Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 11 July 13 >

July 12[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. Postdlf 22:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Green users[edit]

Similar pages are on review on VfD now (see arguments made in favor of deletion of Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state), so in the interests of consistency, this one should be up for review too.

Encyclopedic? No. Notable? No. Deletable? Yes. Dave63 13:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Freedom of assembly. Surely anything beginning with the "Wikipedia:" prefix doesn't need to meet encyclopedic criteria for notability in any case, because they're not articles, they're internal housekeeping. (Anyway, why shouldn't people be allowed to affinitize openly? They'll do it anyway.) QuartierLatin 1968 14:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. I was wrong. keep --Dave63 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why shouldn't people be allowed to murder? They'll do it anyway.
      • Ah, but this is a different scenario – people associating with one another on the basis of shared affinities does not, in itself, constitute any infringement on anybody else's rights (unlike murder). Given that, the process might as well be open, because secret arrangements are more likely to develop a nefarious character. QuartierLatin 1968 17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. These lists are generally harmless, but it wouldn't really matter if they were deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless an explanatory paragraph is created to explain what is meant by Green instead of relegating that to the Talk page. Of course, that might make the page POV, which might prompt a different response. --Habap 15:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this not obvious to you from the comments on the page? And this is in the Wikipedia: namespace, it's not an encyclopedia article, so there no reason for it to comply with NPOV. — Trilobite (Talk) 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it asking that much to have someone put it on the page instead of having to read the Talk page discussion to infer what is meant? --Habap 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, it is obvious from what is said on the page. Not the talk page, the page itself. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't articles normally start with an explanatory paragraph? I am unwilling to read each users comments to learn what Green means to them. Of course, you don't have to satisfy me, since most people seem in favor of keeping. If it gets an introductory paragraph explaining what Green means, I'll change my vote. And yes, I am this dim and stubborn. --Habap 16:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I'm worried about how Wikipedia seems to be made up of different cliques, and I don't think this helps. --Scimitar 16:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Wikipedia:Wikipedians interested in environmental topics, open up to those with all POVs. David | Talk 21:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Yellow users Keep/rename as above. Radiant_>|< 21:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and wouldn't object to rename since "green" could mean enironmentally friendly or a member of the Green Party. Cburnett 00:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I fear the day that Wikipedia develops a "Neo-Fascist Wikipedian" group, because my internal ACLU Devil's advocate would insist on having all real groups or no groups. I agree with Scimitar that to delete this now only causes friction. Xoloz 03:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedia:Wikipedians interested in environmental topics 24.60.163.16 05:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does not meet the deletion criteria as far as I can tell. Guettarda 05:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all other attempts at political organizing in Wikipedia namespace. -- Visviva 12:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename; when I first saw the name I thought it meant "green" as in "new;" Wikipedians can catagorize themselves. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Makes me wonder if Trilobite was correct when he said Again, it is obvious from what is said on the page. --Habap 16:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a better title. Wikipedia:Wikipedians interested in environmental topics sounds good to me. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 03:15:33 Z
  • keep: and add an intro... Ombudsman 04:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Forming communities of users is part of keeping a site like Wikipedia going. Almafeta 07:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in svalbard[edit]

Unencylopedic, possibly nonsense. I can't seem to find a use for this. Delete. Natalinasmpf 00:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally unnecessary. Gwk 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not encyclopedic. Jaxl 00:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Svalbard. My mistake... after Googling some of the supposed county names, does appear to be hoax/nonsense. Delete. Dcarrano 00:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, encyclopedic title but patent nonsense. - Mustafaa 01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, total nonsense without any frame of reference. - Thatdog 01:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax -mysekurity 01:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detel hoax. This guy keeps writing entries like these, all are hoaxes. royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nonsense. jni 05:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Mgm|(talk) 08:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Complete nonsense, never heard of the places Manik Raina 08:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comet 7[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. About 43 unique Google hits for "Comet 7" webcomic -wikipedia, Alexa rank 403,889. — Gwalla | Talk 00:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 00:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn webcomic, WP:NOT a webdirectory. -Splash 00:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -mysekurity 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. jni 05:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 07:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removing this would be contrary to the very essence which Wikipedia thrives on. This is information about something; even if you guys haven't heard about it does not mean that it's not "worthy" of being on Wikipedia. All information is worthy of being here. Havok 16:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shall I write an article on my coffee mug? I could write an informative, NPOV article of at least two paragraphs on it. --Carnildo 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Havok on this one. --Briangotts 18:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Phoenix2 18:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete essentially nothing there you wouldn't know by looking at the comic -- if you cared about it anyway. Derex 20:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics --Carnildo 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* Comet 7 is fairly well known in the webcomic community and a google search fo "Comet 7 Webcomic" retuned around 3,470 hits and a search for just "Comet 7" returns around 3,170,000 hits JCS 22:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • WTF? "comic 7 Webcomic" got we one google hit. This page. Are you forgetting the quotes? Anyway delete. Webcomics and blogs, being self-published, need a very high level of notability. This is why we don't include vanity press authors in general. -R. fiend 15:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Technically, neither of those search strings is useful. Comet 7 webcomic without the quotes will get everything with the word Comet, the number 7, and the word webcomic anywhere in the text; "Comet 7 webcomic" will exclude any mention of "Comet 7" that isn't immediately followed by the word "webcomic" (the phrase "Comet 7 webcomic" doesn't seem like it would be common even if the comic were popular). — Gwalla | Talk 00:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I wouldn't have even bothered searching "comet 7 webcomic" if it weren't for JCS's unlikely result. I didn't mean to imply that my search was supposed to mean anything, just that his was defective. Certainly comet 7 without quotes would yield literally millions of results that have nothing to do with this comic. -R. fiend 04:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is the sole reason I hate it when people use either Alexe og Google to verify if something is "popular" or not. Ex. My site is ranked 600,000 on Alexa but is the biggest Anime and Manga community in Norway, we have well over 1 million hits each month, and for a Norwegian site that's good. Havok 07:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Day[edit]

"Fictional holiday" from a webcomic, which is not notable outside of the context of the comic itself. — Gwalla | Talk 00:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 00:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. but add a mention if we must to Neko the Kitty if not there already. Do this in such a way as not need to hold on to the redirect. -Splash 00:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's already there. — Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent! In that case this can be merrily deleted. -Splash 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -mysekurity 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stop with the nn webcomics. royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. jni 05:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable fictional holiday. JamesBurns 07:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite about Meat Day in Kingdom of Loathing.  Grue  19:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four Panels Of Fun[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. Started this year, only 12 installments so far, Alexa rank for entire site (comic is in a subdirectory) 441,695. — Gwalla | Talk 00:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 00:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable yet. -Splash 00:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Stop with the webcomics, already! -mysekurity 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed. these webcomic entries are all nn and annoying royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. webcomic. jni 05:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable webcomic. JamesBurns 07:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Removing this would be contrary to the very essence which Wikipedia thrives on. This is information about something; even if you guys haven't heard about it does not mean that it's not "worthy" of being on Wikipedia. All information is worthy of being here. Havok 16:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Havok. --Briangotts 18:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability & no content. Derex 20:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails the guidelines at WikiProject Webcomics --Carnildo 21:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 13:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, basically the same reasoning for Comet 7, above. Also no content. -R. fiend 15:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tobolowsky[edit]

