incident on Star Trek.Gateman1997 01:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to episode. One sentence isn't enough to merit its own article. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soltak, or at worst Merge. Nandesuka 02:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Key episode, but not a significant detail. I don't see how merging it will improve the BoBW articl. ManoaChild 02:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with episode that relates to this entry. Hamster Sandwich 03:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. per above mergers/mergists/mergerists. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A planet mentioned in passing, whose only claim to fame is being the launching point of a ship never seen on screen? How is this possibly encyclopedic? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Period. NOthing to merge, nothing worth merging. Even Star Trek fans would find this crufty to the max, and calling it "notable" means that someone is sorely in need of a dictionary. --Calton | Talk 05:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with the appropriate episode, per Barno and WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per motivation in the nomination. / Peter Isotalo 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reluctant delete. jamesgibbon 13:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode). Proto t c 15:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reason as Calton, except my explanation uses the word "life" instead of "dictionary". SchmuckyTheCat 16:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there some list of planets in Star Trek, like there is for Star Wars? If so merge there, if not delete. -R. fiend 16:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or merge with the as-yet non-existent Places in the Star Trek Universe. JDoorjam 20:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Star Trek: The Next Generation planets (create actually) 132.205.95.43 23:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn star trek cruft. Memory Alpha's entry has barely more on it. --Etacar11 23:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the episode, and to List of Star Trek planets or equivalent. ~~ N (t/c) 07:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge non-notable and trivial. Aepva 15:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in a rat in a cage[edit]

A fairly blatant attempt to "evangelize" this catchphrase, as the "Regal Social Club" (rather undoubtedly the page's authors) are openly declared to be doing. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I hate these stupid attempts to popularize stupid injokes. Ben-w 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Self-promotion by a small group. Phrase not yet in any significant real use. Note, these appear to be energetic self-promoters who have already created a website, http://www.iminaratinacage.com/ There are only thirteen Google hits currently on "I'm in a rat in a cage," but this will probably increase as they continue to add references everywhere that allows user-added content. As always, Google Groups is a useful second gauge: there are no hits at all on the exact phrase in Google Groups. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn. This is just a few words off of being a decent redirect to Bullet with Butterfly Wings. Oh well. Delete. android79 01:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Del.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 01:45:33, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is like some new gold standard of a vanity page. Nandesuka 03:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 03:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless someone can find the importance of this article. (The Horse 03:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. very well written for nn vanity nonsense, deserves a honorable deletion. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. nn.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-van. MicahMN | Talk 19:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. if "stupid in-joke" isn't good enough, I guess vanity will have to do.
  • Delete. nn. --Apyule 05:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know if this is significant or not, but in the last 13 months, I've seen the phrase written on a park bench at the national mall in Washington D.C., on a flyer promoting a new night club in Chicago, and I heard an announcer use the phrase at a rodeo in my hometown of Memphis.
  • Keep Clearly an inside joke, but it may be becoming big enough to deserve recognition...I've seen bumper stickers in three different states and have heard people mention it more than once.Scottbeowulf 05:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC) — (Scottbeowulf's 1st edit.)[reply]
    • If someone will upload a picture showing the phrase on a park bench, a night club flyer, or a bumper sticker, with an affirmation, using their real name and contact information, that the picture was taken in good faith (i.e. not a phony created by the uploader or an accomplice), I will change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Google test, non-notable, inside joke, etc. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Here's a park bench photo. I took this pic at a park in downtown San Francisco yesterday: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8b/NicCageSticker.jpg

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Handface[edit]

Delete Band vanity, 318 Google hits [1] Soltak 00:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (speedily). Scant content and no indication that they meet WP:MUSIC. Flowerparty talk 00:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -D. Wu 01:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all speed.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 01:47:49, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete Banditry.Not notable. Dosn't meet standards of WP:Music. Hamster Sandwich 03:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not significant. Delete. (The Horse 03:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.S. Lalo[edit]

Delete non-notable fancruft ... I would direct everyone to User:Soltak/Views#Fancruft for specific comments Soltak 00:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is just a Star Trek-universe ship which was wearing a red tunic early in a TNG episode where it was "presumed destroyed by the Borg" as part of the show's set-up. Merge into an appropriate parent article, per WP:FICT, unless it played a more significant role than "victim in one episode". Barno 01:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just too minor a detail. I don't think that merging this will really serve a useful purpose. ManoaChild 02:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ManoaChild. Nandesuka 02:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too crufty. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Hamster Sandwich 03:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Barno. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough this time. jamesgibbon 13:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Soltak's motivation. / Peter Isotalo 15:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruft. Proto t c 15:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again, except this time Keep unless it can be Merged with Star ships in the Star Trek Universe. JDoorjam 20:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Otherwise, Delete.Karmafist 21:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 21:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mike Slinde[edit]

This page should not be deleted, though the person that the page is documenting is not at this point in time very important to American society his life is one of the average American story, which is timeless. The very thought that the people here at Wikipedia are so unpatriotic as to delete the very essence of the American story is quite disturbing at this time of national hard ships. I hope the people here at Wikipedia can realize the mistake they would be making and change their mind on the subject.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Slinde"


Delete nn, vanity, Google shows high school athlete, minimal hits DR31 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Vanity --Dysepsion 00:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yesterday.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 01:50:07, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. He assaulted an official. Poor sport. Hamster Sandwich 03:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity Fieari 03:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Poorly written about nothing. Delete. Vanity. (The Horse 03:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criterion A7. –Mysid (talk) 12:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, though his huge tv may be notable as a separate article. I mean, it's really big. JDoorjam 20:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian and American health care systems compared[edit]

This falls under the category of "what wikipedia is not" because it is essentially "Opinions on current affairs". I have never seen one encyclopedia article anywhere that attempts to compare any two subjects. Any page that attempts to compare the merits of two things or two systems in inherently unencyclopedic. Barneygumble

  • Keep. Comparative politics is a large and well studied field, and we have many such articles Canadian and Australian politics compared, Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American economies compared, British and U.S. military ranks compared, Chinese and English compared, Judaism and Christianity compared, and others. - SimonP 01:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. - Jersyko talk 01:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - SimonP makes an excellent point. Explodicle 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, might need a little cleanup but otherwise it's worth keeping.Gateman1997 01:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Healthcare system. Edwardian 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely do not merge into healthcare. That would totally muddle the healthcare article. 132.205.95.43 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is any place where healthcare systems should be discussed and compared, it is in Healthcare system... which is an entirely different article than Health care. There are currently NO health care systems discussed or compared in Healthcare system, yet this one exists. Edwardian 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SimonP. Article in question is actually quite NPOV given the subject matter. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Obviously needs cleaning up and has POV but is beneficial for outsiders to understand the views and beliefs.rasblue 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment although I don't think articles that compare and contrast various entities is strictly speaking "encyclopedic", there is alot of good work involved in this one. It will be interesting to come back to it in a couple days and see if any edits are applied that improve the current content. Hamster Sandwich 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful + true = encyclopedic, this seems to meet these standards, and is NPOV. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither "usefulness" nor the existance of other overly detailed articles are criteria for inclusion. The level of detail of subarticles is almost bordering that of scholarly papers by now. This does not add to our credibility. / Peter Isotalo 11:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. How can an abundance of information affect an encyclopedia's credibility? Collecting and disseminating information is the whole point of this thing. 23skidoo 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is an extremely fine line between "abundance of information" and "excess of information" and every new article adds to the burden of those who have to verify it. That these kinds of nearly essay-like articles keep getting added at an ever increasing pace is going to make that burden so much harder to cope with. / Peter Isotalo 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we're going to worry about "excess of information" than we might as well stop contributing to Wikipedia now and consider it done. Zhatt 16:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep per User:SimonP, but add footnotes CanadianCaesar 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:SimonP. --Apyule 05:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — J3ff 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person who nominated this article is essentially a vandal/flamer, there's no reason to just let him go around deleting things he doesn't like, or can't successfully vandalize--172.154.221.179 14:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The points are well made. Has POV but with attention could be a useful article. zaw061 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The comparison is intrinsically political and seems designed to cheerlead Canada's health care system instead of offering even-handed analysis. Dottore So 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso[reply]
    • So fix it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If fixing it is possible. It's hard not for any article comparing the two systems to "appear" to "cheer" Canadian healthcare over the U.S. Even handed analysis of the two systems invariably will look like cheering since Canadian healthcare is virtually free. Gateman1997 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a NPOV, verifiable, even-handed analysis seems to favour the Canadian system, then why shouldn't it? If it would be POV and biased to try and make the analysis a draw, don't delete the article, admit that one side comes out smelling sweeter. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'politics' of the article is through omission. What is the rate of MRIs/patient in the US v. Canada (or Great Britain, France or India for that matter). What are the specialists/patient ratios, the number of teaching hospitals per capita, the number of GPs per capita? More to the point, why do we need such a comparison. Shall we compare Togo's health care system to that of Fiji? Or Myanmar's to Bangladesh? Or Spain's to Portugal? What useful information is here (mortality rates, for example) could be merged into the existing articles on Medicare (Canada), or the Canada Health Act. But this comparison, in my view, is flawed in its very premise. (I do not doubt, however, the sincerity and good intentions of the author.)Dottore So 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepuseful information well presented--AYArktos 01:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Summit[edit]

This is cruft and has copyvio problems. I suggest deleting this page. HKT talk 00:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Note this User's other contributions: [2] But how is it copyvio? Sonic Mew | talk to me 01:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Copied text from tv.com. HKT talk 01:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no content. list of names. Hamster Sandwich 03:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've expanded it a bit. I would have rewritten the summary in a non-copyvio form, but that should probably be done by someone who has actually seen the episode. Factitious 07:17, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sketchy content, summary unclear even if a copyvio, but Wikipedia is not paper - maybe someone will write a proper article. Maybe give it more time. No Vote because I've never seen American Dragon: Jake Long. Or possibly merge with American Dragon: Jake Long as suggested on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ski Trip (another American Dragon: Jake Long episode). Peter Grey 14:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are not going to start having articles on single episodes of shows are we? MicahMN | Talk 19:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to American Dragon: Jake Long. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ski Trip[edit]

Delete non-notable cruft HKT talk 01:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Totnes Peace Group[edit]

Yet another non-article from User:Maoririder. Can probably be speedied, but thought I'd better confirm through vfd first. Grutness...wha? 01:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The page looks like it's worth a Wikipedia entry to me, but the entry sucks. If someone improves on it, I'd change my vote to a "Keep". Explodicle 01:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totnes is a small town in Devon. Given that, this article is unlikely to have encyclopedic potential anymore than the Totnes Conservative Party or the Totnes Labour Party. This article is only likely to be of interest to residents of Totnes. Capitalistroadster 02:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Explodicle. I would galdly change my vote if this is expanded. Hamster Sandwich 03:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can come up with an explaination of this group's significence. I would also like to observe that the article in question has exactly three edits--the first edit adding one line, the second disputing the neutrality of that line, and the third requesting the deletion of the entire article, single disputed line and all. There's something poetic about that. Aquillion 11:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC) (Also, doesn't a peace group work for peace by definition?)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as little more than an external link. --Scimitar parley 16:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Scimitar 81.136.163.105 19:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as being content-free. --Carnildo 23:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Apyule 05:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established CanadianCaesar 00:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scienceite[edit]

Neologism --malathion talk 01:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Off[edit]

Vanity entry for a non-notable club night of strictly local interest. Nandesuka 02:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Very non-notable. ManoaChild 02:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Hamster Sandwich 03:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:57:37, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • It seems like this should be a redirect to somewhere--rocket or space ship? Hmm... Meelar (talk) 14:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Secretly, I stumbled across this one when trying to create a page for the 1989 Namco videogame Blast Off :-) Nandesuka 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. --Apyule 05:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:40, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bursa (Star Wars)[edit]

non-notable fancruft Dismas 02:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed. Nandesuka 03:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vaccuous content. Hamster Sandwich 03:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Am I missing something or is this article empty?, no fancruft here. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • check the history of the article and you'll see that it did at one time have content that was erased by the same user that created the page... for some reason. Dismas 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 08:58:56, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete, the fancruft must go.Gateman1997 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I think it's a real topic, maybe from Wildlife of Star Wars but it's not notable enough. I might suggest merging to List of Star Wars creatures, but the content is there already. Also, Bursas has the same content, so it should probably deleted.-LtNOWIS 01:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Star Wars creatures. --Apyule 05:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete since this could be a jokishly non-existant element, original research in the Star Wars universe, or speculation for future Star Wars stories. --SuperDude 21:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KreepyKingdom.com[edit]

Not notable website, quasi-advert-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Advert, non-notable. Dismas 02:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Miscellaneous crap". Hamster Sandwich 03:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn website vanity. --Etacar11 00:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertisement, non-notable, etc. ral315 14:19, 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.

Deez nuts[edit]

Because it's already been deleted once and belongs on urbandictionary, not here. AshTM 06:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Deez nuts[edit]

Deeez Nuuuts was nominated for deletion on 2005-05-26. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Deeez Nuuuts.

Slang that is most likely only known to the author and his buddies. Dismas 02:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Certainly not a neologism, I've seen it on chat and forums for years. I suppose it comes from some rap artist, which would make it a redirect. Gazpacho 03:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Identifying which rap artist coined this term would probably be a chore, but yeah, it's not a neologism. Redirect to Nut unless a better target is determined. android79 03:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If I recall correctly, the first rap group to use it was N.W.A. That being said, it existed before then (I distinctly remember hearing it back as early as the 70s). By no means is this a neologism (you can count this is a Keep, BTW).--Mitsukai 14:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non encyclopedic nonsense. I trust Gazpacho that its not a neologism. Hamster Sandwich 03:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Only if this can be identified as not being nonsense.(The Horse 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • So what's the exact definition of nonsense and how do we prove it? :-) / Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a valid slang term. Not nonsense.(Jonsey 10:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Please observe that our official policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. We have a dictionary over there, which welcomes both readers that want to look up words in a dictionary and editors that want to construct a dictionary. Uncle G 09:39:55, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm with Gazpacho; I've heard that phrase since at least 1994, so it's not a neologism at all. Like Android79 said, trying to find which rapper started the whole thing...that could be the rub.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This made the rounds years ago...I just wish I knew where it came from. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Years ago" is a very short time span when it comes to language. It needs to be around a while longer to be considered anything but a sub-culture specific fad. / Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A patently clear delete. Utterly unencyclopedic nonsense.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:02:49, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Neuter as nonsensical. (sorry, couldn't resist. That's a delete.) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable slang idiom. / Peter Isotalo 12:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deez", used as a profanity, short for "deez nuts" (or "these testicles"), is not a neologism. I've seen it used in the Boondocks ("So you don't believe in Santa Claus, Riley?" "You know what I believe in?" "What?" "Deez." "...there is no call for that kind of language!") and in a fan letter to a Milestone comic ("you guys are the phattest, and the rest can get deez!!!"), among others; in both cases (printed over ten years apart), the reader was expected to know what was meant (the Boondocks one actually wound up on CIDU, which is how I learned what it meant). It's a bit tricky to Google for, but it's there in the tens of thousands of hits. Move to Deez, and expand Or, alternately, transwiki to Wiktionary. But don't delete. DS 13:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said in the prior VFD discussion, you are welcome to come and add deez to Wiktionary. Please, if possible, provide proper quotations, as per Wiktionary:quotations, to stave off any disputes. The non-idiomatic combinations, or the album track title components that occur in no other independent contexts, would probably get nominated for deletion, though. Uncle G 16:18:16, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • transwiki to Wiktionary. Youngamerican 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wiktionary will say no thank you. It's a simple, unidiomatic, combination of the words "deez" and "nuts". Uncle G 16:18:16, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • There's nothing worth merging here, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. This is a simple non-idiomatic combination of two slang words. For the same reasons as I gave in the prior VFD discussion, redirect to The Chronic. Uncle G 16:18:16, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete deez Tonywalton 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is slang and non-encyclopedic. Once again, a potential charter member of UrbanWiktionary.com. JDoorjam 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Or speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. --Carnildo
  • Delete - This crap should stay at urbandictionary. I don't even think it deserves a redirect, who is going to goto wikipedia to look up Deez nuts?!?! - Hahnchen 01:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Hahnchen. --Cholmes75 13:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wiki not dictionary Renata3 14:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't even belong in Wiktionary. ral315 14:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's been deleted before. Wiktionary won't even want it. Try urbandictionary. Also, the only time I've heard "deez nutz" is on Chappelle's Show or something of the sort. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - JamesTeterenko 06:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 18:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spazer[edit]

Non-notable outside of the game. Dismas 03:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Game cruft, nonsense, even the author dosn't know what it means. Only 3.5 weeks till classes are back in! Hamster Sandwich 03:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a Metroid fan and I didn't even recognize it by the name. (Incidentally, I think Spazer is something that got garbled in translation.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another obvious delete.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:05:34, 2005-08-09 (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 08:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Rohwer[edit]

I tried googling his name and came up with about 180 hits, however many of those hits are from mirror sites of wiki. Others are a different Robert A. Rohwer. I can't really find enough info on him to expand into an article. Delete as non-notable.-- Dysepsion 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second it. *Delete as per above. Unless someone comes up with something notable on this guy. (Unsigned vote by Nlnnet (talk · contribs))
  • Delete as per above. Unless someone comes up with something notable on this guy. Hamster Sandwich 03:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity stub. --Etacar11 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nn, The sooner this goes the better. --Apyule 05:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not Classmates.com. ral315 14:21, 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 Speedied by Zzyzx11. android79 03:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Costill[edit]

Nearly empty vanity page. No assertion of notability. Should be speedied. Nandesuka 03:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Nandesuka. You can speedy it yourself with the tag {{db|reason}}. This is clearly a candidate. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do it myself, so I won't. Sdedeo 03:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


It's being edited and updated at the moment. -The guy who's editing and updating it.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete

The Carlow Crab[edit]

"Carlow Crab" gets zero Google hits, as do most of the other characters mentioned in the article (although googling "ashley asshole" does produce a bunch of rather, uh, interesting webpages). Perhaps it is a work of original fiction by the anon IP author. -- Curps 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ... boy did that make me laugh, though. Adidas 14:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensical, and the original fiction assertation seems likely to be correct. The Literate Engineer 03:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can this be speedied? Hamster Sandwich 03:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do I really have to explain this? Pacific Coast Highway 04:53, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • No you don't. Neither does anyone else. del—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:08:37, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree. <drini ☎> 14:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged this for speedy and am surprised it's still here. I guess it's not as nonsensical as it looked at 3.30 this morning. Still useless though. Flowerparty talk 16:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete this article NOW!

JUST DELETE IT. NOW! DELETE IT! IT HAS BEEN ON FOR TOO LONG. DELETE!

  • Delete when the only page that comes up on search is the wiki delete log...that's bad. --Etacar11 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set fire to either page, or my eyes - Hahnchen 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn, fiction, original work, nonsensical. It also hurt my poor little brain. --Apyule 05:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and then stab in the face with a sharp fork. ral315 14:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, will this take 2 weeks to delete, by the way.
  • comment - I can't help but notice that people who appoint themselves hall monitors and removed articles like this from the speedy delete pile rarely come here to then vote on the matter. Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a subtle sort of vandalism going on here that ensures ridiculous pages like this stay up for weeks past their expiration date.
  • Delete. Or possibly transwiki to Uncyclopedia. In fact, I'll put a copy there now, it's not like I need anyone's consensus to add something to Uncyclopedia. Aquillion 07:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etherlords[edit]

Besides it's blatant promotional tone "You must simply have this game." It's not very informative. 66.50.97.114 03:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable game. Kappa 03:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, major game published several years ago. If the topic is encyclopedic but the article sucks, the solution is a cleanup tag, not nominating for deletion. Nandesuka 03:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. just clean up and take away POV, I'm not sure who's going to do that, but it seems the thing to say when an article is article worthy, just a mess. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising/promotion. If someone edits out the POV and offers a more complete explanation of the rules and goals, I might change my vote to keep. Hamster Sandwich 03:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clean up/attention candidate.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 09:12:28, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • keep it must be ok if they've made a sequel. --Tim Pope 21:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was pretty popular at the time. Article needs work though.--Apyule 05:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep published, successful video games. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buggi[edit]

Possible vanity page for a SimCity 4 modder. Speedy delete advisable. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 03:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]

  • Delete non notable Fieari 03:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Hamster Sandwich 03:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Boarder line nn vanity. --Apyule 05:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. But it needs moving, although I am not sure to where. -Splash 01:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schabeefsteak[edit]

Slang dicdef.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 03:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional article. Delete. (The Horse 03:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • (Delete) nonsense. Hamster Sandwich 03:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep the rewrite is good and makes a senseable article, but shouldn't this be in a cookbook? As a chef I can think of literally thousands of separate culinary dishes. How about deep fried field mice in honey and vinegar? Thats from an ancient roman cook book I have. Not quite as tasty as a farm fresh hamster though... Hamster Sandwich 04:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment deep fried mice is not an important national or cultural dish wuhan 01:03, 9 August 2005 (EST)
      • Comment It was a delicacy to the Romans. And you've voted three times for this. Switch to de-caf? :-D Hamster Sandwich 05:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to see an article on that field mice recipe, actually. It sounds interesting. Factitious 05:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Apologies again :-) wuhan 01:15, 9 August 2005 (EST)
  • Keep this is valid. famous chinese dish. google search for sha cha beef will validate. wuhan 23:59, 8 August 2005 (EST)
    • Comment The section describing the dish should be sent to Wikibooks Cookbook. Hamster Sandwich 04:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as fixed. Gazpacho 04:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Sha Cha beef, seeing as how that's the name that comes up and that the dish is known by.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expand and move per Rasputin AXP. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for the edit mistake. The original form presented as the article title is the common form of the word used by chefs preparing the dish. This has been practice among kitchens I have prepared in. Thank you wuhan 00:22, 9 August 2005 (EST)
  • Keep. Clearly notable. Factitious 05:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly with a move. Throw in a strong request for articles about culturally significant mouse and hamster dishes. ;-) Uppland 06:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New form is much better --Apyule 05:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks good to me. CharlesX 11:45, 10 August 2005 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient empires and their roles[edit]

Personal essay

  • Delete. Gazpacho 04:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malo 04:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You know, 100 years ago encyclopedias routinely printed stuff like: "But either way Rome, Greece and Carthage all contributed their knowledge, beliefs, and in some cases languages, that helped our country along with the rest of Europe to develop as it did." That was back when England was the only country in the world (kidding). POV reportage. Hamster Sandwich 04:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Wetman 10:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tonywalton 19:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thres alot of vandalism going on concerning this vote page. Keep your eyes on it. Hamster Sandwich 21:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete information not presented in a useful way. --Tim Pope 21:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, but anybody with knowledge of the relevant articles (Ancient Rome etc) might check there's nothing useful to merge. I wouldn't have thought so. Rd232 21:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, school essay doesn't belong to Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 00:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a bad essay, but it doesn't belong here. btw, are there any wiki's for this sort of stuff? --Apyule 05:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya[edit]

WP:WINAD. Dicdef. Already transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 04:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • If transwiki has been done, can be speedy deleted. Proto t c 15:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Untrue. The speedy deletion criterion only applies to pages that have already cycled through VFD once, which is not the case here. Uncle G 15:58:02, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • delete as per nominator. --Tim Pope 21:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If someone were to accidentally speedy-delete it, I wouldn't object. --Carnildo 23:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ral315 14:23, 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 08:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Berke Schluter[edit]

The page is a hoax created by interns at the Solar and Astrophysics department of the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center [[User:]] 22:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment a google search for "Johann Berke Schluter" returns two results: the wikipedia article and a wiki mirror. --TheMidnighters 22:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar at all with the history of engineering but I'd wager that if such a man as Schluter had existed, led the way in some areas of engineering design, had helped design the Titanic and had been blamed in part for its sinking, then at least one webpage other than wikipedia would mention his name. I wish the nominator could provide more information and make things clearer (before nominating the article he/she blanked it and replaced it with a similar claim) as to how they came to realize who was behind this article. So based only on the virtually nonexistent google results in comparison to the hyperbolic language/claims made in the article I'll vote delete. --TheMidnighters 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified/apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'd like to apologize for the way I've been conducting this affair. I had wished to remain anonymous, but from the discussion and further reading of the wikipedia policies makes it clear that I shouldn't. I attempted to sign up, then realized I had already signed up a long time ago. Anyway, a 90% efficient heat engine is far beyond anything that has ever been created. Additionally, the creators of this article, who I know offline, were bragging about the realistic nature of their hoax, but I don't have a way of proving that to you.General Nuke Em

Well thanks for bringing it to VFD and clearing it up. --TheMidnighters 07:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. --Apyule 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. ~~ N (t/c) 07:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails Google test, and lack of references seems to support hoax claim. --Alan Au 07:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Education, New Media in Sri Lanka, Web Media Studios[edit]

In early 2005, several vanity/advertising pages were formed in Colombo, Sri Lanka... Martg76 04:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, my vote is delete.Martg76 12:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently contents of all these pages are not encyclopedic to remain here. --Bhadani 14:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete to all three. --Tim Pope 21:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD to all three --Apyule 05:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Fire Star. Closing. Essjay · Talk 07:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Cock pushup[edit]

Not notable neologism/new phrase. 161 google results-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Already speedied once as physically impossible patent nonsense, the article was re-created for this VfD. Re-speedied. Fire Star 05:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banal[edit]

A dictionary entry, but Wiktionary already has its own article on banal. Kushboy 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete As per above , Manik Raina 12:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons as above, but I'm just trying to establish a consensus here.--Frag 13:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yep jamesgibbon 13:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can it be speedied? Proto t c 15:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midwstern culture[edit]

total nonsense Mcfly85 05:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It may not be Patent Nonsense, but it does seem to fall under "Partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact". Eclipsed 10:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a Midwesterner, I think there are the seeds of some important points here, but I can't see how to salvage them. As people like Garrison Keillor and Jonathan Franzen show, there are interesting things to be said about Midwestern culture. But given Midwestern_United_States#Culture already exists, I think this is better lost. --William Pietri 12:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV nonsense. The only possible important point to be taken from this is that the Midwestern US is perceived to have a culture distinct from the rest of the US, and that's already covered in Midwestern_United_States#Culture. Wegsjac 17:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per William Pietri. JDoorjam 20:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los Zodiacs[edit]

More band vanity. Delete <drini ☎> 06:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the term "band vanity" should only be applied to non-notable bands. Kappa 09:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS Thanks for translating the article Drini. Kappa 10:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If what the article seems to be saying about them pioneering rock/ballads and appearing regularly on two channels is correct, then they're certainly notable. It would be nice, though, if we had someone familiar with the Peruvian music scene around to confirm/deny their notability. They only get 160 Google hits, but that doesn't necessarily mean very much when talking about a Peruvian band that was big thirty years ago... If it is kept then it will clearly need a great deal of cleanup and work, which is another problem given the difficulty of getting information about them. Still, even if it was almost exclusively in one country, a band that has had genuine influence and exposure does deserve to be on Wikipedia. Aquillion 11:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any articles on Allmusic.com about this band nor any English articles available through Google. Delete as unverifiable unless evidence presented of band.

Keep and expand given some evidence. Unfortunately no source documents in English Capitalistroadster 11:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Came up with over 15,000 hits in google. -GregNorc (talk) 19:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually it's not that easy to find relevant hits, but there are some, like [3] [4] [5] - basically all discussing the history of Peruvian rock and mentioning them. Kappa 20:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got about 166 hits. [6] Perhaps you forgot to include quotes? Aquillion 06:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that Wikipedia:requests for comment will take it from here. The article is now listed at RFC, and discussion of the content dispute has as a consequence begun to appear on the article's talk page. No-one either here or there has expressed a desire for an administrator to actually delete the article, and no comments have appeared here for almost 12 hours, whereas discussion has appeared on Talk:virii in that time. I'm closing this deletion discussion early, on the grounds of the nomination being a simple application of VFD by mistake, and so that there is just the one place for the content dispute discussion. Uncle G 00:55:31, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

Virii[edit]

I'm putting this up so official consensus can override 154.20.32.131's weird desire to have a seperate article for virii. Virii should be a redirect to plural of virus. Otherwise would be silly, as the plural of virus article clearly states the problem with "virii" and already contains the information present in virii. Apostrophe 06:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect as stated by Apostrophe ManoaChild 08:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't come to Wikipedia:votes for deletion if you don't actually want an administrator to delete an article. The place for attracting a wider audience of editors to an article content dispute ("Should this be a redirect? What should it redirect to?") is Wikipedia:requests for comment. Uncle G 11:21:48, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
    • Hah. I knew I was doing something wrong. That's what I deserve for not looking hard enough, I suppose. I do thank you for settin up the request for comments, though. Apostrophe 12:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna[edit]

WP:WINAD. Dicdef. Already transwikied. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 04:11, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if said article has already been transwikied. ral315 14:25, 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 18:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anemocracy[edit]

Neologism. Complete text is "An obscure nonce word meaning government by the wind." Obscure is right, Google returns 200 hits, of which the top are all Wikipedia and mirrors. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Eclipsed 10:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the nonce word article Allegrorondo 13:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike the examples in nonce word, this one really was only used once. --Carnildo 23:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On its talk page it says that it has been transwikied to wiktionary, but I don't see it there. For now, unless some proof is given of its existence, it must go. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 00:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Grr... why doesn't anyone ever read that whole template? See here. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 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 07:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ape Shit[edit]

A somewhat neologistic (I hadn't heard of it but Google shows it to be at least verifiable, if not overly common) dicdef. WP:WINAD. Already transwikied for what it's worth. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. dicdef. I think that it is a well-known expression - a regional thing, perhaps. If it has already been transwikied, there is no reason to keep it. ManoaChild 08:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef. No room for expansion as I see it. And yes, it's a common term, I've heard it used and used it myself since I was a kid. Dismas 09:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dicdef but definitely don't call it a neologism. It's been around at least 20 years or so, and was well-known enough by 1989 that it was parodied in the video game title Toki: Going Ape Spit Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Not a neologism, but more commonly spelled apeshit.-choster 14:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Osomec 05:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it is a fairly common expression in certain parts, it's definitely non-encyclopaedic Zaw061 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not neologism, but dicdef. ral315 14:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a well established expression but has no place here. Keresaspa 15:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, don't go apeshit on me, just delete it already. Cyprus 15:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This entry looks suspiciously like something from Urban Dictionary, which is a fine website but should be kept at arm's length from WP. Paul 05:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would point out that wiktionary already has an entry for apeshit. David Henderson 17:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenyarn and Eco-fabric[edit]

Delete Spam for a clothing website, aparently created by that site's owner. 68.212.107.223 07:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attercop[edit]

A dicdef of an archaic word. WP:WINAD and it's already at Wiktionary. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as dicdef Tonywalton 19:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, doesn't belong here --Apyule 06:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't need an article. ral315 14:26, 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 08:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BioRad[edit]

Promotional article on NN company. Article consists of a single line.