Nonsensical, I can't possibly see how this would be encylopedic. In any case, it's probably non-notable. Delete. Natalinasmpf 00:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. In any event, Google turns up both a columnist at a Brown University student newspaper and a high school senior in Texas with that name. Gwk 00:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. --Atratus 00:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 00:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity. -mysekurity 01:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When proposal 1 passes we can speedy this shit. -R. fiend 02:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 07:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I speedied this two times yesterday... Thue | talk 10:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and block IP. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for above reasons--Bhadani 14:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Briangotts 18:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the guy is persistent... StopTheFiling 21:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn teen vanity nonsense. --Etacar11 23:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and speedily so. Moncrief 21:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like fiction. ElleBigelow 05:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hah, don't kid me. Runix 17:57, 15 July 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. Postdlf 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kill gimp volume one[edit]

Delete, Non-notable, advertising Atratus 00:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense. I think this article is some kind of joke. Gwk 00:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either non-notable self-produced film or more likely, hoax. Dcarrano 00:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Damn you and your edit conflicts! -Splash 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no Google hits at all. Very possibly a hoax, or if not just a woeful ad. -Splash 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn vanity or perhaps hoax. -mysekurity 01:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I tried to get it speedied. Oh, well. Delete. Please. - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Briangotts 18:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax or really bad student film. StopTheFiling 21:22, July 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. Postdlf 22:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Efron[edit]

Non-notable; does not attempt to identify said person, badly written; that said - Delete. Natalinasmpf 00:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn, practically no context. -Splash 00:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep barely in light of the research. -Splash 00:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jaxl 00:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. He is apparently a regular on a drama that airs on a US-wide network during prime time, and his IMDb discussion board[1] has four pages. Given that, it's still close but I think that does squeak by. Dcarrano 00:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per Dcarrano. -mysekurity 01:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest Keep Ever. The encylopedic notability of most shows on America's WB network is pretty marginal, but I don't want to start on that slippery slope. Fernando Rizo 02:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Questionable nomination. Article clearly identifies said person, although it is badly written and notability is borderline. Pburka 03:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Barely notable. royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs cleanup. Sirmob 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline notable but this article is a sub-stub. JamesBurns 07:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but cleanup ASAP. --Briangotts 18:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per royblumy and Briangotts. StopTheFiling 21:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after the cleanup I've done. ral315 22:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done Ral315. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fine, just barely scrapes by on notability. --Etacar11 00:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WB network. 24.60.163.16 05:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arevich 20:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. Almafeta 07:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 16:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender wig[edit]

POV, non-notable, unenyclopedic. I don't think this will ever be a fruitful article. Delete. Natalinasmpf 00:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like nonsense or a possible hoax. Gwk 00:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax/unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:23, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable (and perhaps hoax/nn?) No real use for this -mysekurity 01:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense. jni 05:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 07:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Minimal content, context. --Scimitar 14:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 22:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellingham Slam[edit]

Poor definition, does not attempt to make itself a reasonable stub. Could have been a fruitful topic, but alas, I don't even seem to get the context? Weak delete. Natalinasmpf 00:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and make into stub. The article references the website of the subject basketball team. Gwk 01:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Link within article seems to make context clear. Dcarrano 01:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per above two reasons. -mysekurity 01:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand as per above. royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per above. --Briangotts 18:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently, modern ABA "market rights" can be purchased for $10,000 to $20,000. As such, I'm not certain how notable any modern ABA team is prior to actually putting a team on the floor. Note, if you have $75, you can try out for the Slam! --Habap 21:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand It's a stub that can be expanded. --Neigel von Teighen 21:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand Its definately expandable. --Djsasso 22:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DTA[edit]

Nonsense? Real abbreviation or not? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google brings up the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance [2], as well as the Development Trusts Association [3]. I can't say whether these are notable or not. Gwk 01:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The Development Trusts Association may be notable, but if there is no content in this article it's not worth keeping. If anyone has any information about the Development Trusts Association that IS notable then they could just re-create the article. --Atratus 01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atratus. Dcarrano 01:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Atratus and Dcarrano. -mysekurity 01:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Atratus, Dcarrano, mysekurity royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thermal analysis. DTA is the abbreviation for Differential thermal analysis (which is a redirect). JamesBurns 08:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment AcronymFinder shows 33 matches to this acronym; I don't know any of them to be far more commonly understood than the others. Although a disambig page could be made, I say go with the one the article itself suggests... Dcarrano 08:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • A disambig page would be nice, but it needs content first - delete per Atratus and Dcarrano. StopTheFiling 21:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree that a redirect or disambig. is not wise when there is minimal content for any meaning of the abbreviation. Xoloz 03:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or DAB if someone creates an article on any of the DTAs that are out there. Vegaswikian 06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per request by author and voters supporting that. jni 05:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuohkgp[edit]

Spam for for some non-notable organization. --Canderson7 01:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, or else nonsense and/or a hoax. Gwk 01:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to have all the information it could have, I am sorry for spamming. Please accept my apologies. AlexJohnc3 21:23, 11 July 2005 (EST)
  • Speedy, as its own creator has even blanked it. -mysekurity 01:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per above. royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as vandalism and/or patent nonsense. jni 06:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Yegi by population[edit]

Unencylopedic, poor context; I can't possibly see how this could be useful. Delete. Natalinasmpf 01:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted as patent nonsense/hoax. Yegi's not a state and nothing listed is a county. --FCYTravis 01:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as vandalism. jni 05:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Hezmiet[edit]

Rather nonsensical data about apparently a non-notable fictional state; well, doesn't seem encylopedic in any case. Delete. Natalinasmpf 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Volpe[edit]

Delete Non notable teen vanity, like his friend Thomas DiRenzo. --Etacar11 01:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. --Canderson7 01:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 01:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. nn tean vanity on both. I prescribe moving page to author's own userpage or something. -mysekurity 01:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per above. Jaxl 02:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. vanity. jni 05:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable teen vanity. JamesBurns 08:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal bio page of nn person.- Mgm|(talk) 08:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, is a signed article points it out even more. -- Natalinasmpf 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Briangotts 18:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the author has spelling issues regarding his own name...not saying that's a deletable offense, but it really doesn't help. StopTheFiling 22:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like a listing for a dating service. --Madchester 06:06, July 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. Postdlf 22:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nolan[edit]

Pre-teen vanity WCFrancis 01:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and your little redirect too.--WCFrancis 01:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. --Canderson7 01:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 01:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Never thought I'd see "preteen vanity", but here it is. Cousin of a famous musician or not, still nn. (Maybe should his cousins redirect to their band?) -mysekurity 01:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 02:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 05:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. vanity. jni 05:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An icon? How? BTW, he's 14 according to the article. Why would that be pre-teen? - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Oops. My math skills went comatose briefly. Either that or I thought it was 2002. Sorry. --WCFrancis 02:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kakawaka[edit]