  • Delete: NN/empty article. --Ragib 07:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not sufficiently encyclopedic in its present form to be here. --Bhadani 14:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSD spam --Apyule 06:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, SPAM. ral315 14:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems to be a large company with a multinational presence in the field. -- Visviva 14:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Genoma[edit]

Google searches ("Genoma Forum", Genoma Blzbub, link:www.genomaforum.com) seem to yield unrelated pages or the forum itself – non-notable? Mysid (talk) 08:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete NN There are plenty of forums out there, this one has certainly not proved its notability. Wegsjac 18:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it neccessary to delete it? If some members of a forum wish to have an entry, shouldn't they be granted that? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? STi 21:22, 9 August 2005 (MST)


This is a place for people from all over to have fun. Why do you wish for the members not to be able to spread the word for others to join? Let us keep it. Jonny V 20:47, 9 August 2005 (PST)

  • Weak Delete This doesn't seem to be noteable, but looks to have a dedicated following --Apyule 06:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet the proposed criteria of Wikipedia:Websites. -- Visviva 12:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Quest[edit]

Looks like a mix of vanity, advertising, and crystal ball. JustinWells 08:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how anybody can spend that much time on an MMORPG. XD 08:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems to be fairly well known. ManoaChild 08:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-known parody. XD: This isn't an actual MMORPG - the article makes clear that it's just a program which, once started, plays by itself - an RPG equivalent of those spoof web-counter pages from a few years back. AlexTiefling 10:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a popular parody of MMOs. --BradBeattie 12:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - significant parody, both the game itself and the "culture" that surrounds it.--Mitsukai 14:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - very well known parody toy. Nandesuka 15:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most efficient MMORPG I've ever played. - Lifefeed 18:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It was quite popular around 2003. It even has it's own gamefaqs entry, which is not given to just any game. -GregNorc (talk) 19:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-known parody MMORPG. --Carnildo 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is fairly weilol-known. And It is neither advertising nor crystal ball. SYSS Mouse 01:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known. --Share Bear 13:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable parody. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the progress, or your save might become corrupted. --zippedmartin 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not advertising. The game is free! And as everyone else has pointed out it is a well known and significant parody. --oooEooo 17:51, 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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi5.com[edit]

Lets get rid of this... Delete Usrnme h8er 08:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Badly written advertising for non-notable web site. ManoaChild 08:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very poorly written, of no note whatsoever. Avalon 11:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ManoaChild. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The website is not really non-notable. It's a popular social networking site like friendster.com, myspace.com and thefacebook.com all of which have articles on wikipedia. However this article for the site is very poorly written and is an ad. If it's deleted, I suspect that it'll come back eventually, hopefully in a better light. --Dysepsion 00:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which website are you referring to here - Hi5, the name of the article, or Doulike, the content? Usrnme h8er 08:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the Hi5.com name not the content. Never even heard of the Doulike website until now. --Dysepsion 22:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless decent article establishes notability. While Hi-5 gets a lot of Google hits, a lot of them refer to the Australian and US kids program/band Hi-5. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not asserted, and it's easily deletable. ral315 14:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The website is at least as notable as Myspace.com which everyone can see has its own article. But this article has no link to the website... delete it. Deskana 20:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (excluding the first two, all the keep votes are very new users and appear to be sockpuppets). JamesTeterenko 06:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Daley[edit]

Not notable. Compare Mr. Daley to Steve Irwin, with whom he is claimed comparable. brenneman(t)(c) 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the advertisements featuring Chris have been of great benefit to the Reserves recruitment drive. I would vote to merge with the Australian Army Reserves article but we don't have one. edgeworth 11:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pcb21| Pete 16:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be notable. Hall Monitor 23:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was pretty sloppy in my google links, thanks go to Pcb21 for fixing the Steve Irwin one. Trying again:
    • "Chris Daley"+Australia+Reserves has 72 hits (The first two say "I am NOT a rifleman")
    • "Chris Daley"+Australia+rifleman has 33 hits (Same)
    • "Chris Daley"+Australia+army has 89 hits (Similar)
    • "Chris Daley"+Australia+recruitment has 76 hits
    • "Chris Daley" site:www.army.gov.au has 0 hits
I'm happy to change my vote if someone provides some evidence that Mr. Daley is notable, or tells me what I'm not
seeing. Has there been mention of these ads in any major media? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy may or may not appear in the Army Reserve ad. As an Australian, I've never heard of him which suggests that his profile is pretty low. In response to Aaron Brenneman's question, I'm not aware of any mentions of him and a Google News search for "Chris Daley" Australian Army returns zero hits see [7]. While I respect and honour him as a serviceman, that does not mean that he meets the criteria for an encyclopaedia article. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'm Australian, and I haven't heard of him. Also a possible hoax. --Apyule 06:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to support the opinions of the Australians. Also in this context he is an actor. Somehow I don't think as an actor this would meet the bar to become an article. Vegaswikian 06:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can you consider yourself Australian and not have known Chris Daley! Regular viewers of the local Channel Nine news in Perth will have most certainly noticed the often controversial "'Daley' Diatribe" segment of the news. He is a prominent figure throughout the Australian television industry (for his notable contributions) AND the Australian army (for his dedicated service). Whilst it may seem suspicious that I have signed up recently, after viewing the comments related to Chris Daley's reputation, I felt I had a duty as a patriotic Australian. WW Rusty Gates 12:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no mention of him on any Australian website (including the 9 network). I'm going to keep my vote unchanged until someone provides some evidence that he exists, such as a website, the time that he is on TV (preferably on the East coast), anything that someone can check . --Apyule 14:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Clutter of no merit. Dottore So 20:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso[reply]
  • Keep. Daley's segments on Nine were sporadic and always very short; I don't think they've appeared for a few years but I definitely remember them. Chozza 10:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, how can you not have heard of Chris Daley! Perhaps he's only well-known in WA. Reginald Fly 13:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Is this page being sockpuppeted? Creator edgeworth votes keep. His user page strongly implies that he is Chris Daley. Users WW Rusty Gates, Chozza and Reginald Fly all vote keep on this page within twenty minutes of joining Wikipedia, then cease editing. I am from WA and I have never heard of Chris Daley. Hesperian 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
looks like sock puppets to me too, though some of Chozza's new edits are good. --Apyule 02:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can assure you I'm not a sock puppet... whatever that is. I only dicscovered Wikipedia a few nights ago and while I was browsing around a Reserves advertisement came on TV. Out of curiousity I checked to see if he had an article, and was surprised to find that it was up for deletion. So I decided to join up to vote yes, and then figured, "Why not add to the encyclopaedia while I'm here?" I'll definitely be a regular contributor. Chozza 09:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome; forgive the assumption of bad faith. Hesperian 14:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity--nixie 02:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- vanity or hoax. - Longhair | Talk 04:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleto!--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!, This page should definitely be considered anew, as it has more than doubled, in both length and interest. vote by 203.161.101.187
    • ...thanks to the unreferenced, POV, vanity contribution of the above anon voter. Hesperian 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The vote also came from Perth, which is where most of the keep votes have come from. Not that it really matters though. --Apyule 01:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Chris Daley ads only air in Western Australia. I went to Brisbane for a few weeks in May and didn't see a single one. HipHopOppotomus 09:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while he is certainyl not as notable as Steve Irwin or Rove, he is fairly popular in WA and worthy of his own article. HipHopOppotomus 09:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet another brand new user from Western Australia with a predilection for military edits. Personally, I think we've got ourselves a whole platoon of meat puppets. My inability to adhere to the "assume good faith" policy is becoming embarrassing, so I'm going to unwatch this page and leave it to the rest of you. Hesperian 02:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apart from Chris Daley, the only military articles I've edited involved the presence of the SAS in Perth. It obviously didn't belong in the "transport" section, and I couldn't figure out where else to put it, but it was still notable. So I created a "Military Presence" section and put some other things in there to fill it out a little. Thank you for your pointless suspicion. HipHopOppotomus 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Project Superstar. Clearly not deleting, and consensus among the remainder for a merge. -Splash 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Junyang[edit]

non-notable, or at the very least merge with Project Superstar - Motor (talk) 09:35:02, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

  • Keep, of interest to fans of the show, which presumable has an audience of more than 5,000 people. Kappa 10:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, re precedents set by Big Brother, Survivor, etc. Proto t c 12:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Project Superstar - as Proto says, we have a precedent from Big Brother etc., it's best to have details of contestants under subheadings on the main article. —Stormie 12:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Project Superstar. Clearly not deleting, and consensus to merge among all but the nominator. Even including the nominator, it's 5m-2k-1d. -Splash 01:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Poon[edit]

Non-notable - at the very least merge with Project Superstar - Motor (talk) 09:40:23, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

  • Comment The article itself says it all. The TV programme is meant to find the next big singer. Whoever wins it might become notable... until then, their details should be kept on the main programme article... unless, of course, they are notable for other things.- Motor (talk) 09:47:04, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
  • merge (And do we really need their blood type? Is this a popular statistic in Singapore??) Dismas 09:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get that either, but I note that lots of Japanese videogames and/or cartoons mention the blood type of their character. So it seems to be a common trope. Nandesuka 15:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of interest to fans of the TV show. 10:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by User:Kappa
  • Keep (well I may have an axe to grind as I worked on it, but...) It is of interest to a reasonable number of Singaporeans and other overseas Chinese. If she disappears we can always do a VfD later. In the meantime people who are interested can look her up on Wikipedia. As for the blood type, for some unknown reason blood types have become important in East Asia. It is thought to be a determiner of character. Some Japanese companies test applicants these days and it is important when it comes to dating and marriage. There is no good reason for it as far as I can see, but the sort of people interested in the article will be interested in the fact. It is also useful as a marker of EA culture. Lao Wai 10:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, re precedent set by contestants from Big Brother, Survivor, etc etc etc. This should have just been merged without clogging up VfD. Proto t c 12:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect into Project Superstar - as Proto says, we have a precedent from Big Brother etc., it's best to have details of contestants under subheadings on the main article. —Stormie 12:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Proto. Nandesuka 15:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forumosa.com[edit]

Looks like simple self-promotion. Delete. 67.160.63.141 10:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mohn AS[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion but not a candidate. As a resident of Bergen, Norway, I can confirm that this is a pretty large company in the important shipping equipment industry with more than a thousand employees. I think we should keep this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If they really played an inportant role in the development of Submerged carco pumps (which I have not verified), that should establish notoriety. --DrTorstenHenning 12:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Kappa 12:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large companies are notable. Keep. Nandesuka 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle and unlist from VfD. Pavel Vozenilek 23:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable public company. Capitalistroadster 02:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable company. DS1953 03:47, August 11, 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 18:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the European Union[edit]

A POV attempt to portray the European Union as a country with its own culture, geography, education system, sports, etc, in a similar way to the article Life in the United States. All the information here is already discussed in European Union and many other articles. JW 11:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, there's no false or unverifiable information, the subject matter is certainly notable, and it doesn't say that the EU is a country of its own. Europe does have its own culture, geography etc, at least to a certain extent. And while the integration process continues, this becomes more and more of an issue (at least hopefully). - ulayiti (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Europe may have its own culture and geography, but the European Union doesn't. There's no such thing as "life in the European Union", people in Sweden, Italy or Ireland live in different countries. JW 12:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it does. And the people in Sweden, Italy and Ireland all have the common denominator of being citizens of the EU (both officially and in practice), and everything that the article states applies to them. And you must see yourself how odd it sounds to claim that there's no life in the European Union. - ulayiti (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what I said. And it is simply not true to say that the member states of the EU have a collective culture or sports that are separate from that of the rest of Europe. JW 12:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with European Union. The page seems to be an accurate description of various EU policies, but the title is misleading. Martg76 12:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that sounds fair. I would agree with a merge. JW 13:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly legitimate topic jamesgibbon 13:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is an emerging topic. Although this article can not be exactly compared with Life in the United States, a comprehensive article about the “life” in different countries of the European Union is perhaps not out-of-place. --Bhadani 15:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I would certainly recommend merging or deleting the US equivalent as well. All of this should be mentioned or refered to in article like European Union or United States. It's basically an impressionistic article topic that is utterly impossible to clearly define and delimit. It could reasonably include everything from parliamentarism to knitting and can't be limited to just human activities. / Peter Isotalo 15:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nowhere in the article does it imply the EU is a country or a monolithic culture. The article is merely a set of summaries of pages about the European Union and its various human and social aspects, all of which are notable. Merging with European Union (which deals primarily with its institutional and technical aspects) is not a good idea as that page is already too long. Qwghlm 16:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I certainly don't think the EU has any monolithic identity beyond the overt structures, but I don't think this article contradicts that, and I don't really see it as POV. It clearly shows how the EU - a notable supranational body - influences these areas of life, as distinct from how it functions as an organisation in itself. AlexTiefling 16:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do we need a separate article with a fairly confusing and non-encyclopedic scope and title for this? Why can't this be elaboreated on in European Union or articles like sports in the European Union? "Life in XXX" can mean anything and nothing and seems rather to serve some sort of diffuse portal-like function as a link to various "XXX in region/country/union Y"-articles. We have portals, we have articles for the countries, regions, unions, etc., yet for some reason we need yet another article to explain this with far fuzzier terms. Very few readers would probably ever look for this kind of information in this kind of article. This seems to be more about pleasing ourselves rather than non-participating readers. / Peter Isotalo 16:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no problem with this, certainly not POV issues. Christopher Parham