Vanity. Nothing on allmusic (hardly surprising for a noise artist). Delete. -R. fiend 01:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 01:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 01:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn unverifiable vanity. -mysekurity 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Lots of google hits, but mostly seems to be self-promotion. I did find a third party review at [4], though, indicating that the albums are actually available. Pburka 03:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity royblumy 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kawakawa as viable misspelling? Grutness...wha? 10:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. That's probably a bit of a stretch. -R. fiend 21:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you read Grutness' sentence aloud, it almost deserves BJOD... :) not saying its a bad idea though. Xoloz 03:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Right now, it's vanity. I'll change my vote if someone adds info about notability. Almafeta 07:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Grey[edit]

Individual character from moderately popular webcomic. Doesn't say much that isn't already in the article on The Wotch. Would not be a useful redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 01:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 01:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In agreement with nominator. Is the webcomic even notable?? -mysekurity 02:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I believe it squeaks by the webcomics inclusion guidelines. — Gwalla | Talk 02:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete nn. royblumy 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other vanity fancruft on the same subject: Anne Onymous, Robin Ericson. Delete all. -Sean Curtin 05:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. fancruft. jni 05:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable fancruft. JamesBurns 08:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most webcomic characters fall below my low bar for fancruft notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Vixens[edit]

Advert for non-notable comic (only about 48 pages, no Alexa rank). — Gwalla | Talk 01:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toerag[edit]

This is a slang dicdef without potential. There was a previous VfD discussion that ended in "no consensus" (even though all the votes were for delete and move to Wiktionary). Already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 01:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. I fail to see how 2 deletes and a tranwiki turns into a keep. -R. fiend 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. In agreement with R. fiend and nominator. -mysekurity 02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per above. royblumy 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already in wiktionary. JamesBurns 08:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all dic defs. - Mgm|(talk) 08:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- for above reasons.--Bhadani 15:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nugatory[edit]

WP:WINAD. This is a dicdef that has already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 01:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Implicature[edit]

WP:WINAD. This is a dicdef that has already been transwikied. Delete. --Dmcdevit 01:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obviously a definition only, and has already been transwikified, so it's not really needed... -mysekurity 02:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. royblumy 05:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. jni 06:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Io[edit]

This is an unfunished game project, which has been in works for 4 years, and which the article says may never be finished. Dsmdgold 01:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable. Gwk 01:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator and gwk (nn). -mysekurity 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. royblumy 05:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Games are only worthy of inclusion if:
  1. It's highly anticipated by a major developer.
  2. Is actually on the market and playable.
This is neither. - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • comment. As I stated below, the (admittedly low) notability is established not by virtue of this being a video game, but by virtue of it being a unique project. Dystopos 23:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -- Natalinasmpf 12:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should we remove Duke Nukem Forever from Wikipedia aswell, I don't think it's anticipated by anyone anymore. Havok 16:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to speak for Mgm, but I suspect that his conditions should be read with an or between points 1 and 2. I assume that Duke Nukem Forever is, or has been, on the market, and is playable. Dsmdgold 01:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • No, Duke Nukem Forever has been in development for 8 years, I remember I was excited about this game when I was 16 years old. They have changed engine 6 times or something, and the game has NEVER been shown to the public. The only thing that has been shown was some pictures of it 6 years ago. Havok 09:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems, then, that it is part of a series of popular games, which would make it highly anticipated. The level of detail of your knowledge of the development of the game would also indicate that it was highly anticipated, even if most people have now lost hope of it coming out. 'The Fate of Io has never had anybody excited about its possible release. Dsmdgold 14:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Duke Nukem Forever is a special case, having become quite infamous for its status as vaporware. Fate of Io is in the same vein, much less famous, but slightly notable for being a pioneering open-source project and a somewhat unique community. I've made some changes to the article. I can't say it's notable, but it is verifiable and NPOV.Dystopos 23:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgm. Dcarrano 22:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team Quest[edit]

Unencyclopedic, possibly vanity page. Delete. g026r 02:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. -mysekurity 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 05:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable promo. JamesBurns 08:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One-sentence articles should be speedy criteria. Almafeta 07:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as short contentless article. jni 05:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Myers[edit]

This page is obviously vanity and should be deleted. Peter1219 | Talk 02:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

whats a vanity page? I dont think this should be deleted. Ō

A vanity page is an article that is written about a non-notable subject, usually one affiliated with the author, whose only purpose is promotion. And you're only stating this article should stay because you're its author, as your IP page shows: Special:Contributions/68.46.196.69

  • Delete and sugguest that the user copy this to his userpage. -mysekurity 02:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if possible, else delete. Dcarrano 03:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, nn royblumy 05:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As per royblumy --Atratus 05:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedy deleted it. Entire content was: "Hello welcome to the page about me. Please call me "Tim" becuz thats like a lot cooler than Timothy. Anyway I'm cool... more coming later." jni 05:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Appleton[edit]

Non-notable webcomic. Alexa rank 1,055,991. — Gwalla | Talk 02:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain SNES: The Game Masta[edit]

Non-notable sprite comic. Alexa rank 1,971,003. — Gwalla | Talk 02:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Religion/Brian Baker Interview[edit]

Text dump of an interview; not encyclopedic. tregoweth 03:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Has no context whatsoever. Gwk 03:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. royblumy 05:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. jni 05:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Check the "what links here". It's not meant to be an article, hence it being on the subpage. It's a piece of text used in a discussion on Talk:Bad Religion posted by User:Irishpunktom just yesterday. Maybe it needs userfying or moving to a sub of the talk, but I should definitely be kept in some form. - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The main namespace doesn't have subpages. For example, AC/DC is not a subpage of AC. As R. fiend mentions below, it still appears in Special:Random. —Markaci 2005-07-14 T 03:24:07 Z
  • Delete wikipedia is not a webhost, mabye wikisource would have it?--nixie 08:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to wikisource -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not for wikipedia anyway. And sub-pages are still pages. They still come up in "random page", for instance. -R. fiend 16:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just Move it - I left it there as a reference so as people could see. It was never intended to be an article in it's own right. Considering I conducted the interview, would I be right in thinking that any edit i made based on it could be considered Origianl Research ?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 speedy deleted. GarrettTalk 12:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the Couch[edit]

Looks like nonsense. Gwk 03:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 and recreate as redirect. Postdlf 00:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery and Islam[edit]