(talk) 17:42, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

  • Comment - There is not such thing as "life in the European Union" in a way that there could be "life in Denmark" or "life in Ireland". "Life in the European Union" suggests that citizens of the different member states are part of a single community, the way that nations or towns are. That is POV, as well as untrue, and isn't the kind of approach WP should take on a controversial subject. JW 21:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's arguably POV to claim that EU membership has no communal value, as you are doing. Please don't use VfD to promote your point of view on European politics. AlexTiefling 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the information is contained in other articles already. There is no need to have this as a "mirror". Sdedeo 18:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons stated by Sdedeo, together with the similar Life in the United States which is currently listed for VfD as well Tonywalton 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Culture of Europe. Rd232 22:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: content is quite shallow and overlaps with other articles. Title is misleading. Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is any unique content (none is immediately obvious to me), merge incontinently with either European Union or Culture of Europe, whichever suits said content best. Don't create forks, please! Who would look for this content under such a title? Who would ever look for the title at all? Bishonen | talk 00:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is highly POV to suggest that most of this should be separated out from coverage of Europe as a whole. Osomec 05:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Culture of Europe. --142.163.130.240 14:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: POV, redundant with the main articles referenced. jglc | t | c 17:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are some POV problems (the various treaties aren't discussed in a historical and political context--few of them have been without controversy). The effects of membership of the Council of Europe and the European Free Trade Area, even the Schengen Agreement, are neglected. So cleanup, too. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's too bad that the motivation got hung up on the POV, because that's simply not the issue here. The point is that the article is basically a mirror of a bunch of other articles and nothing that anyone would ever search for if wanting this kind of information. It's just as pointless as the US equivalent. / Peter Isotalo 09:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the EU is an economic association, not a country, nor a region (the region is Europe, and also includes Switzerland). ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although there is a clearly defined 'Europe' region which includes non-EU nations such as Norway and Switzerland, it's easy enough to see that one can refer to the EU as a region, identical with the union of the areas of its member states. Such a region includes Tahiti and not Switzerland, but it's still a well-defined region. Otherwise, how are expressions like 'Entering the EU' (of travellers) meaningful?AlexTiefling 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The EU is not just an economic association, it's also a political one ('ever closer union'). -- Joolz 10:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 68.72.139.4 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --§ 00:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is not a POV attempt at trying to portray the EU as a single country with it's own identifiable culture, rather it's a summary of a number of topics which all citizens of the EU/member states have in common (e.g. the eurasmus programmes, elections to the same parliament, Lisbon strategy etc) and therefore it serves a different purpose to other articles. -- Joolz 10:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salveto[edit]

Delete - This language appears to be a very recent invention. As far as I can see, it has no significance whatsoever, and its web presence is limited to this wiki article and the language's homepage (267 ghits all-in). Besides, the article is extremely short. IJzeren Jan 13:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the 270 Ghits are uses of the word "salveto" in Latin or Italian. Googling for "salveto language" gets 33 Ghits, again mostly uses of the Latin word; I looked at all three pages of hits and found no third-party reference to the language except in Wikipedia mirrors and the "Fallen Tower" conlang list. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with above, most of the low google score is misc usage (people's last names, etc.) unrelated to the "language". I counted only 3 unique Google hits related to the language: 2 on its official site and one the wikipedia article. The official site, by the way, has no alexa rank at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN at the moment. If it takes off in any way, a new page can be put up. --Apyule 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To put it bluntly: I don't see that we should have criteria for 'notability', period. Quality of material (as in accuracy, objectivism, etc), lack of advertisement, and keeping meta-articles clean, sure. But deleting something just 'cause it's not popular or it's currently too stubby? No. Saizai 09:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we ignore notability, it's not verifiable without some kind of original research; all the information available about it is from the language's creator. That's what my comments on my vote, above, were about. See Wikipedia:Conlangs/Notability, verifiability, merit, completeness for recent debate on this. --Jim Henry | Talk 11:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Look, Saizai, there are thousands of constructed languages around, most of them are merely sketches that are abandoned by their creators after a short while. We surely don't want entries about all of them, so we have to draw the line somewhere. Now, I tend to be rather inclusive and tolerant, but still I think sóme significance is required. In the case of a conlang that could be: a certain number of users, a book that at least mentions it, some proof that it has evoked discussion in academic circles, or whathaveyou. This language simply doesn't meet any of those standards. --IJzeren Jan 06:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see two points here. First off, I can understand the "verifiability" clause... for most other items on Wikipedia.
HOWEVER, conlangs are in my opinion different in a way that makes this not just unnecessary, but exclusionary. Verifiability by definition is so that you know that the info is good, the thing being written about actually exists as described, etc. With a conlang or other work of art, it is 'self-defining'. If the author posts the conlang, ipso facto, it exists as described. Any talk of "verifying" it - e.g. by others talking about it, etc. - goes solely towards 'notability'.
So that bring up my second point. I don't see reason to exclude things from Wikipedia for notability. If it's small and not particularly interesting, then don't mention it in the main articles, or in the more exclusive "these conlangs are interesting/notable" lists. But there is no reason I can understand not to have an article about it for whatever it's worth, or to not include it on an all-inclusive list. So I only support "notability" for that 'alone': determining what to include in high-level / central articles. (And FWIW, I would support including as an article even sketch conlangs, if there's anything to say about them, so long as they don't cause namespace problems [e.g. colliding with something important] and aren't included on "notable conlangs" lists.) --Saizai 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this article back when I was less familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding verification and original research. My bad. It looks like the Salveto.net Web-site hasn't been updated since, and an e-mail I sent to its author has bounced. The ideas behind this conlang are very good ones, and it's unfortunate that this project did not take off thus far. --Alex Libman 23:01, 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 delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tinny mish[edit]

Some guys walking and drinking. DJ Clayworth 14:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it the pub crawl is just people going to pubs and drinking but that is on. I don't see why our tradition can't be included and noticed. shaneo619
  • Pub crawls are notable because they are something that people around the world (or at least in English-speaking countries) recognize and do. Can you provide some evidence that "tinny mish" is a well-known phenomenon, and not just something your group of friends do? If so, I'll support you to keep this. Until then, delete. Nandesuka 15:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and not notable. Capitalistroadster 15:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no Google hits, so it's unverifiable for a start. Sounds fun though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why does it have to be a "phenomenon". I don't understand why you're so dead set against its inclusion. I don't see why we can't share our different traditions. shaneo619
    • Please understand that it isn't anything personal, just that an encyclopedia isn't the place to share one's own personal traditions. It isn't that it's a bad tradition, just that this isn't the place for it. Encyclopedic content must, at a very minimum, be verifiable: for example, mentioned in the press, referenced in books, that sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If 4000 people do it every year, it's "notable". If 4 do it, it isn't. Maybe http://www.uncyclopedia.org might be the place? Tonywalton 19:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bizarre. NN/unverified. --Etacar11 00:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Down by The Sea[edit]

I'm nominating this article for deletion because I feel it is non-notable. Although the specific terms for notability have not yet been clearly defined by WikiProject Songs, I cannot find any reason for Down by The (sic) Sea to be given a separate article. It's already mentioned in the album article Business as Usual and there isn't much to say beyond that.

As far as I can tell, Down by the Sea was a minor non-hit song that was grossly overshadowed by Down Under, which is a good example of a notable song that deserves its own page. - D. Wu 15:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — NN with little content. — RJH 15:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real song, maybe it could be expanded to include other songs by that title. I know there's one by Saint Etienne, which was remixed by Psychonauts and others. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete preferably, or merge if anyone has anything useful (and there isn't such now as is) to add to the album article. --Icelight 20:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. Gateman1997 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If it's iconic and notable, may I request that the article be updated to include that evidence? I couldn't find anything beyond lyrics through Google, with the exception of an amazon review that mentioned the song was a non-hit. -D. Wu 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, got it confused with "Down by the Bay". My bad.Gateman1997 21:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apart from the lyrics, which we can't include, what is there to say about the last track on Men at Work's popular 1980 album Business as usual? Down Under, the group's most notable song, is a much better candidate for fame, because you could pad the article out with information about Vegemite, Combi vans, the word "chunder", weather patterns, chart statistics etc. But this, no.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Where are the prawns?) Grutness...wha? 01:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This song wasn't released as a single or achieved any other form of notability. Capitalistroadster 02:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (changed) I've never heard of them myself, is it a good example of the bands work and are there any other good examples of this bands work that could be merged? Alf 19:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the album page I suggest both be moved there. Alf 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Limitations Studios and www.twistedlimits.com[edit]

Advertising, pure and simple. Also, I redirected www.twistedlimits.com to here, so as to reduce VfD load. And if/when this does get deleted, I suggested removing the references on the TL and TLS dab pages. DS 15:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yeah, definitely advertising. And unnotable. They don't even have a game yet. Kushboy 16:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising a large stock of crystal balls, it seems Tonywalton 19:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This vfd was blanked on August 19th. I am restoring it. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, not notable. They haven't even made a game! -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment due to the blanking, this has missed being concluded, I'm relisting (let me know if that's bad) --Doc (?) 21:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two words: bull and s**t Molotov (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ad/NN --Daedalus-Prime 21:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sakray Socialist Party[edit]

Vanity. nn. Article about a defunct guild on a MMORPG. 68.48.47.33 15:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Not notable, cruft, reads like near-nonsense. Excerpt: Sexy Asian priest from SSP. He was the sexiest member. Ugh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 00:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks:Cookbook. -Splash 01:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pudina hilsa[edit]

WP is not a recipie book, delete Usrnme h8er 15:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikibooks:Cookbook Tonywalton 19:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete, as above. If transwikification takes place before the VfD is closed, or if for some other reason this may result in "no consensus", this may be interpreted as a simple "delete" if doing so would cause a consensus to be formed. --Carnildo 23:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks:Cookbook --Ragib 16:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mouse And Moon[edit]

del. Nonnotable webcomic. mikka (t) 15:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added for reference in List of fictional mice and rats Ann Vole 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also of note for 21st Century Fox Ann Vole 16:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kept. Ann Vole 16:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates Of Penumbra[edit]

del. Nonnotable webcomic. mikka (t) 15:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

added for reference in List of fictional mice and rats Ann Vole 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

also of note for 21st Century Fox Ann Vole 16:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kept. Ann Vole 16:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Okay[edit]

WP is Not: A Crystal Ball. Delete Usrnme h8er 15:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition to Save Preserves[edit]

I belong to the kind of circles that could be expected to hear of this...and I haven't. Apparently not many others have either: 61 google hits. Not likely to ever be expanded, not much info that could be added to begin with. --Tothebarricades 16:09, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • My first thought was "Some rat bastard is trying to eliminate delicious fruit-based spreads? WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS." But then I read the article and calmed down. Delete. Nandesuka 23:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't know how this is noteworthy. --Apyule 06:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photography of female nudes before 1923[edit]

Delete. Causes violations of Matthew 5:28. 205.217.105.2 16:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. This is a disruptive VfD nomination for obvious reasons. The anonymous user appears to be coming from a proxy IP. But, could someone explain -- why the cutoff date of 1923? The article doesn't say. Sdedeo 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the United States, all portraits from that era have passed into the public domain." --Tothebarricades 16:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I just figured everyone agreed that that was when nudity jumped the shark.
        • You just gave me my best laugh of the day! Cheers! Keep Hamster Sandwich 18:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The cutoff year for public domain will change, so this is an unstable title. Photography of female nudes in the public domain, perhaps? Or just merge with an article on photography of female nudes? --Tothebarricades 16:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but maybe move to something like Public domain photography of female nudes, per Tothebarricades. -- Plutor 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep But the title does need attention. There have already been discussions of this in the article's talk page, and the present title is the one that was decided upon. Think again... Tonywalton 20:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Eclipsed 20:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep would be nice, absolutely invalid reason for nomination CanadianCaesar 21:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Speedy if possible. Invalid reason for nomination. ManoaChild 23:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to the page Tothebarricades mentioned. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and send the nomination to BJAODN. Martg76 23:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep without even looking at article content (in work, dodgy title to click on). Extrmely bad faith (ironic term here, eh) nomination. --Kiand 23:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Say what now? Since when is the Wikipedia:Deletion policy in the Bible? Besides, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or similar. --IByte 23:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename for the fine reasons provided by Tothebarricades. Nandesuka 23:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, BJAODN the nomination. --Carnildo 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Matthew 5:28 article came in useful... Who knew! Flowerparty talk 01:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Matthew 5:28? Hell's bells and buggy wheels, let's remove every photograph from wikipedia because they all contravene Exodus 20:4! Grutness...wha? 02:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Good article. Renaming to something like Photography of female nudes in the public domain may be helpful though. --Apyule 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the nominator is an anti-Christian posing pretentiously posing as a devout Christian in order to inflame the sensibilities of average people. Barneygumble 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should definatly be kept, for proof please visit http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Blockip?ip=Carnildo this?--172.147.127.192 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • People keep messing with this trollish link (see history), I removed the link markup. --IByte 15:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pseudo-Christian morality is inappropriate here! Bob2
  • Comment: I am highly tempted to change my vote to suggest that this article, including the images, should be merged with Matthew 5:28 as an example of how it can be violated. Martg76 21:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge or rename or something. Name's too obscure as is. And spank the nominator for trolling. Tualha (Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rename it though. Penquin 14:35, 15 August 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 07:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life in the United States[edit]

This page essentially rehashes information available in lots of other articles to no apparent purpose. In particular, the purpose of this page is served by the United_States article and the multiple subpages such as Culture_of_the_United_States, etc. etc. linked from there. My concern here is that there is now yet another page that has to be updated; if someone modifies the United_States article's entry under the subheading "Culture", for example, she then has to go over to the Life in the United States article to update the equivalent section. The article has been around for nearly a year with almost no real edits, and it seems that most wikipedians have chosen to ignore it anyway. Sdedeo 16:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons stated, ogether with the similar Life in the European Union which is currently listed for VfD as well Tonywalton 20:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. As per nomination. / Peter Isotalo 23:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than in Life in the European Union, which seems to have some content that isn't already covered elsewhere, nothing needs to be salvaged here. Martg76 23:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant. Possibly redirect to Culture of the United States, but make it go away. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly merge if there's any unique content. A redundant fork, just like Life in the European Union. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, though it's not as inappropriate as the other one. Osomec 06:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep or Merge. Culture of the United States really does cover everything this article would.--142.163.130.240 14:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC) --142.163.130.240 20:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's a place for this kind of article, but it's not Wikipedia, and this info is duplicated elsewhere on WP. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly enough, I created this article. But frankly, I can't really say that it serves much purpose or that I really care to or have the Wikitime to devote to it, as I have my hands full elsewhere. Anyway, the box is useful, so when this page is deleted, could the administrator please change the box's link? Never mind, I changed it already.--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge --§ 00:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Emperors of Mexico[edit]

The list is just absurd, there were only 2 emperors in the history of Mexico, see Mexican Empire. Ruiz 16:24, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. While there were only two emperors who reigned, this list includes five "titular emperors", i.e., pretenders to the throne. Three of the seven people on the list have linked articles already. That makes the list worthwhile. If it really offends you, it could be merged into Mexican Empire, although I don't think that pretenders to the throne really belong in that article. Ground Zero 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't offend me at all, we just need to add those 4 pretenders to Mexican Empire and voilá. This list is not adding anything, it's a list of two guys. Ruiz 19:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful if short list. Gateman1997 21:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, presents important information in a convenient and encylopedic manner. Kappa 03:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
encylopedic manner? Oh please...
  1. As far as I know, not a single list of emperors includes the pretenders, they are lists of emperors.
  2. The list is spurious. There is a guy calling himself Agustin III. A pretender can't call himself Agustin III, when have you heard Prince William of Wales calling himself William V? You are not a king/emperor until you are crowned! Plus, the actual heir to the throne rennounced to all his priviledges and served in the army. I mean... --Ruiz 07:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I have edited the article to add some clarity to the pretenders. It is now a list of eight people, not two, although adding Joshua A. Norton is whimsical, at best. I don't think that Wikipedia is so narrow that it need exclude him. I don't think this really belongs in Mexican Empire. I see no harm in keeping it. Ground Zero 13:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social-traitor[edit]

Non-notable phrase. --Tothebarricades 16:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yes to Social-Chauvinism, which is similar but better. Not to Social-traitor. The hyphen suggests that the article was written by a non-native English speaker, I'm guessing French. That's not grounds for deletion, and I imply nothing by mentioning this; it's just an observation.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Social-Chauvinism. --Apyule 06:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Social-Chauvinism. --Revaaron 12:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Social-Chauvinism article is much better written, more commonly used term.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 01:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexicans[edit]

The list is obsolete, every article was sent to the cats already, lks were rm, etc. Ruiz 16:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some lists can be useful, but not this one. We have Category:Mexican people and Category:Mexican people by occupation, which are way more updated and easier to navigate than this list. We can't expect people to add a link for every Mexican bio ever written, ordered it alphabetically, etc. That's what the cats are for, this doesn't add anything to a cat. Ruiz 19:06, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. viva la lists. lists are useful, and this one seems to be accurate. List can contain people who are not article worthy, or for some reason do not have an article, catgories cannot. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 19:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--as to the above poster, lists should not contain people we don't have articles on; otherwise, this list would have millions of entries. Only encyclopedic Mexicans would get put in this list anyway. Secondly, the "can contain entries that don't have an article yet" is much more useful for lists of small, closed sets, which this surely is not. Meelar (talk) 19:48, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • there's a line between people who are noticeable enough for an article, and those noticeable enough to be mentioned (which doesn't contain millions). →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 23:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is unmaintainable and does a job done better by the categories mentioned above. Usrnme h8er 20:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per Ruiz. Explodicle 22:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bunch of good points for Keep. I change my vote. Explodicle 20:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's not repeat the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Nigerians debate here. Flowerparty talk 01:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists allow us to see notable people in Mexico who do not yet have articles which categories does not. Capitalistroadster 02:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists are wiki, categories are un-wiki. Kappa 03:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The good thing about Wikipedia is that lots of different organisational systems can co-exist. There is no need to disparage any of them; you can just ignore the ones that don't suit the way your mind works. Osomec 06:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Categories are useful, just un-wiki, which is one reason why they should never replace lists. Kappa 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Red links are one of Wikipedia's best features and when this gets too big it can be subdivided. Osomec 06:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same reason as above Antonio Martin 19:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most countries are represented in Wikipedia with a list of its most notable citizens. If we delete the "List of Mexicans", who will we delete next without starting a controversy? Let it go Tony the Marine 19:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, i find this list useful, other countries have similar lists. I agree with Ruiz that cats are much easier to navigate,are updated etc.. but thats not enough reason to delete this list. Abögarp
  • Keep, per Abogarp. Also, I actually believe that these lists should include people we do not have an article for, to build upon that.--Vizcarra 22:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stem Cell Surgery[edit]

A typical example of how news reports become Wikipedia articles without much thinking. It advertises the unbelievable achievements of one person who has done something but only ten patients have been treated (PMID 15745776) without significant follow-up and this treatment is still in its very earliest stages. If this should be on Wikipedia at all, it should not be its own article. Delete. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and there must be a way to perform Stem Cell Surgery in all sorts of organs. The content therefore does not reflect that title. JFW | T@lk
  • Keep after POV removal and rewrite. The tone is indeed too strong and balanced toward one specific treatment for a decent article, but the topic is both notable and relevant. --Several Times 18:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, I'll later strip it of its POV and merge it to stem cell. If you'll read the talk page, I've written just yesterday that the information in the article will go nicely in the stem cell article under potential uses, which already contains discussion of stem cell transplantion on the heart, spinal cord, etc. There is no need to delete this; the term is notable and useful. -D. Wu 18:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note chunks, if not 100%, of this article is copy and pasted from [8]. Sdedeo 18:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Revolución (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with regular stem cell page. It hasn't been developed enough to warrant it's own page, nor does it pertain to surgery in general. The only press it has received is on article on the Beeb [[9]] Barneygumble 18:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to stem cell. No original research. Alex.tan 05:15, August 11, 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 votes received apart from nomination. I cannot say that a single vote constitutes a "consensus" or a lack thereof. I am therefore bringing this back to VFD again: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Artspace Gallery2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Artspace Gallery[edit]

Vanity/Advertisement. Does not seem to be notable. Kushboy 16:51, August 9, 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!) 07:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drumtochty Castle school for boys[edit]

Originally tagged as a speedy, but it's not really speediable. Reasons given by tagger "not an article but a character listing" However it looks like someones homework. Delete <drini ☎> 16:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried to speedy. The article is not anything like an article. Kushboy 16:58, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - patent nonsense / attack page. "Perpetually angry besom when on duty and charming when not. Some enterprising wanker put sugar in the tank of her rackety old van" Dunc|☺ 18:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with speedy as a collection of personal attacks. Kappa 03:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Attack page. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 17:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nearly patent nonsense. 05:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost amusing but unencyclopedic personal memoirs. Drumtochty Castle, it appears, was briefly a private boys' school but there does not seem to be any information to write an article about it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 18:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Sunderland[edit]

Obscure; essentially a dictionary definition; unencyclopaedic; the text is POV, the whole subject is inherently POV. --Ngb 16:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Dictionary definition at best. Sliggy 17:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sunderland FC, if anything can be salvaged.Allegrorondo 18:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably written by a Newcastle United fan like myself. Let's face it, we haven't much else to celebrate. Delete Tonywalton 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, weak Keep. The phrase is in reasonably wide use to mean what the author says it means- this isn't necessarily POV any more than using the phrase "do a Hindenburg" to mean "crash and burn" implies a hatred of hydrogen-filled German dirigble airships. It's more of a dicdef though, really, hence the "weak" bit Tonywalton 20:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same phrase is also used with a completely different meaning, though. To do a Sunderland can also mean to pull off a major cup upset (as per Sunderland vs Leeds, 1973 FA Cup final). Grutness...wha? 02:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sunderland FC as Allegorondo, subject to evidence that the phrase is notable.(Is that how this is meant to be done?)--MarkGallagher 21:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course it isn't notable. Suggesting it should be merged with the Sunderland article is ridiculous. Sunderland fans would just delete it and they would be quite right to do so. It is simply abusive humour by a fan of a rival club. Osomec 06:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ral315 14:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious deletion, for all the reasons mentioned already --Khendon 16:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase will change when the next team to be badly relegated go down e.g. 'do a Swindon' from about ten years ago. Keresaspa 16:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course, useful content. How this is a dictdef is beyond me.  Grue  18:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sea bathing[edit]

  • Delete --Revolución (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather lame stub right now, but certainly could be expanded and cleaned up. Sea bathing, unlike swimming in a pool, was/is believed to have curative health benefits, especially in victorian times. If nobody else wants to expand it, I'll see what I can do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as Starblind says. I'll give you a hand if I get the chance. My first job - retype Scarborough! Tonywalton 20:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've expanded a bit. I'd also like to note that bathing machine, to which both this article and topic are linked, is an awesome Featured Article. If WP can make a Featured Article out of that, I'm sure we can make a great one on this topic too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable recreation. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs much expansion. Osomec 06:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have further expanded the article with the introduction and sections dealing with the 18th and 19th century being expanded. I hope to add to the sections about the twentieth and 21st centuries and references over the weekend. Capitalistroadster 11:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome editing, Capitalistroadster! This article should feature in some sort of Wikipedia:How an article is born article Tonywalton
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 08:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Eastman[edit]

He is not a well-known person.--64.12.116.74 17:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the entry does not assert the notability of the person (just like a student is not notable just for the sake of being a student, the son of somebody famous is not notable just because of that) <drini ☎> 17:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Explodicle 22:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Souness[edit]

This page seems to exist merely to disparage Souness. The term does not exist in the wild, and no other article links to this one. See also Talk:Doing a Souness. MarkGallagher 17:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as personal attack and neologism. More the latter than the former. --Several Times 18:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Doing a Sunderland above. Delete Tonywalton 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just this month's piece of bitter humour. Could have been said about almost any football manager at one time or another. And he'll be a hero this time next month if Newcastle win their first few Premiership games. Osomec 06:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete NN, NPOV --Apyule 06:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, after the copyvio process. -Splash 01:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Polack[edit]

He is not a well-known person--64.12.116.7 18:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Imagine an article about the founder of the largest textile, closing and knitwear company in Australia, Canada, the UK, or the US, one whose contribution to his or her country was great enough to be awarded a national honour, and to be honoured by one of the premier universities. That sounds like an article that would be worth keeping. I think we have an example of a systemic bias against non-English-speaking countries, which is something that Wikipedia should strive to reduce. We have lots of articles about industrialists in the countries I mentioned, so why not Israel? Ground Zero 18:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Listed as copyvio. They should take care of it. Sdedeo 19:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Delete copyvio but) keep replacement article if one gets written. He certainly seems notable. Another bad-faith nomination by an anon. Uppland 21:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rorta[edit]

No Alexa ranking, not notable. feydey 18:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mills lighthouse[edit]

Not notable company, I don't think this should be in an encyclopedia, this is not a business directory. Ajshm 18:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. Not notable. Hamster Sandwich 18:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising a company. maclean25 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable by a long shot. -Joshuapaquin 00:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's hardly advertising if the company has been closed since the 90s but it is unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Down and Outs[edit]

ReaDelete Has no allmusic page. A check on their homepage reveals they have only released on album, and not on a major label. With no tours or other notability, they fail WP:MUSIC. Icelight 18:40, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete appears to be nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Mango[edit]

Surprisingly elaborate band vanity/advertising. "Jo Mango" yields 349 googles. Unsigned, no records; they don't seem to meet WP:MUSIC, but I'd be willing to back down if anyone can provide evidence to the contrary. Flowerparty talk 18:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete --Apyule 06:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. 349 google hits does seem to indicate some degree of notability (albiet not a large degree), and as such, I don't object to inclusion. Still, they fail WP:MUSIC criteria. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Scottish indie band with national press coverage. Secretlondon 06:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, bad-faith nomination. Dmcdevit·t 19:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Portal[edit]

It sucks

Obvious bad faith nomination, I've removed the Vfd header -- Ferkelparade π 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress."
  • Keep, delist bad-faith nomination, and block the anonymous IP responsible. --Scimitar parley 19:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Juanita High School and Juanita High School/Temp[edit]

Tagged {{speedy}} by Tcwd, but "articles about schools" doesn't seem to be a valid reason for speedy deletion. My vote is keep. —Cryptic (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, OK as school articles go. Gazpacho 19:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Keep) This is pretty good, as per Gazpacho. Hamster Sandwich 20:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete as per copyright violation per Tcwd Thanks for the sleuthing! Hamster Sandwich 23:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:41, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless copyvio is fixed. Thanks for investigating that.Gateman1997 20:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it is in SERIOUS need of wikifying and clean-up. Starting an article with Juanita High School has been a "Rebel" since its inception is a desperate plea to be rewritten. Ektar 22:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not speedy or regular deletable Yuckfoo
  • Delete. It's a copyvio of [10] anyways 65.94.110.134 23:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that was me, didn't log in Tcwd 23:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Brownman40 03:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Schools/Arguments to Delete. (and there is no information on this page.) Still non notable. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handle via copyvio process. Otherwise I'd vote keep. — RJH 15:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Juanita High School/Temp. I rewrote using the history section as a reference. As a school with a long history of educational innovation I think it should have an article on Wikipedia. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep rewtiten version after copyvio is handled. This seems to be an unusual school, notable for its place in the history of unusual school approaches. DES (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This high school appears to have an unusual history, making it more notable than average high schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. AlbertR 02:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Proto t c 09:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable for its innovation Salsb 01:37, August 17, 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 08:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starbase 74[edit]

Delete as non-notable fancruft or, at worst, merge to relevant episode Soltak 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, everything significant is in the episode afterall.Gateman1997 20:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • All info should be in the relevant episode's article. Delete. Take the Trekcruft to Memory Alpha. Proto t c 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously. Anything that could be said about Starbase 74 already has been said on the episode page 11001001 (TNG episode). -D. Wu 21:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Soltak, delete unless a very good spot can be found to merge it to. --IByte 23:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Soltak. Nandesuka 23:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a List of Star Trek:The Next Generation space stations 132.205.95.43 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Soltak. --Etacar11 00:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as already merged. ~~ N (t/c) 07:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't the last step of a merge turning the page into a redirect instead of deleting it? --IByte 14:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if the redirect would serve a useful purpose. It's highly unlikely that someone would type in Starbase 74 before typing in the relevant episode. Soltak 16:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 07:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starbase 123[edit]

Delete as non-notable fancruft or, at worst, merge to relevant episode Soltak 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occult Diseases[edit]

Opinion essay about insufficient attention to scurvy. FreplySpang (talk) 19:01, August 9, 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 01:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangsta rappers[edit]

Complete redundancy with List of hip hop musicians; no need for a seperate list unless we make seperate lists for all other genre's subgenres (which would lead to madness). Also hard to categorize subjectively (Da Brat is a gangsta rapper?) FuriousFreddy 19:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing bran-man and flem[edit]

vanity page, and not a very good one at that. I would recommend for speedy if I knew how. Allegrorondo 19:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good software[edit]

Article was created with a pov flag. The author has acted in bad faith before, and this seems to be merely vandalism. I am, however, not a computer scientist, so I don't know if it really is industry jargon. For now, delete. jglc | t | c 19:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Its not industry jargon, it is POV. Allegrorondo 19:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - rubbish. UkPaolo 20:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Jaxl | talk 20:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gibberish. Tonywalton 20:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not industry jargon, so this can be deleted as WP is not a soapbox. --IByte 23:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hoped to finally discover how to write SW right ... but such disappointment. Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV. ManoaChild 01:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never heard of it either. ral315 14:35, 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 08:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chum (The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress)[edit]

This article is about a piece of made-up slang in the Robert A. Heinlein novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.

  • The term is not notable.
  • The article consists mainly of nonverifiable speculation about the possible connotations of the word.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Bcrowell 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Great book, but the new use of the word is hardly worth noting. Allegrorondo 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly merge with The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress as the content is valuable analysis, though it does not deserve its own page. -- Bubbachuck 00:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After I did the vfd, the creator of the article, WpZurp, changed the vfd to a speedy deletion, with the comment "fine, if you don't like it then just kill it."--Bcrowell 19:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Please take any further legal challenges to the Wikimedia Foundation. -Splash 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy_Neuberger[edit]

Kaufman Gartner, p.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 114 West 47th Street, 22nd Floor NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 TELEPHONE: (212) 575-4886 Ÿ FAX: (212) 575-5979 


                                                                                       August 9, 2005

To: Wikipedia

The article about Roy Neuberger should be deleted immediately for the following reasons: it contains a malicious, personal attack on Mr. Neuberger and his son, Roy S. Neuberger, and entirely falsifies their relationship - which is close and not at all estranged - and contains anti-Semitic overtones. Mere editing will be insufficient, because the earlier version would always be accessible. The article is causing family members great pain and must be deleted; it serves no good purpose to let it remain online. The attached article contains accurate information about Mr. Neuberger and should replace the deleted article.