Delete. This page is apparently a POV fork of the much older Islam and slavery article, likely created to get around the block placed on that article while disputes are resolved. -- BD2412 talk 03:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 03:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- essentially duplicates title by inverting it, hard to see that happening by accident. Seems like an attempt to evade editing block and avoid collaboration or NPOV discussions. BrandonYusufToropov 03:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above. royblumy 05:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Human rights in the United States in hopes of creating matter-antimatter collision eliminating both articles and removing unsightly POV. -EDM 05:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Islam and slavery, POV fork. (Also note that there is a Slavery in Abrahamic religions article as well.) Dcarrano 05:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the content, then if possible, redirect this page title to the already established article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete and redirect. as per BD2412. --Eliezer 11:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Islam and slavery so that people will be watching it and it won't happen again. gren 11:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Axon 13:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested by gren - jamesgibbon 14:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. — RJH 16:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what is salvagable and redirect. --Briangotts 18:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then Redirect. ~~~~ 19:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that the above redirect votes mean the same thing - the content is not worth keeping in the redirect history. -- BD2412 talk 20:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too POV to keep. Xunflash 20:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, per gren and BD. StopTheFiling 22:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect against recreation. POV fork. -Splash 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect per above. Sneaky naughty editors, these! Xoloz 03:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Islam and slavery. JamesBurns 04:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Islam and slavery. I oppose the attempt to whitewash articles about Islam in wikipedia though. 24.60.163.16 05:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect. Almafeta 07:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islam and Slavery. Deleting without merging would be censorship. The islam and Slavery article is nothing but a bad apologia and whitewash, with very few facts and a lot of drivel about how Islam always "wanted" to abolish slavery - but didn't. Islamic states were major slave states and slave-raiding states (in Africa, and Europe) throughout their history, right up to the modern era.
  • The articles need to be merged. Both are very POV from opposite directions. --Xandar 15:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not "merge" the articles, but delete both, as none contain useeful information. I do not believe that an article concerning slavery and any religion can be useful as an encyclopedic article. The very nature of the subject makes it inevitable that it will be treated as something evangelizing/editorial/apologetic. See my notes on the talk page for Islam_and_slavery. --itpastorn 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islam and Slavery. The disputed page is a strong POV against Islam but the Islam and Slavery page is the polar opposite, essentially Islamic propoganda, only a whitewash and quotes from Islamic books. It will be near impossible to create a NPOV article as Itpastorn has said. The only other potential is to create one page and give one half to the critics and one half to the apologetics. Barneygumble 17:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as vandalism. jni 06:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of litecoveria city neighborhoods by per capita income[edit]

Nonsense, Hoax. Delete.maclean25 03:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Created by a known maker of garbage articles. Gwk 03:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. royblumy 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, lists about fictional places guy again. Dcarrano 05:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ILTRCOMA[edit]

"The band has yet to release any recordings through any record lables, (although quite frankly, with that talent...heh, it won't take too long.)" Good luck guys, but your time has not yet come.

The anon who created this article first put ILTRCOMA and band member Owens O'Brien (billed as "Overall Cool guy") on the Roosevelt Island article as notable residents underneath "Grandpa" Al Lewis.

BTW, "Damn, I can hear them from all the way outside."--Pharos 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -maclean25 04:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn royblumy 05:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quote was taken from a public saftey officer complaining about the noise who actually said that. Initially posted with that language, article is slowly being cleaned up. -poster 12:43, 12 July 2005 (From 216.194.4.98, with 9 total edits, 2 here and 7 to featured article)
    • The problem isn't the quote (that's fine, it's entertaining). The thing is, we have a policy against having articles on bands that haven't recorded anything (there would be an unlimited number of them). Good luck, though, and when I first hear you on the radio, you can be sure I'll write the article myself.--Pharos 05:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, alright no problem here -poster 01:42, 12 July 2005 (From 216.194.4.98, with 9 total edits, 3 here and 7 to featured article)
  • Delete. Not notable, POV. Fire Star 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is a matter of opinion, although it may not be notable to us...it has some notability. Lewser 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(actually from 68.161.107.151 with 5 total edits: 3 to Roosevelt Island, 1 to ILTRCOMA, 1 here)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 snipe hunt. Info is already in snipe hunt, so all that remains is the redirect. -- BD2412 talk 00:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Turn signal fluid[edit]

An element of bad jokes (not even an entire joke in itself) —Mulad (talk) 04:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Nonsense. royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per royblumy. Dcarrano 06:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to snipe hunt, where this sort of joke is covered in more detail. Kaibabsquirrel 15:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Kaibabsquirrel. StopTheFiling 22:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODNify and delete. It doesn't really fit with snipe hunt. ral315 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN an old joke. JamesBurns 04:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redir to snipe hunt. Radiant_>|< 09:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redir to snipe hunt ("turn signal fluid" is already mentioned on said page). FWIW, this is quite clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion. It is not nonsense – snipe hunt or surreal humour are just expanded versions of the same theme. Rl 18:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church innovation[edit]

Unencylcopedic, POV. Delete. maclean25 04:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. royblumy 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, personal essay. Dcarrano 06:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism and oxymoron. Churches rarely believe in innovating accepted theological doctrine. JamesBurns 08:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 23:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey of Kells[edit]

Keep the rewrite. This is a hoax. There was an Abbey of Kells, but this article is about a non-existent baseball player, not the medieval monastery. The article was created on June 16, 2005, the same day that the Book of Kells was the FA on the Main Page. "Abbey of Kells" was a red link from that page. Google search for "Abbey of Kells" + tigers, turns up no relevent hits. Dsmdgold 03:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Nonsense. royblumy 05:25 12 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Keep after rewrite. Dcarrano 15:07, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax, and even if it was true Wikipedia is not a memorial. JamesBurns 08:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have rewritten the article so that it refers to the Abbey not the bogus baseball player. It is a significant site due to the Book of Kells and St Columba's shrine was also moved there but was destroyed in Viking raids. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Good save, Capitalistroadster! Grutness...wha? 10:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the rewrite seems more reasonable. gren 11:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the rewrite. *Dan* 12:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep nice rewrite. --Etacar11 00:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sonitus 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Wile E. Heresiarch. —Stormie 10:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

John kupczack[edit]

I believe John kupczack is not notable. I cannot find a substantial reference to the name in the media or on the web. --Mysidia 04:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Syndicate Bank[edit]

Copy and Paste from its website.

  • Delete maclean25 04:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio, and ad. Dcarrano 06:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio (if we delete it here instead of the copyvio department next door, it will be gone sooner. ) jni 06:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertising, copyvio. JamesBurns 08:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvios should be handled at WP:CP--this is policy. If you don't like the policy, work to change it instead of circumventing it. --Tabor 18:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Insanity[edit]

Delete, non-notable website, advertising Atratus 04:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Atratus -maclean25 04:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 06:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Atratus. --Benna 07:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 08:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Insanity. Would be a moderately useful redirect and then this would be less likely to happen again. gren
  • Delete and recreate as a redirect to insanity. -- BD2412 talk 17:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, then redirect per above. Xoloz 03:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was very surprised this was about a website (and nothing more) rather than legal or psychiatric diagnosis. Peter Grey 16:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Game Stars[edit]

Non-notable small forum that has 19 members. Google found just one link from other domains to this. jni 05:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jni. Dcarrano 06:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable forum. JamesBurns 08:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable forum in the extreme.- Mgm|(talk) 08:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - for reasons cited above.--Bhadani 14:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above... "Butts, cunts and boobs?" 24.62.216.200
  • Speedy Delete -- It is clearly an advert. I placed a speedy delete tag on it some time ago, and it was removed by the person who created the article. I wonder what part of "but do not remove this notice from an article that you have created yourself." these folks have difficulty understanding? --Mysidia 20:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet standard for forum inclusion (1K members). Almafeta 07:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Damned[edit]