Sincerely, James Kaufman Esq. Attorney for Roy R. Neuberger and Family 70.110.155.253 18:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Neuberger (born July 21, 1903) is an American financier who has contributed to the cause of public awareness and publicity of modern art through acquisition of painting and sculpture and donation of many pieces of art to educational institutions and museums. He is the founding partner and eponym of the investment firm Neuberger & Berman.

Neuberger was born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and spent his childhood in New York. He was orphaned at the age of 12. He describes himself as having been interested during high school in tennis and "the ladies". He matriculated at New York University, originally to study journalism, but grew restless and dropped out without obtaining a degree.

His first job was working at B. Altman's, then the leading Manhattan department store. There he learned the ins and outs of business.

Leaving his job at Altman's, he sailed to Europe at age 20 on an inheritance from his parents and went to live in Paris. He lived his bohemian, Roaring Twenties existence there, where he visited the Louvre three times a week and met his lifelong friend Meyer Shapiro. He studied art in Paris and throughout Europe.

In 1928 he read Floret Fels' biography of Vincent Van Gogh. Neuberger was startled when he learned how Van Gogh had only sold one painting, and was heartstricken to learn that Van Gogh, like so many other artists, had lived in pain, poverty and misery. Thousands of excellent artists were suffering in obscurity and the world might never know what they had created. Neuberger wanted a way to give deserving but unknown artists a chance at fame, recognition and financial success.

To accomplish this, Neuberger decided to go "where the money is." He moved back to the United States and entered Wall Street in 1929, seven months before Black Tuesday. He started out with the firm of Halle & Steiglitz and sold RCA shares short, right through the stock market crash at the beginning of the Great Depression. He founded Neuberger & Berman in 1939 with Robert Berman. By then he was in a position to make his first major acquisition, Peter Hurd's Boy from the Plains. He allowed Nelson Rockefeller, another avid art collector, to use Boy from the Plains in a travelling American art exhibition. Rockefeller's exhibition travelled to South America.

Among the other major artists whose works Neuberger collected are Jackson Pollock, Ben Shahn, William Baziotes, Alexander Calder, Stuart Davis,Louis Eilshemius, Edward Hopper, Jacob Lawrence, Jack Levine, David Smith and especially Milton Avery. Neuberger purchased dozens of Averys, the first of which was Gaspé Landscape, which he bought during a snowstorm. The artist wrapped it carefully to protect the canvas in the way home. It still hangs in Neuberger's apartment to this day.

Neuberger also began donating works to institutions, among them the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art and the Whitney Museum as well as many college and university museums.

Neuberger's friend and fellow collector Nelson Rockefeller, when he became governor of New York arranged for the donation of a substantial portion of Neuberger's collection to the state. To this end, he established a Neuberger Museum of Art as part of the State University of New York. Designed by architectPhilip Johnson, the Neuberger Museum opened on the SUNY Purchase College campus and opened in 1974.

Neuberger was married for over 60 years to the late Marie Salant Neuberger, also a distinguished patron of the arts. Together they had three children and many grandchildren.

}} 70.110.155.253 19:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vfd is a blatant attempt to intimidate WP into changing this into a POV article written the way the subject wants it written. Relevant material from Neuberger's proposed version can be merged in. I don't see any anti-Semitic overtones at all.--Bcrowell 19:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if that's the best the OP can do. The article obviously needs a lot of work, but with patience it can be cleaned up into something worthwhile. (Is it okay to editorialise here? If so, here goes: The stated reason of "you must delete it because mere changes aren't good enough for us" is bollocks, and extraordinarily arrogant besides). --MarkGallagher 19:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, block user for making legal threats. Zoe 20:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep but I bet it gets vandalised frequently Tonywalton
  • Strong Keep Per Bcrowell. Eclipsed 20:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the user wants to modify the article he can get an account and make the changes himself. VfD is inappropriate in this instance.Gateman1997 20:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Actually, the article (before I just edited it) did incorrectly state that father and son were estranged. I've fixed it, and sourced a Ha'aretz article that quotes both father and son getting along as G-d and Ethical Culture intends. Nothing anti-semetic at all about this, at least when I last looked ([11]). There may be some copyvio issues, though -- someone please check it more closely. Sdedeo 21:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. If Mr. Kaufman doesn't like the article, he is welcome to contribute, but deleting page histories because they are offensive isn't how Wikipedia works and we shouldn't change that here. Blocking his IP from editing is a lousy idea not yet necessary - ideally, we would like him to help us write a truthful, neutral article. Explodicle 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. This is official Wikipedia policy. Zoe 23:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point. If I wasn't aware of this, though, there's a chance he wasn't, so we should at least give him a chance. Explodicle 23:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason for deletion under Wikipedia policy. VfD is not the place to determine whether the policy of retaining the edit history is legally tenable. Martg76 23:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason to delete. --Etacar11 00:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and thumb nose. Gazpacho 03:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per Bcrowell --Apyule 06:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deleting due to legal threats is unprecedented, and the day it happens is the day I leave the project. ral315 14:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could still use some work, but legal threats are just pointless and silly. --Several Times 15:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Address legal threats to Jimbo Wales. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while we are clearly within our rights (in the US anyway) to maintain this article, it does seem a bit mean spirited to devote so many words to airing Mr. Neuberger's trouble with his own son. Collabi 05:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? I just edited it to mention the two of them get along. Explodicle 04:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Luke weyers[edit]

Not notable, google gives 4 hits [12] for "Luke weyers" none related to wrestling. feydey 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; non-notable, surname not capitalized, etc. Jaxl | talk 20:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a load of nonsense. --IByte 22:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/unverified. --Etacar11 01:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a hoax. --Apyule 06:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Starblind. Closing. Essjay · Talk 09:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Laura Kellett[edit]

Page is allegedly about "an amazingly significant person who has contributed a lot to society and anti-chavness. However, in order to preserve an air of suspense, all other details about her are to remain enigmatic." After I speedied it with a nonsense tag, the following was added: "This page speaks the truth (although not very much of it), and not patent nonsense. Nor does it express vanity, as this article was written by another," and my speedy removed. Obviously entirely non-notable. Strong delete. jglc | t | c 19:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never mind; it was speedied. jglc | t | c 19:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Deleted under criteria #7. This has been speedied 4 times today and once yesterday by various admins. If the author happens to read this, I'll point out that an assertation of notability must include what the notability in question is. It's not enough to just say "n is notable" and not say why or how. Furthermore, repeated recreation of a deleted article is considered vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, August 9, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yaw Shin Leong[edit]

This reads like a resume for a non-notable person. ErikNY 19:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

360 Investments[edit]

This is a non-notable or possible vanity company MicahMN | Talk 19:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's a real company, or at least they have a website, but it's also non-notable. Eclipsed 20:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; non-notable, 67 google results. [14] Jaxl | talk 20:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blanked by the author and due for a Speedy Delete. Come on guys, resurrecting an article that the author himself blanked out, just so it can languish for another five days on the VfD page, is plain mean. Collabi 05:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is a real company, delete this from wikipedia and the FBI will be after you... User talk:LOSE

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

91100 (number)[edit]

Neologism from a movie. Article does not mention any mathematical properties.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Grundel[edit]

This is a joke MicahMN | Talk 19:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; it's also a copyvio from urbandictionary.com. [15] Jaxl | talk 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Explodicle 22:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:Jaxl --Apyule 06:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki. ral315 14:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hope urbandictionary material doesn't start finding its way over here. Second one I've seen, it could become a problem. Paul 05:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. 4 delete, 2 keep, one of which was from an entirely new user, but in all likelihood not a sockpuppet so it is counted. A concern here has been verifiability, I have done a quick check, and yes, the person does exist, but no, it is difficult to verify the claims presented. I will therefore let the delete votes decide this issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ant McGinley[edit]

Unnotable person. Presenter of a local radio station in the UK (Coast 96.3), and possibly a minor role in TV series Band of Brothers. In addition, it should be noted (although it's not reason for deletion per se) that the article has been prone to vandalism by the page creator (an anonymous IP) since the outset. The current article contains large amounts of information which I believe to be totally make-belief. UkPaolo 19:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Unnotable person" is a little harsh, I think "not notable" is a bit better. MicahMN | Talk 20:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Appears just notable enough if most of this material is true. The paragraph about brain injury does feel rather false, somehow. --Several Times 20:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would agree with you there, it's just that I don't believe most of the material probably is true. If you note the edit history, it is almost entirely written by an anon IP, and statements seemed to be being changed in a contradictory manner. From Google (ignoring references to Wikipedia) I can only see that he's a presenter of Coast (and as such not notable imho). Could be wrong though... anyone got any sources of him having done anything more significant? If he did have a role in Band of Brothers it would seem it was extremely minor... UkPaolo 21:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he was in Band of Brothers, it must only have been as an uncredited extra, and there are lots of them about. Google search returns 15 results not including Wikipedia. Does not explain why he is a writer or a model; it's not enough to do it at home. The second half of the article appears to be rogue.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Almost certain hoax, otherwise non-notable. Someone should check that anon IP and revert most of his edits (Ant is starting to appear all over the wiki now.) Sdedeo 21:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Sdedeo. - Hahnchen 01:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've also put The Venkman Heist up for deletion. It features a guitarist named Tom McGinley, maybe a relation to this Ant McGinley fellow. - Hahnchen 01:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - think the last comment should be taken with a pinch of salt - what about golfer Paul and actor John? As for this Ant chap I've found him discussed in several forums (mediauk) and the Daily Star archive seems to back up the Robbie Williams claim. As for Band of Brothers I have the DVD box set and searched through it last night - no sign of him there. Is it possible he has a stage name? richardIII 11:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. He definitely exists - followed link and listened, but question is why? Doubt he'll change my life overnight. Perhaps he has a different reputation in Wales - tis a strange place. Anybody from there who can give us an insight? davetherave 15:22, 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 Speedied by Starblind. Closing. Essjay · Talk 09:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Povey[edit]

Vanity page Allegrorondo 20:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strap It On (AC/DC album)[edit]

According to AC/DC, their new album has no (official) name as of yet, meaning that it is not acutally called Strap It On and it was just a working title. Wikipedia is not a rumoured source and I think we should just wait until the (official) name is confirmed. -- Mike Garcia | talk 20:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Satori 22:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Satori. Jaxl | talk 22:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2005 AC/DC Album. Since it can be confirmed that AC/DC is releasing an album this year, and there is buzz as to its contents, it can be moved as a temporary measure until the true name is released. This, by the way, is not crystal balling, as the article would (presently) report what is known to be true about the album, including the buzz over it. -- BD2412 talk 01:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Feel free to move it to a neutral title as BD2412 suggests.) There's plenty of precedent for this at Category:Upcoming albums. We even have a template. Flowerparty talk 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Paddon[edit]

I'm not sure if this person is notable, but the text reads like pure advertizement for his DVD products Allegrorondo 21:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "Peter Paddon, Author and Witch". Hilarious. He had a coven numbering 22 people, spread across England. He grew up in Tidworth, which is "a few miles from Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain", which of course makes him notable. He has had two books published by these people, although they only list one of them. I'm more notable that this person.-Ashley Pomeroy 21:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone removed the more blatant advertizing from the article, but still reads like a book jacket. Allegrorondo 21:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I removed the promotion, but I don't know enough about Wicca to know if this guy is as important as he thinks he is. If what Ashley Pomeroy says is true, then by all means Delete--Outlander 14:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. I could write that much about myself... if I was, like, really bored and stuff. -- BD2412 talk 01:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I never noticed the word 'notable' in the list I linked from, and would not have added the page there if I had. I mentioned Stonehenge as the nearest geographical point non-local people would recognize, not because it makes me significant. This was not an exercise in ego , just an experiment, one that taught me an awful lot about the people here. Get rid of it. Incidentally, Capall Bann might be a small publisher, but it is very highly regarded by the Pagan/Wiccan community both in the UK and the US, and they do list both books. They certainly don't deserve to be referred to as "these people". Peter Paddon, Aug 11, 2005
    • Comment writing a page on yourself is at the very least pretentious - thats what user pages are for, you are free to write whatever you like about yourself there. But apart from that, my main reason for nominating the article for deletion was the blatant advertizing and POV. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for free advertizing of your DVD products. Allegrorondo 19:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In case you hadn't noticed, I have also voted for its deletion - I'm new here and didn't know about user pages until recently, or I would have done one of those instead. I'm not arguing that the page violated policy - I'm just commenting on the uncivil manner in which people have responded, which is also in violation of the policies here. Believe it or not, I wasn't trying to advertise my DVDs.. I just found something new and fascinating, and played with it. I should have done that in the sandbox - I can say that with hindsight - and I would have deleted the page myself if this deletion process didn't prevent that (another thing I didn't know about). So I 've learnt a lot about this place, and I've also learnt that there are some who are quick to heap sarcasm and derision where a simple "this is not allowed" would have sufficed. Let's just say it has soured my desire to participate in this any more. I'm just checking in to see if the page had been deleted, and hopefully it will be soon. Peter Paddon, Aug 12, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Geek Unit[edit]

Delete. Non-notable vanity. Wikibofh 21:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; non-notable, 0 google results. [16] Jaxl | talk 01:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, just some guys. --Etacar11 01:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable club. ManoaChild 01:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We aren't notable, not yet. But we're getting there. We have a group that has increased by dozens in the months since our inception. We thought it was somewhat worth noting given the success we've had creating a safe, secure environment for country/suburb "geeks" amongst a much larger group of inner-city/ghetto "thugs". And maybe a touch of vanity (because we rock). Ninja2001 08:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete When you become notable, you can get an article. Wikipedia does not have room for every group that "isnt notable yet but will be" Allegrorondo 13:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      We do have room. We just don't wanna. Wikipedia is not for advertising. JRM · Talk 13:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a trashcan, which is exactly where this article should go. ral315 14:38, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ouch. Although, Allegrorondo has an excellent point. I take that as a delete vote, JRM? Ninja2001
    That was just a drive-by comment on Allegrorondo's remark, not a vote. But, yes, reading the article and reviewing the evidence, I'll have to say delete. I prefer not voting on notability, but I don't have to in this case: this article is not independently verifiable. It's a cute article, but it's not encyclopedic. Consider Everything2. JRM · Talk 23:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per allegrorondo Dottore So 22:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duveneck School[edit]

See also earlier deletion listing

This page has gone 9 months with no improvement or expansion to show notablity. No notablility appears to actually exist for this school. DELETE per Arguments for school delete Gateman1997 21:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although I wonder how you consider a school non-notable, yet a fictional starbase that appeared in one episode of Star Trek to be notable (in fact, neither are). Proto t c 21:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In defense of the Star Trek starbase, it is notable because there are vast legions of Trekkies that are interested in the subject. How many people will ever look up a link to learn about Duveneck School?
  • Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools Soltak 21:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know that school. The article is easily expandable. Factitious 22:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I've made a first pass through, adding external links and some basic background information. Really, improving an article is easy if you're willing to spend a few minutes on it. Factitious 22:41, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too please it is more notable than a fake starbase even Yuckfoo
  • Keep and delist. Nomination made in bad faith, no assumptions necessary. —RaD Man (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elementary schools of this sort aren't notable enough to keep here in general. This article gives no evidence that it is special or distinct. This link is Broken 01:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Schools/Arguments to Delete - brenneman(t)(c) 01:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable and NPOV information about an enduring institution which already survived one Vfd. I'm confused that the person who created Village Preschool of Saratoga and voted to keep it would also nominate this article for deletion. Kappa 02:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this school in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  • Keep Fortunately Wikipedia has much longer than nine months to grow. Renominate in 90 years if you want. Osomec 06:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enought in the article to justify inclusion. Maybe if expanded to make it encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you help me expand it, then? Factitious 06:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would help matters if nominators could adhere to some standard of accuracy. The article is less than seven months old so it cannot have gone for nine months without expansion. Looking at it I don't see any reason why it should especially need expansion. It's a perfectly good stub, useful in its current form. The nominator's claims about lack of notability are also misplaced; there is no consensus on notability criteria apply schools; many people class public schools as inherently notable. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Unfocused 15:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete indifferentiatable from other schools. --Tim Pope 16:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to differentiate this school from any other box of students. --Carnildo 18:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primary school. Dunc|☺ 18:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable outside local community. Allegrorondo 18:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Unless a school is involved in a major event, such as a scandal, a famous educational approach/program, or a school shooting, there is nothing that can ever be said about it. This school, along with thousands of others have a principal, school colors, a location, and classes - and there is nothing that will make them more notable than that. If ONE important event happened their in the history of the school then that makes it notable, but until then, delete. --jonasaurus 19:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability still not shown, despite plenty of time for that to be demonstrated. Jonathunder 19:11, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
  • Comment. It has come to my attention that Gateman1997 is attempting to pack the vote by soliciting votes solely on the talk pages of people he believes will vote to delete. Rather than get into a sterile voting war by emulating this disgraceful and unwikilike campaign, I will simply register my disapproval here while noting that I intend to dispute deletion on WP:VFU on these grounds, should Gateman's underhand activities appear to influence the vote unduly. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disputing the vote on those grounds is absolutely absurd, not to mention indicative of being a sore loser. Gateman isn't influencing anyone's vote, he's simply bringing it to other Wikipedian's attention. If he chooses to inform those more inclined than not to vote delete, that's his prerogative. Soltak 19:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to. If it goes to WP:VFU I will dispute the keep on on the grounds that there is an organzied group (Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for deletion archive, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools and User:GRider/Schoolwatch) advocating and advertising a "keep" vote on no merit contained in this and many other articles.Gateman1997 19:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two things are unequal. Anybody can watch schoolwatch,whether he intends to vote delete or keep. There is no electioneering. Here, on the other hand, as one of those solicited says herself, was a case where you went to a past delete voter and asked him if he'd vote delete. You only went to the people you thought would vote the way you wanted. Schoolwatch is public and doesn't go around people's talk pages soliciting votes. I don't think this article will be deleted, however, even with your vote packing. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gateman and I have reached an agreement on this; we are both focussing our efforts on schoolwatch, which has been edited (and should continue to be edited) to remove anything that might be described as advocacy of either deletion or keeping of listed schools. The archive will continue to be updated but predictions will no longer be made. The parent page has had pro-keep wording removed. We both think this is better than each setting up competing pages that would duplicate effort. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's had nine months to show improvement. Also I think that Gateman's actions are just as valid as Schoolwatch's actions. Gamaliel 19:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually less than SEVEN months, and actually it's a perfectly good article so there's no tearing rush to improve it. Let it mellow at its own pace. See m:Eventualism. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seven or nine, it's plenty of time either way for some sign of improvement. Gamaliel 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eventualism is not something I believe in on this site either. Many articles are incapable of being worthwhile even if they were on here for 50 years. This is one of those articles.Gateman1997 02:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The claim that it has not improved over the last nine (or seven) months is simply false. I expanded the article yesterday, and there's room for a good deal more work to be done. Factitious 06:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • And you've done a good job with what there is. But none of it's notable. The only claim to fame this school has is that it exists. If that is "keep" critera then why don't I have my own article about me. I exist and I serve my community. Gateman1997 07:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I take issue with is the fact that some people have been voting to delete for the "reasons" that the article hasn't been improved and isn't expandable. Both of those claims are demonstrably false, but the votes based on misinformation continue. Factitious 01:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's clear that you're all arguing apples and oranges. Some people think that school articles should only exist if the school in question is in some way distinguished from other schools; others think most types of school are distinguished enough in themselves, as public institutions, to be notable.
    • On eventualism, I have to say that in my view the whole Wikipedia project is a triumphant vindication of the principle that great things can be built in small, almost infinitessimal steps. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is why we need an official guideline or policy established for schools. The two sides will never agree. We need Wikipedia as a whole to set the criteria one way or the other because there obviously is no true consensus right now as most school votes seem to be going 50-50 or close to it. While that may be enough to keep most articles, it's not consensus. Gateman1997 18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is no agreement, how can we have a schools policy? In general I think it's fair to say that school discussions have been going more like 55/45 against delete for some time now (with particularly interesting articles getting 60/40 and more). I think it's quite possible that there could be substantial change in the long term future, and if this happens then we can talk about a schools policy. Meanwhile it's probably a bad idea to list schools articles for deletion; it's much, much easier to just clean them up. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chilling effect, anyone? I do not believe comments such as this are either accurate or helpful.
        brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aaron, I'm basing my comment on sixteen weeks with hardly a single school article deletion, despite there having been over 150 school VfDs. I think I'm on pretty firm ground here. It's accurate. Nominate a few more preschools, perhaps, but I don't think it makes sense to put yourself through all that effort while the situation is as it is presently. That's intended to be helpful. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was solicited to vote in favor of deleting this article, which I resent. Electioneering is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
    Comment. Regardless of the outcome of this VfD vote, I intend to merge this article into Palo Alto Unified School District. Kelly Martin 00:53, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable school. Nandesuka 20:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, not expandable.  Grue  20:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's not expandable, how is it that I was able to expand it? Factitious 06:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable elementary school. DES (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all real physical places belong on wiki until drive space becomes an issue (aka maybe never?). All schools are inherently notable as they are influential in the lives of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people.  ALKIVAR™ 02:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete elementary schools per User:ESkog/Schools. ESkog 04:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "This page has gone 9 (or 7) months with no improvement or expansion", but what's the rush, or end date on completion of this encyclopedia? It's a verifiable, valid article. -- Longhair | Talk 04:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does how wrong it is depend on who is doing it? [17][18] [19] [20] [21][22][23] - brenneman(t)(c) 04:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whilst I don't want to be spammed with a VfD reminder for every VfD I've ever voted on in the past, I wasn't that offended I received a solicitation, and viewed it more as a good faith human watchlist at work. If it become routine though, I'd probably leave in frustration :) -- Longhair | Talk 05:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And just when we thought we'd put the solicitation thing to rest above. Someone goes and steps over the line again. I propose this VfD be closed and it be relisted again as I believe that this VfD's vote is entirely tainted (due in part to me and now Yuckfoo). Gateman1997 06:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is bad for Wikipedia no matter who is doing it. I've asked Yuckfoo to join our voluntary agreement not to engage in electioneering.
    I propose that this VfD be left to run its course and the closing administrator (who of course will not be anyone who voted on it) will be perfectly capable of making his mind up whether it's better for Wikipedia to let it stand or relist it.
    Personally I see nothing to be gained over relisting a single article, though I would not oppose an early relisting of this particular article after this VfD is closed, if it is kept in this particular situation. I would also support an appeal on WP:VFU if it is deleted, though I would not make one in the light of recent events.
    What we do next is about more than one single article, it's about the kind of Wikipedia we want to have. I don't want one in which open vote warfare becomes a commonplace. Whilst I am convinced that such techniques, if practised by both sides, would marginally benefit inclusionism, the effects of such warfare would be to damage Wikipedia and I would not condone that. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Imagine clicking a city entry one day to find a map of all local landmarks with each point leading to an article detailing its place in the community. Let's strive towards this goal. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs expansion. -- Lochaber 10:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep schools in wikipedia. --Howrealisreal 12:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • D, nn. Radiant_>|< 13:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep please. - Jersyko talk 13:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete. (Weak 2nd choice, merge into an article on the city or school district). Unless an elementary school as been the subject of a court case, or the oldest school in its region, or has had a major state-wide or national news event happen on the campus, the school is inherently unencyclopedic. BlankVerse ∅ 23:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable. No Account 00:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JuntungWu 06:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete this school. -- DS1953 21:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. AlbertR 02:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Inez (Cyberchase)[edit]

Delete Substub about a character on kids TV show Cyberchase already discussed in main article. Soltak 21:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Function Recordings[edit]

As a matter of VfD closing policy, I'm extending discussion on all VfDs that get two comments or less in addition to the nomination. This discussion is extended for another five days. No vote. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK-based record label, seems non-notable. There seems to be a more notable Finnish label of the same name; if somebody deems that one eligible for inclusion then the article should be rewritten. Otherwise, Delete. Joel7687 16:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If you follow the links posted, you end up at http://www.timelessmusic.org/ as the homepage of "Function" which states that it was last updated in September of 2003. Not notable. — Linnwood (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Carnildo 22:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's hardly any content, and we're not a web guide. The UK (not Finnish) company doesn't seem very notable either. --IByte 22:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete does not establish notability --Tim Pope 16:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Legolism[edit]

A word or phrase that has been recently coined. (A Neologism!). -Satori 22:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What else is there to add? Sonic Mew | talk to me 22:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Blaise Douros

I've heard it used, and not at this St. Olaf place.

  • Delete neologism --IByte 22:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism, although ironically this vote would be a Legolism if only my ears were pointier and I had mad longbow skilz.--Scimitar parley 23:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neologism. --Revolución (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegolas - neolegolism. -- BD2412 talk 01:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. ral315
  • Delete as neolologism. --Several Times 15:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have heard this used in several places due to the lack of lines given to Legolas that actually had any point, and for the purpose stated. Stating the ridiculously obvious is a Legolism. (previous unsigned comment by 216.129.191.143 (talk · contribs))
  • Delete. Neologism, and not even a very accurate one. "Blood has been spilled this night" is not an obvious statement to make, merely based on the color of a sunrise. A better fantasy film example of such a occurance is General Kael in Willow, whose every command is a blatantly obvious statement. "Get him!", "Where is the baby...look everywhere!", "after him!" -R. fiend 16:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, even if this wikipedia place doesn't have it as an official word, who cares? Whoever is silly enough to actually argue over whether it gets kept or not, it will still be a word! The word rocks! I say keep it, but who cares? (previous unsigned comment by 138.129.89.20 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 23:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tides of Blood[edit]

  • Restore. The reasons given for deletion make no sense, other fanmade maps for the same video game are allowed for no reason. Either delete DOTA allstars and Advent_of_the_Zenith or allow this article.


—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.105.142.11 (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC). It's a fanmade map for a videogame. Yes, that's all. Take it away Vikings! "cruft cruft cruft cruft! Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! cruft cruft cruft cruft!" GarrettTalk 02:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. android79 02:49, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • [I assume this is meant as a Keep vote] why is there no vfd for dota, life of a peasant, tower defense, aeon of strife, all these other things? Regardless of what it is. It is here to give Tides of Blood its place in history as it is clearly a notable piece of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrewedThePooch (talk • contribs) 03:53, 25 July 2005
    Because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Articles are nominated for deletion if someone comes across it and feels it is not encyclopediac. It is possible the nominator hasn't seen the other articles you mention. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but I have now... *does best impression of Dr. Evil laugh* :) GarrettTalk 03:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for gamecruft, and throw a dollar and a quarter in Garrett's hat for the musical accompaniment. -- BD2412 talk 03:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Garrett.Hamster Sandwich 03:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Garrett. Thunderbrand 04:03, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unnecessary Fan-Related Detail - Skysmith 10:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any item in an encyclopedia should be referred to by a group outside of its own participants. If an item is referred to only by its own participants, then it is jargon or argot or slang or cruft. However, when a subject appears in multiple referential contexts, it will need discussion and explanation. Hence, fanfiction, fanmaps, etc. are not appropriate encyclopedic fare unless some context other than fans (e.g. getting on the 6 o'clock news for being scary), it is inappropriate content. On the other hand, there are specialist-oriented sites on the Internet that thrive on such material. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, however. Geogre 15:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per George. - Mgm|(talk) 18:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. nonencyclopedic. Mmmbeer 22:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and widely known custom game. Derktar 01:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. And also delete the other WCIII map articles (can someone list them on VFD), and also unlink them from the WCIII page, as redlinks encourage article creation. —Lowellian (talk) 10:53, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Mysterious Dungeon (was Pokemon Mysterious Dungeon Red)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --IByte 22:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Schluter Engine[edit]

This page is a hoax created by interns at the Solar and Astrophysics department of the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center [[User:]] 22:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 2 non-wiki hits for this seem to support the hoax claim. At the very least, nn. --Etacar11 01:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is any validity to this engine, it is under some other name. Probably violates the second law of thermodynamics. ManoaChild 01:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. ~~ N (t/c) 07:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails Google test, and lack of references seems to support hoax claim. --Alan Au 07:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Policy Act of 2005 Vote[edit]

This article is little more than a text dump of part of the vote on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which can easily be accessed by clicking on these links: House; Senate. This page was created because I objected to the author's insistence on having the names of certain lawmakers and how they voted on the bill inside the Energy Policy Act of 2005 article instead of having simple links to the vote tallies, which take up much less space in what is sure to be a lengthy treatise on energy policy. I had suggested maybe even moving something like this to Wikisource, but his response was to create this page. I'm not suggesting bad faith necessarily, as I don't recognize this person and I think he's new -- but regardless of motivations, I think the page should not be retained on Wikipedia itself as the information, which is essentially raw data, is easily accessible through a link. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only is this page nonencyclopedic, it's not even a complete listing. Links to vote tallies in the main article are more than enough Soltak 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first link suggested for the vote in the house is helpful. What it would be helpful would be some information on which states the Representatives are from. For example, how many voted for the bill (or against) from Texas? or California? The data is not very useful without some analysis. The link to the Senate does not work at all. I pointed this out to Katefan0 on the talk page for the main article. The page she is referring is also without analysis and it takes a while to discover the voting patterns of the senators. Wikisource does not seem to currently include records of votes on bills. Even so, without anaylsis, the data is unnecessarily time consuming for each individual to repeat analysis that one person can provide (and others can edit). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Votearticle is not complete as to the House would take more time to analyse. It does not include Senate Yes voters, because it is obvious that all those who did not vote in the minority voted in the majority. The purpose of this page is to reveal the whole truth regarding the senate vote, whether an individual is for the Act or opposed to it. I would like to hear Katefan0 explain the harm to the users of the wikipedia (or the wikipedia itself) caused by having additional information in this type of an addendum article. I personally do not understand her concern. In addition, since the original article is short, it seems like this information should be added back into the original article. I am not convinced that this Energy Policy Act of 2005 article will be a lengthy treatise anytime soon. Americanus 02:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with including some small analysis inside the main article itself. There's no need to have a lengthy text dump of only part of a vote in a completely separate article. · Katefan0(scribble) 03:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - give it a chance. It's just minutes old & does no harm. Renata3 02:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Energy Policy Act of 2005 unless the vote itself is somehow particularly noteworthy. --Alan Au 07:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently a purely political document, especially after two senators' comments were added 07:00 10 August 2005 UTC. Simesa 11:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect is not needed. ral315 14:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are we going to have an analysis of every vote the Senate has taken in 200+ years? No? We're not? Then why start with this? If someone wants to move some of the info back into the main article, fine. But this is still a delete vote. -R. fiend 15:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - if something is done once it does not mean that that something must be repeated everywhere. If I create article about some notable appellate course case, it does not mean that I will create pages for every case ever disputed in court. This bill is new, controversial, and notable. That's why it has this page. Not because every bill should have such pages. Renata3 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it was created as a way to avoid compromising with me on my objections to its inclusion in the main article. It didn't exactly happen organically. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cuncurring with R. fiend's point. Dottore So 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso[reply]
  • Keep The preminent use of free speach is to keep track of such votes. It's important, and it is historic. The only reason to delete would be if interest was so low that innacurate information would be persisted. Redirect is tolerable except for the length issue. Benjamin Gatti 21:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

"the jennings effect"[edit]

A non-notable meme first uttered less than an hour prior to the creation of the article. Zoe 23:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If that doesn't classify as a neologism, I don't know what does. --IByte 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A massive thousand people movement within a day?, and how would you even know if a person (neverless 1000 people) quit smoking in that time? →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 23:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious neologism Soltak 23:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wishful thinking. -- BD2412 talk 01:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Osomec 06:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as day-old neologism. ral315 14:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Peter Jennings. Many people indeed have quit smoking following the death of Peter Jennings (for example, this news article [24]), but I'm not sure this needs its own article. --Revolución (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another page created two days later [Jennings Effect] attracted no such discussion. Interesting ...