Link spam for a nonnotable webcomic. Google estimates 28 unique hits for "Slightly Damned" webcomic. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Alexa 423,371 + < 100 strips in archive = fails both WP:COMIC proposals. Dcarrano 06:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable web comic. —Stormie 10:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- BD2412 talk 17:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet webcomic guidelines. Calling it "link spam" doesn't seem warranted, however; this seems to be a good-faith, if misguided, effort. — Gwalla | Talk 21:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Westboro[edit]

This article is an unsourced attack page. Google returns no results for "Gospel of Westboro", and no meaningful results from a search for the same phrase without quotation marks. Please delete it soon. NatusRoma 06:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Westboro Baptist Church, Brent D. Roper, and Members of Westboro Baptist Church. Somebody went to a lot of effort writing these. -maclean25 06:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, hoax and/or rant. Dcarrano 06:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be verified and NPOV'ed. But somehow I wouldn't be surprised if it were all true. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 08:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Westboro Baptist Church is a genuine organization and, while this article is heavily POV, the information provided therein is factual. WBC and Fred Phelps have made mention in the press, particularly in regards to the death of Matthew Shepard. Should be cleaned up a bit to fit Wikipedia standards, however. ThePurpleBuddha 18:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right about the Westboro Baptist Church article. However, the content of Gospel of Westboro is presently unverifiable, and thus should be deleted. NatusRoma 00:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the way they proselytize, I'd say that the gospel of Westboro is one of the most verifiable articles we have on Wikipedia... Almafeta 09:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any evidence that they consider their writings to be a 'gospel'? I'd love to keep this article if there's any truth to it, but claiming that they consider their writings to be "a legitimate addition to the canonical gospels" is a very big step from simply asserting that those writings exist. You're right, the activities of WBC are generally extremely public; so if there was a 'Gospel of Westboro' I'd expect it to have been heavily covered in the print and online media; in fact, Google finds no web pages mentioning the term. TSP 14:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Currently unverifiable due to lack of cited sources. Also has POV problems. However, the other articles are legit: the Westboro Baptist Church does get a (disproportionately) large amount of coverage in the media due to their enthusiastic nationwide demonstrating and outspoken homophobia. — Gwalla | Talk 22:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so weak anymore. The title seems to be an original creation of the3 article author. — Gwalla | Talk 00:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete severe verifiability problems, POV bordering on rant. -Splash 01:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html. The lower lefthand corner has the WBC epics. The letters to heretics are here. I will post the links in the article. I hope after seeing that this is true and not a hoax that you will all repeal your votes. - anonymous entry by 69.154.189.180
    The existence of Westboro Baptist Church, the "epics" and the letters is certainly true; but you don't seem to have provided any evidence that the church considers these to be part of a 'gospel'; and, as has been said, a google for "Gospel of Westboro" finds no results. Mention of the epics and letters may well belong in the Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka) article, but I've seen as yet no reason to believe that there is any "gospel" to write about. TSP 13:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CONDENSE, MERGE INTO WBC, AND DELETE . THIS IS JUST...ahem. This is just Phelps-cruft, mildly interesting but not worth an entiire article. --Calton | Talk 05:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge provable material into the WBC article and Delete, though any valid material could go into Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka). WBC is real, noteworthy and all that, but I've seen no source to suggest that this "gospel" exists. Writing some letters does not a gospel make. TSP 13:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Merge and delete" is usually considered an invalid vote. — Gwalla | Talk 00:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, good point. This is a bit of an unusual case; there may be some valid content in the article - in that it mentions the Epics and letters, which do exist; but the subject the article is on doesn't seem to have any validity, so it should not be a redirect and no material should be moved into the WBC article in its current context. Changed to a delete as there doesn't seem to be an option acheiving exactly what I want :-) TSP 00:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Westboro Baptist Church. Almafeta 07:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QuestWar[edit]

Not notable, sounds like a promo to me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, assumption of non-notability for MUDs not disproven. Dcarrano 06:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Only 325 Google hits, about half are duplicates of Wikipedia. Article contains no claim to any notability. --A D Monroe III 22:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn MUDcruft. -Splash 01:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Kings[edit]

I went on Canadian Google,[5], no mention of a gang. Most of the hits I get are lyics to a song by Kelis. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable, User:ViolenceMachine also created Los Malvados which might not be notable. --TheMidnighters 08:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established, possible hoax. JamesBurns 08:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Hey, I was the member of a small street gang when I was a kid (at least, we called ourselves a gang), and you don't see an article on that. --Deathphoenix 13:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (BTW, If my new sig is annoying anyone, tell me) ·Zhatt· 16:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. --Etacar11 00:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stick in the Mud (game)[edit]

Not notable. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, assumption of MUD non-notableness not overcome. Dcarrano 15:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Stick in the mud is a very well known game in the UK. but this isn't it. Delete ~~~~ 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We could do with an article on that game if you're volunteering ;-) - Lochaber 15:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but perhaps redirect to tag, as there was a version with this name that could be added to the page. -R. fiend 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind, the game I was thinking of is "Stuck in the mud". -R. fiend 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the page title said stick in the mud (game), thus it can be deceving. However, if yall want to write an article on the actual game itself, fine by me. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jenoah[edit]

Un-notable band, article written by the bands record company promotions guy, see the talk page (he also claims to be the author of said text). This king of self-promotion through Wikipedia shouldn't be encouraged. --nixie 07:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It looks like a copyvio from here [6]. Copyright tag listed at bottom of article. promo for a non notable band. JamesBurns 08:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn band promo. --TheMidnighters 09:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad/fails WP:MUSIC. Dcarrano 15:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant self-promotion. --Etacar11 00:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix[edit]