    • This page did not assert that thousands of people quits smoking, it simply said discussion of quitting was higher. Also, this page clearly makes the page in question obsolete, as it is better written and less presumptuos. Before someone suggests it, no redirect, because who is going to type in "The Jennings Effect", before Jennings Effect. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of the Ancients[edit]

Relevent only for a small fanbase, only a very small fraction of Warcraft 3 players, and too large. It's full of all kinds of explanations which concern the Warcraft 3 engine, which every potential player knows, and the "lingo" section could be applied to Warcraft 3 in general, and most online games in general. Discombobulator 23:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to add that Discombobulator is the author of the EotA wikipedia page, another Warcraft 3 custom map. Hmm.... do I detect hypocrisy? Gatekreeper 23:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment by debroglie: Gatekreeper, you are indeed right - Discombobulator is the author of EotA (Eve of the Apocalypse)... and i agree indeed with Gatekreeper that i smell some hypocrisy here too. Dota is featured by World Cyber Games (as ruberband pointed out) -- clearly this shows that dota is not relevant to a "small fanbase".... i do agree however that this page needs to be cleaned-up a bit. Debroglie 14:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put this under Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention rather than delete it. Its scope needs severe narrowing, and it may need to merge with DotA_Allstars, but I think the fanbase is large enough (likely the most popular series of WC3 custom maps) to justify existence. Vote: no delete GreedyAlgorithm 00:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it (unsigned by 68.227.220.177, user's first edit)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely does not have a 'small' fanbase. ArcTheLad 00:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 68.227.220.177 edited my vote of Strong Keep to Strong Delete. ArcTheLad 02:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fan maps, none of them are notable outside their fanbase regardless of the game in question. This is simply not an encyclopedic topic--do I write about Blood Gulch in Halo? That's a hugely notable official map... but not encyclopedic. Past Vfds have shown there is virtually a consensus on this, at least among non-fans who are outsiders to the topic in question. GarrettTalk 00:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep! Dota allstars has 53700 googles, Defense of the ancients has 119,000 googles... and major mods for other games have their own pages, so why not DotA? Even CS, being an HL mod, has its own page. Hope the frequent editors of this page point out the same thing. P.S.: "Wikipedia is not Paper". Debroglie 01:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no. You must add quotation marks and browse to the last page of the search to get the true figure, as Google crawls every single forum thread in the world, and those must be discounted as minor mentions of the subject matter. When I do so, it has a surprising 320 unique Googles white Allstars has 366. I expected far more than that(!), but then again it strengthens my case. Sigh. GarrettTalk 02:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable within the fanbase and hence also of interest to those curious about the game. I'm disappointed that Garett would not wish to share his knowledge of Blood Gulch with the world. Kappa 02:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I could think of a non-pithy way and encyclopedic to write an entire article about a deathmatch/CTF map I would do so. But anything less I would Vfd if I saw it. GarrettTalk 02:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If you would like to see the effect of DotA's popularity, try the Google search again. Defense of the Ancients wikipedia page shows up as number 7 for a search on "Defense of the Ancients". Mind that Google searches are based on the relevance of the page to the search input and also the popularity of the page, which is based off of the number of links to that page. I think this indicates that many people do in fact refer to the wikipedia page for information and I think this is exactly what an encyclopedia page is meant to do. If people consider the information on the page useful and reliable enough to link to it and visit it, I think that the page deserves to be kept. I urge the voters to read the policies and suggestions under Wikipedia general policy pages and find a compelling reason that this page should be deleted. Otherwise, no matter how stupid you think the topic is, enough people find it useful that this page does its job as an encyclopedic page, and that is our ultimate goal.Gatekreeper 03:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep/Cleanup. No worse than other gamecruft, and Wiki is not paper, but could use major refactoring per GreedyAlgorithm. Anybody want try trimming it down? One of you "Strong Keep" people maybe? --Alan Au 07:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to Delete after reviewing the Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Tides_of_Blood debate, although a substantial improvement to the page might convince me to reconsider. --Alan Au 07:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this article might make do with a improvement/editing the point of view to exclude the technical details. However, do consider that Tides of Blood is less of a following than dota, and ToB has far less content than our current edition of the dota article. More and more people are curious as to what dota means... in any case i can just ask them to look it up in Wikipedia (but thats only the case as long as this article survives the VfD)
  • Strong Keep Keep but Clean The quality of DoTA or the intelligence of its players is irrelevant. Unlike what discombo claims, DoTA is significant enough in its own right. It occupys much of the custom game list, has achieved WCG recognition as almost a game in its own right, and is so very widely played I believe this article will even be useful to people outside the fan base. DoTA is still encyclopediac and not just a "fan map". To use an analogy, Counter-Strike is also a "fan map". But what is important is that gameplay is significantly different, and it has such phenomenal success that this article is relevant to players and non-players alike. I do agree the article has tended to go off tangent or have uneven focus though, needs less technical details. Ruberband 13:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC) edit: i see Alan's point, lingo section and "game concepts" is too craft[reply]
  • Delete. --Scimitar parley 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! - While I do not like DotA in the least, it is important that an unbiased place for people to understand what it is exists. Karuma 20:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DotA is one of the most popular WC3 custom maps and I, personally, got a great amount of information from this article. Article needs to be cleaned, though. -- Panu 12:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DotA by no means has a small fanbase. About 80% of all the custom games up at any time on WC3x are DotA. Personally, I find it pretty uninteresting, but it certainly has enough popularity to warrant an article. -Goldom 15:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article helped me to learn what is "DotA". I heard about it but don't know what it is. After making a Google search I ended up at this page. Now I know what is DotA, this article should stay even if it has low quality. -- Teoh Han Hui 17:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does it matter if it's a little esoteric? Wikipedia helps people learn about topics they've never heard of before. DotA is popular within a certain community and has its own share of fanatics; people will be curious about it and there's absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to be vacant of useful information. And Debrolgie was right: this is closer to a game in its own right (like a mod) than the conventional "map" where the same old rules apply to a different terrain. This page even informs DotA players about the game in general better than anywhere I've seen on the Internet. The Warcraft 3 mechanics info certainly does apply to the regular game and other custom maps; however, the information is particularly pertinent in DotA where micromanagement is the key, where a player can elsewhere succeed in ignorance of it. No need to remove this work at all. Emt 19:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per previous vfd. —Cryptic (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge along with all other Warcraft custom maps in Warcraft III custom maps. Alphax τεχ 07:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a HUGE page. This article is already pretty long alone, and there are several others of its size. -Goldom 00:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both this article and the others would have to be trimmed if they are to be merged. Discombobulator 12:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per Goldom, the Custom Games Article would definetely become too lopsided on the DoTA side. Such an article would also have too many LOAPs, TDs, Mauls and Arenas to cover.Ruberband 14:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: DotA has become, like CS, a game of its own. It has even become a tournament game. The article on dota is really good and detailed, especially on its history. The only thing that could be changed is indeed the lingo part which could be put in another article.zoidberg

STRONG KEEP: Dota is a very important part of warcraft. Even if you must ignorantly delete every other custom map despite little or no knowledge of their relevance in Warcraft communities, you can NOT justify the deletion of the most popular map in Warcraft history. If such a thing happens, I move to delete every "Counter-Strike" page.

  • Keep. It has gained a huge fanbase to stand on its own. I personally came to the looking for information on it. Coffee 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Although I don't play it, I can see that the fanbase is growing. Its seems that everywhere you go, you can hear people discussion about 'dotA'. So, I think its worth keeping this article. -Trueblues 13:23, 19 August 2005.
  • Keep notable game, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't notable Derktar 00:42, August 19, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Blue Light City[edit]

Page for an uncompleted album by a band that are never on time with them in the first place, name is not even a rumour let alone cofirmed. I'll admit to be a New Order fan, and theres no way that London Records have confirmed -anything- yet. Kiand 23:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Same as above. Edwardian 23:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 00:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ral315 14:44, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

BasicFunge[edit]

No Google whatsoever. Wasn't this deleted once before? - Lucky 6.9 23:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable and unverifiable. Soltak 23:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's actually demonstrated that it's a serious & notable programming language ... Ben-w 00:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. I'm serious about this language, and I feel it's quite notable; No previous Funge has used scalar variables, nor variables of any type. Ayelis (Original Author) 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment could you cite sources of where this language is used? Has anyone been writing about it? Is there any uptake of it? It looks like a pet project, rather than a fully-fledged language that survives in the wild. Prove me wrong, I'll change my vote. Ben-w 17:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not used at the moment. At least two people have had the idea, AND have posted such an idea to Wikipedia. This means that somewhere else in the world, there are people like myself who not only realize that such a creature should exist, but also that it should gain attention. It has caught on in individual minds, and been repeatedly stomped out by the users of Wikipedia because the people attempting to present it, like myself, have no clue what Wiki is about, quite obviously. Wikipedia is not a place to share new ideas, but to share old ones. Halfbakery is a place to share new ideas that nobody plans on actually bringing into fruition. I'm imagining sourceforge is a sort of place to bring about programming ideas that people plan to do things with. And perhaps FreshMeat is the place to bring the completed projects to test their 'wilderness survival rating', and gain enough support so that they can gain recognition on Wikipedia. Forgive my impertinence at scrawling a witty footnote in your encyclopedia. I realize only now that one can't change history by editing the history books. Wasn't quite sure what this place was, I guess. Feel free to delete. I've saved the Wiki-delimited source text for future reference. Ayelis (Original Author) 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The language was created just this year, and its primer is hosted on a LiveJournal page. ral315 14:45, 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. Dmcdevit·t 07:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mengle[edit]

Delete nn vanity. I put up for speedy but another user removed the tag so here it is. Among other things the article describes Mengle insulting his friends and coming up with math jokes. Oh, and having magic rays, I suppose that can be considered a claim to notability. TheMidnighters 23:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 talk 00:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possible joke/insult page. Kappa 02:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -D. Wu 03:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 08:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nahnebahwequa[edit]

This article seems like original research on a historical, Native American subject. Contributed by an anon, it surely falls under WP:NOT. Delete. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 23:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I would originally have felt inclined to mark it for copyediting, but a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any references for the subject. Sadly, I must vote delete; it is clear that said anon has obviously put a lot of effort into the article, and Google searching doesn't show it to be a copvio. Nonetheless, clearly original research, and thus must be deleted.
  • Establish source, or delete. This looks to me like a paper someone wrote for another purpose and then pasted into Wikipedia. Now, if we can establish that (a) the content is sufficiently documented to be considered not original research, and (b) the author of the piece is willing to release content under the GFDL, I see no reason for a (considerably) revised version to appear here. -Joshuapaquin 00:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad article, but a real Canadian historical figure. She is listed in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography as Nahnebahwequay (note y on the end); documented here. Needs major cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Wikipedia should have an article on her and this one, though needing a great deal of clean-up and copy-editing, is a very interesting start. There is a concern that it is a copyvio because it was obviously copy/pasted from somewhere but it doesn't seem to be an online source. If it's kept, I will volunteer to do a brutal copy-edit on it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This does not fall under the definition of original research (compare Nancy Ward), and with this many citations it doesn't have to be on Google. Gazpacho 17:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and brutally cleanup as per User:DoubleBlue offer. Subject is notable in the history of aboriginal land claims in Canada. Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry is here: [25]. This article is part of DoCB initiative project. I have added a link to the DoCB web site article to the wikipedia page. Luigizanasi 17:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. DS1953 06:02, August 11, 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, final vote 2 to 11. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 20:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Dissonants[edit]

This is a non-notable, unsigned, unproduced garage band. Tysto 23:45, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

  • (Keep) The Dissonants have already worked with Class E Records and are in discussions with them regarding future projects. As well, their EP will be released in the next month. Considering that they've written many songs & the fact that they're well known in the Montreal scene, they should not be deleted. --65.94.186.53 14:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- writing many unreleased songs and being anecdotally well-known in Montreal just doesn't cut it. See WP:MUSIC. Ben-w 00:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because their sound is difficult to pigeonhole. -- BD2412 talk 00:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete band vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wait until the EP has become a hit. Osomec 06:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why are we deleting this entry? Is it because this band is guilty of "vanity"? I thought that Wikipedia was about documenting real things, not just "hits" or bands that can be "pigeonholed". Agreed, they're not on Muchmusic or playing on the radio, but does that make them unworthy of being in Wikipedia?--70.80.127.229 11:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does, actually. Wikipedia is not a personal website or a compendium of all human knowledge. An encyclopedia documents only notable bands, buildings, inventions, people, bridges, films, religions, companies, art movements, video games, and so on; not every single one. This band can have their own website practically for free. If they become popular (or notorious), Wikipedia will welcome them. --Tysto 13:16, 2005 August 10 (UTC)
    • It's nothing to do with their genre or pigeonholing or how good you think they are. Has anyone outside the band and its friends written about them? Heard of them? Are their records available anywhere? Have they done any serious touring? Consult WP:MUSIC and ask yourself honestly how the band measures up to the criteria. Genre don't enter into it. Ben-w 17:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bandcruft. ral315 14:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity as above and etc. --Several Times 15:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Into the delete bin with you boys. And take Launie Anderssohn with you. Bearcat 06:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like the Dissonants are being deleted. They shall return! (Nice to see that most of the Deleters are non-notable, in their own right.) :)--65.94.244.215 01:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_9&oldid=1081091767"