This article is unencyclopedic. --65.27.65.24 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic. --Benna 07:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable account of journalistic usage --Dave.Dunford 07:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But I'd like to see someone go through the list and weed out terms not used by the press. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. Stick -gate on any word and you have a conspiracy, doesnt sound very encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Explains the -gate phenomenon and then lists quite a few examples, many of which seem to have their own articles. Might well contain some phonies, but a lot of people have added to the page over 2 years.
  • Keep. This article is a good reflection of the ridiculous overuse of the "-gate" suffix. — JIP | Talk 10:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to something like scandals, and the use of the "-gate" suffix and allow it to stand as a discussion of the phenomena with a moderate list of examples. I'm just fed up with lists, when interesting articles can be created --Doc (?) 12:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move, good articles and lists are not mutually exclusive. I agree that we should weed out any that have not been widely used by the mainstream press though. I wouldn't object to a title like Scandals suffixed with "-gate" or even just -gate which is the naming convention for suffixes and currently a redirect to this article. Thryduulf 13:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The first few paragraphs give the list an article to hold on to, so we can allow the list as part of a larger article. I agree with Thryduulf that lists and good articles are not mutually exclusive, since lists are part of good articles, but a list on its own is not any sort of article, and we shouldn't allow titles that suggests lists by themselves are articles, let alone good ones. The Literate Engineer 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shawinigate! --Scimitar 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup; ARTICLE NEEDS CITES. It is basically useless in this form, where anyone can add anything based on no evidence. I have never heard of the vast majority of the events listed here referred to as "-gates". There needs to be a link for every item on this list proving that it was in fact referred to in this manner. Dcarrano 15:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly agree with Dcarrano here. Uncle G 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, me too, but whoever went through adding all those 'Googlenews gives nothing' HTML comments didn't do the job properly: Google itself gives easy-peasy hits for at least the handful at the top of the list that I tried. Googlenews is not nearly as authoritative as either Google-proper or a proper news site e.g. the BBC or ABC or CNN -Splash 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google News is "Google itself", to differentiate it from "Google itself" and to say that it isn't as authoritative as the BBC, ABC, and CNN is to wholly misunderstand what it actually is. I notice that it's that very "handful at the top of the list" that you mention that don't have proper full news citations in the Wikipedia style for such things, unlike the other news citations in the article, but that instead comprise poorly labelled or even wholly unlabelled hyperlinks. I would say that doing "the job properly" is a task that that requires more thoroughness and takes longer than just slapping an unlabelled hyperlink in the article. Perhaps it is less easy-peasy than it seems. ☺ Uncle G 11:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I'm afraid I quite disagree. I've barely used Google news, so perhaps my comment on its authoritativeness was also non-authoritative. But that does not change the fact that Google did find easy-peasy hits for the ones I labelled, and Google News, apparently, did not. Searching BBC was pretty straightforward too. I'm not sure what you're after about hyperlinks/wikilinks. I just looked a few up quickly (and easily). I presume you're critcising my rather lazy way of incorporating the information; if you don't like it, {{sofixit}}. The "job" I referred to was checking the verifiability (which is what I presume was implied by the no-presence-on-google-news commetns) which has not been done properly, because they are easy to verify. The "job" you refer to is typing some words in the space after the hyperlink which probably even easier than searching properly. -Splash 13:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article has merit including relevent content as well as the list, and many links to existing articles (albeit quite a few stubs). Agree with desirability of citations but hey, it wouldn't be the first to do without and it would certainly be possible for anyone who felt strongly enough to add these in. Naturenet | Talk 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- might as well call it List of political scandals since 1973, since just about everything gets a "-gate" suffix these days. --Carnildo 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but cleanup -- encyclopedic (it's obviously a widespread phenomenon, as we all well know), but needs to be improved as per Mgm's and Dcarrano's comments. Microtonal 21:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thought: I heard some of these entries used by people on the ground, but not necessarily by the media writ large ("nipplegate", in particular). I think that widespread popular usage is equally as valid as media usage is. Microtonal 21:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepgate. Interesting list of notable scandals. Martg76 22:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is so (encyclopedic, that is). StopTheFiling 23:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a widely used suffix, and I found the first few of those dead easy to verify. -Splash 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no fan of lists, but this (often annoying) journalistic simplification is widely connected to many extremely notable events. Xoloz 03:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable list. 24.60.163.16 05:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, notable list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. Radiant_>|< 09:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually it is encyclopedic and it is an important and potentially useful list. Moncrief 21:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: Deleting this list could cause the first Wikigate. Ombudsman 04:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The article does not condone or condemn the practice of adding '-gate' to denote a scandal; and it provides a useful explanation and a fairly comprehensive directory. Garrick92 15:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is a good reflection of the ridiculous overuse of the "-gate" suffix.

iranon

  • Keep. Media history -- and the modern lexicon -- are certainly justifiable uses for Wiki entries.
  • Keep, lest this becomes a VfDgate. --Wwwwolf 07:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Emerald Kaluh[edit]

Personal message, vanity --maclean25 07:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, may or may not be vanity, but certainly non-notable. —Stormie 10:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 00:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kid chan[edit]

Not encyclopedic in nature. Self promotion (second vfd; first was incomplete) Dave.Dunford 07:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glosk[edit]

Promotion of non-notable website. Benna 08:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per above, especially as the article itself states that the site is not complete (Beta). --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with you both for now. I should wait until I finish the site. Sorry for any inconvenience. Jorang 09:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

City Jumper[edit]

Not the speedy it was tagged to be. Got 30600 google hits on "City Jumper" -"wikipedia". May be noteworthy. No vote here. - Mgm|(talk) 08:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete gamescruft. JamesBurns 08:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JamesBurns. Benna 09:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 30,600 google hits indicates a popular game. Kappa 10:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't be that popular of a game -- Google only lists 74 inbound links. "city jumper" isn't a useful phrase for Googling on. --Carnildo 21:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • 74 inbound links to what? And if "city jumper" isn't a useful phrase for googling, why are all the hits in the first three pages for this game? Did you even look? Kappa 10:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn gamecruft. --Scimitar 23:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn gamecruft. Relying on Google here is false as Carnildo points out. Also, Amazon does not find it in any of their categories. -Splash 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flash games are rarely considered notable here. Almafeta 07:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 01:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedian citizens of the world[edit]

In the VFD discussion on Wikipedia:Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state it has been noted that that article was created as a riposte to this one, which is just as objectionable. I agree: it's an organisation of Wikipedians by POV which can cause no end of problems. There is no such legal concept as a 'citizen of the world' at present. David | Talk 09:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Speedy Keep Although this is not my POV, what applies on the article namespace does not apply on the Wikipedia namespace. Also vote to keep Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Cognition 09:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per David. Benna 09:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I dunno, I'm not on the list, but I guess I'm basically a citizen of the world too. :-) It's a specific concept or state of mind, not so much a POV, rather more of a specific NPOV-ish stance. It appears to be a common feeling among expatriate-type-people. Anyway, the list is in the wikipedia namespace, where this sort of list might reside. It might be a bit dusty though! So if this list gets deleted, then I wouldn't support doing so for the reasons given by nominator above at least. Kim Bruning 10:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually dispute that it's an NPOV stance. Wikipedians by nationality is reasonable because your nationality is a fact, but this is different: it's an assertion of lack of interest in nationality, which is a POV. David | Talk 10:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being "agnostic" about nationality is a POV? Okay, that's definately an interesting way of looking at it. Maybe better to continue on my user talk? :-) Kim Bruning 10:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Nationalism is a POV, anti-nationalism is a POV. I'm an anti-nationalist. Transnationalism seems to touch on this to some extent. Zora 10:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - one reserves the right to declare that he or she does not recognise being part of a nationality, and to associate themselves as such. -- Natalinasmpf 10:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed they do, but it is a POV, isn't it? David | Talk 11:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it is not. A person can think whatever he or she likes and not have not have that declaration labelled as POV. The thought itself can be POV, but the declaration isn't. -- Natalinasmpf 12:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would not that line of argument allow any classification scheme - eg Wikipedia:Wikipedians who have declared they are anti-semitic? That's an NPOV declaration of a POV stance. David | Talk 13:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Except being anti-semetic is particularly exclusive. "Citizen of the world" is the opposite, and being inclusive. The idea behind anti-nationalism is to refuse judging others by something as "belonging" to some intangible political boundary thought up by power-mongerers. -- Natalinasmpf 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I suspect anti-Semites are perfectly willing to allow anyone, including Semitic peoples to be anti-Semitic, so the statement that "Citizen of the world" is more inclusive than other labels is a holier than thou kind of statement. --Habap 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So a statement declaring my belief exists is NPOV only when I'm saying something nice? Or did I miss something? But who cares if it is POV or not, it's taking up disk space. And the time we're spending here voting we could be adding Digimon stubs. brenneman(t)(c) 15:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to agree with the above that, if one allows a group that self-identifies as rejecting powermongers (and I do), one should also allow a group for those who embrace powermongers. This latter group is numerous; though I am not one, there are non-frivilous arguments in support of that position. Xoloz 06:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is in the same vein as the other vfd debate that it has been linked to but I'm still going to say weak delete: it's not as POV as the other one, but it is still POV. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Natalinasmpf. -- Jehoshaphat 12:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree with Natalinasmpf. -- Oldak Quill 13:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Natalinasmpf. -- Tkorrovi 13:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Wikipedia Micronation official citizens, and declare independence. Radiant_>|< 13:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Privileging legal status (i.e. nationality), at the expense of other nodes of self-identification, is itself a highly contentious POV. Anyway, world citizen is as inclusive and NPOV a POV as you can hope to find. Besides, who says we can't have organizations of Wikipedians by POV? There's a group for Muslim Wikipedians, if I'm not mistaken. QuartierLatin 1968 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a related VFD to the one for Wikipedia:Wikipedian supporters of the sovereign nation-state. Kaibabsquirrel 14:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with QuartierLatin1968. - ulayiti 15:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shouldn't we all be writing articles or something? brenneman(t)(c) 15:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This article is very important to every Wikipedian. I don't see any reason to delete it. -- Ed Telerionus 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If people want it, it seems to do no harm. --Habap 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How is it POV? If they sign it themselves, then it is an accurate reflection of how they wish to be seen. ~~~~ 19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or delete everything in "Category:Wikipedians by country". Otherwise you're pushing a POV. Sarge Baldy 19:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, where I live is pretty clearly NPOV. What I think about where I live is not. Which, again, is hardly the point. brenneman(t)(c) 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you seem unaccepting of is the idea that people might choose to identify with a place they do not live, or choose not to identify with where they do. In fact, this happens quite often. Consider, for example, the many Mexican immigrants who choose not to associate with the United States, or Americans who choose to live overseas and yet continue to consider themselves Americans. To say that people can only associate with the country they are legally tied to, the country they are born in, or the country they currently live in is POV because it is to say that people do not have the right to refuse an association with a political entity. Since these lists are voluntary, it should more than anything be at the discretion of the user what that user wishes to describe her or himself as, and would be POV to force onto others ones own concept of nationality. Sarge Baldy 03:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with Kaibabsquirrel --Bletch 20:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as unfortunately there is no world state yet. Therefore the term is either meaningless or an association of those who support the POV that there should be a world state. I don't believe a POV should be confused with a religious belief. One can have POV Rastafarian or Muslim beliefs but being a Rasta or a Muslim is not itself a POV belief, and not all Rastas or Muslims believe the same thing, SqueakBox 23:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, and that's precisely why this article should be kept. A religious belief is a POV as much as any other belief. However, the fact that someone is a Muslim is not POV - it's a fact. The same thing goes for 'world citizens': declaring that you hold a certain belief is not POV, it's merely a statement of a fact (which may of course be incorrect, but only in the case you knowingly lie about it). There not being any world state is irrelevant, as having one is not a requirement for an ideology saying that there should be one (but rather on the contrary). Internationalism is an ideology just like any other one (including any religion), and I don't see why religions should be treated any differently. ulayiti 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kim Bruning and Sarge Baldy. StopTheFiling 23:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep As I said before, I fear the day that "Neo-Fascist Wikipedians" becomes a group, because my internal ACLU Devil's advocate would demand we accept all real groups or none. Still, this is a tempest in a teapot for now. Xoloz 04:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although if it's kept I should add myself. Not a benefit to the community. We need a general policy, though.-- Visviva 04:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Keep. utcursch | talk 09:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see how this relates to Wikipedia as a community. Friday 19:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It relates strongly indeed. It is simple as me and you here. Nobody knows exactly which citizenship we got; we may have 5 in total between you and me! We may be speaking 10 languages in total as well! But we surely are wikipedians. And Wikipedians can be people who like to spend 2 hours daily in a bathroom or only 15 minutes there. I am just a Wikipedian citizen of the world who likes to spend 30 minutes. Wikipedia is a free space for everybody, no matter from where she/he comes from as long as we abide by wikipedia rules and there's no reason to apply censorship against people who decide to identify themselves with a community of citizens of the world within this platform. I don't have a pet and if i did I'd have been in Wikipedia:Wikipedians by pet. I am not NEW neither OLD to be part of Wikipedia:Wikipedians New Europe or Wikipedia:Wikipedians Old Europe. --Svest 00:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Keep. Almafeta 07:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Pgreenfinch 19:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I heard some arguments above that declaring you're a citizen of the world is a POV!!! The real POV is that everybody on this earth is labelled a citizen of a coutry at birth. The only human (why not say animal, mammal or homosapien?!) being recorded to have expressed why? before being 3 years old was a girl aged 2 and some. Who decides the citizenship?
The concept of being a citizen of the world is not something new, it's been around for more than a few centuries and surely much older in late civilizations before any concept of modern state was thought about!!! It's definitely not a creation of some of wikipedia's POV's pushers as we might believe.
We declare we are blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos... Are they POV's? Never. Following the reasoning of David, there's no such legal concept as a 'Latino' at present neither in the future unless there'd be a Latinoland in the UN and in the Soccer WorldCup competitions. Morever, Some people are named Citizen of the World by the United Nations [7] and many others for their humanitarian efforts [8]. If so, that should be encyclopedic and we should have a UNCA Citizen of the World Award. Therefore, this page we put on VFD should remain for the same reasons.
And I believe we all know about Bobby Fischer's story. Bobby_Fischer#Disappearance_and_aftermath... After being held in jail in Japan for several months he was rescued by an Icelandic team including his friend Saemi Rokk (famous Icelandic policeman and a rock and roll dancer). As of 2005 Fischer lives in Iceland and has an Icelandic citizenship. So, is he American, Icelandic or a COW?
When I’m reporting, I am a Citizen of the World. -- CNN's Bob Franken.
When I'm bothering you here, I am a Citizen of the World. -- Svest 00:56, May 21, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;, It's me, the citizen of the world

Comments[edit]

  • This discussion seems to revolve around the neutrality/lack thereof of this article. While we seem to have some, um, interesting views on that, isn't the bar for inclusion in this namespace "Of benefit to the community?" My intention with creating this section is for it to be used to discuss that as opposed to the POV status of this article. brenneman(t)(c) 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed the question is the benefit to the community. In my view it's not a benefit to the community to allow people who share a particular POV (and however much I may agree with that POV myself) to form an 'association'. It simply invites them to try to put their POV on articles. It is acceptable to have 'noticeboards' for people interested in a topic to be alerted to disputes etc., because the noticeboard can be used by those with any POV. Note that my dislike for this sort of classification does not extent to Meta where Wikipedians can and do gather by POV. David | Talk 10:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why it should be any more acceptable on Meta than here, but otherwise I fully agree with that sentiment. It would be a Good Thing if we had a general policy for groups with shared topical interests, and against groups of the present sort. Political groups will form regardless, but they should not be given the sanction of Wikipedia namespace. -- Visviva 12:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look at pages like this, and I do not see how Wikipedia benefits. This page is a mere "Sign here if you have this particular POV"; there is nothing this page that talks about a course of action or how to otherwise improve Wikipedia, unlike the more conventional Wikiprojects page. I'd favor a policy deleteing pages like this unless they provided a charter of some sort that stated why the project is necessary. I'm fuzzy on the details, but such a charter would have to be more than having a signup page. --Bletch 12:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Squeakbox's comment, who said anything about a world state? Why are we not allowed to believe in the world just because there's no State authorizing us to do so? Per Bletch and David's comments, I do agree in part, I'm not sure what tangible benefits a group like this gives Wikipedia, except that people might meet fellow Wikipedians here with shared interests and agree to collaborate on some kind of project. How often that happens in fact, I don't know; but for the time being, what's the harm? Look, we are all Wikipedians; by virtue of being here we're committed to collaborating on an encyclopedia from a NPOV. I might hook up with a couple fellow 'world citizens' here and decide there need to be more pages on, I dunno, world literacy. Whatever we do collaborate on together is still going to be subject to the same scrutiny as if we had contributed separately. I don't see what people are panicked about. QuartierLatin 1968 17:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • While on the surface this seems trivial, it is worth noting that (Keep/Delete) tally for the "nice" POV article is at my count 16-7 while the "unpalatable" one is running at 3-14. I know this is not a vote, but that is disturbing to me. brenneman(t)(c) 00:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the "unpalatable" one is fictional. While I love my country, I would never classify myself on the "unpalatable" one. It was probably created to demostrate balance, when in fact, it is only nonsense. I find the holier than thou tone of the "nice" people "unpalatable". --Habap 13:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "unpalatable" one was not added in an attempt to make balance, it was a sincere creation that makes perfect sense if one follows the politics of the LaRouche Movement. --Bletch 16:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How so? (genuinely curious) SqueakBox 16:56, July 14, 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. Postdlf 02:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring slap-bass[edit]

unencyclopedic, unmaintainable, listcruft. Xoloz 09:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Xoloz. Benna 09:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 10:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. The article title is also misleading as "slap bass" is generally used to describe a playing style on stand-up bass (most commonly heard in jazz and rockabilly), not bass guitar. 23skidoo 13:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Xoloz points 1 and 3. The Literate Engineer 14:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above. Dcarrano 15:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xoloz and 23skidoo. — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golf spain[edit]

Delete as advertising. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice (islam) and Prejudices (islam)[edit]

Apart from this being one of the worst formatted articles I've come across, it is basically a list of things someone sees as how others see Islam, and how wrong they are. No references, no proof, sweeping generalisations. This is the POV equivalent of walking through a minefield and deliberately jumping up and down to make a point. Harro5 10:14, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above. Benna 10:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an attempt to create a biased article whilst Islamophobia remains protected. Germen did something similar when he attempted to create the Islamophilia article. This sort of attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point should not really be tolerated. Axon 10:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I just started to write the article. It is just a stub now. --Germen 10:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Islamophilia all over again -- or something like it. gren 11:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. 216.209.18.78 12:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC) 8:04, 12 July 2005 (Canada)[reply]
  • Redirect to Islamophobia altough I doubt many people would type in that title, Delete, or Total Rewrite to be in any way shape or form encyclopedic. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: POV-pushing junk. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Friday 14:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV fork of Islamophobia as discussion there should make clear. User should be sanctioned. Dcarrano 15:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it is worth saying that the article creator has just been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism by either removing the VfD tag or moving it to the bottom of the article, in contravention of deletion policy. David | Talk 15:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, needless POV fork, and nothing but a subheader farm to boot (how odd!). -- BD2412 talk 17:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely nothing salvageable. Just lists of alleged prejudices held by unspecified people regarding Islam. Both consist almost entirely of headers; no content. — Gwalla | Talk 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is there a Prejudice (christian)? No? Interesting. As currently written, borders nonsense, certainly inherently POV. Xoloz 04:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an inherently POV fork devoid of encyclopedic content. JamesBurns 04:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Over to Islamophobia or else create a new article on the subject of Islamic prejudice starting with the whole issue of the Kuffar and Dhimmi in Islam. 24.60.163.16 05:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I especially love this line "Muslims are homosexuals". This person didn't even TRY to make it encyclopedic.Heraclius 13:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of course. - Mustafaa 13:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 02:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ophelia chong[edit]

Non-notable person? I couldn't find any solid information on them Atratus 10:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to store your resume. -- Natalinasmpf 11:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Dcarrano 15:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete cv cruft. --Etacar11 00:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 04:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was: I have speedied this since Colm has put it all in the right place now. —Stormie 11:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Professor colm kearney[edit]

This is a duplicate of the user page User:Professor Colm Kearney, written by that user. Bill 11:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 02:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Kearney[edit]

This is a duplicate of the user page by the user who wrote the article. (User:Professor Colm Kearney) Bill 11:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - he does exist with a fair number of 'scholarly articles' in journals. However, most professors do so notability is up for debate I guess. gren 12:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can't confirm if he is tenured or not (which is one of the proposed criteria at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics), but he is nevertheless well published and certainly we can verify any other information. Though the user himself created the page, it is currently NPOV. Article needs more depth, but I don't see any clear reason to delete, and see reasons to keep. --Durin 14:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below about the meaning of tenure in this non-American case. -Splash 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication so far he is any more than a typical professor. Dcarrano 15:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-published professor. Kappa 16:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jamesgibbon 21:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The publishing of scholarly articles, or even books, is common among professsors and not enough to warrant notability. If any of his work or theories are especially notable that would be different. The fact that he made the page himself should be a bit of a tip off. If you're notable enough somebody other than you will make an article about how important you are. --TheMidnighters 21:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notably well published. Hall Monitor 23:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn professor +autobio, unless something is added to show that he IS notable. --Etacar11 00:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His page is here. Note that, in this part of the world, the word Professor does not merely indicate a teaching member of staff; it indicates someone who has been promoted to a senior (possibly leading) position in their department/faculty (as indicated by the Chair he holds). 'Tenure' is also a shaky term since they just become 'acaedmic staff' or 'lecturers'. There is no indication that he is a Visiting Prof or anything, so he is more notable than your average college professor since professor here is meant in the American terminology.
  • weak Delete I am troubled by the autobio problem, and so, in this borderline case, vote delete, unless significant independent information is added to the article by a person other than the subject. Xoloz 04:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable professor. JamesBurns 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete for failing WP:PROF. Radiant_>|< 09:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Strong history of peer reviewed publications. Arevich 20:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please he seems notable enough to me and wikipedia is not paper. Yuckfoo 21:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape bestiary[edit]

Breaks rule #1, FAQs, of WP:NOT, in the sense that this is the sort of info you'd find on GameFAQs. I'd have put it up for transwikiing to the RuneScape Wikicity, but there is no content here. If the monsters were at least described, it would be useful. GarrettTalk 12:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless list --Doc (?) 12:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 15:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, July 13, 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. Postdlf 05:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babyish languages[edit]

Non-notable conlang; not used in professionally published fiction (see talk page), apparently not spoken by anyone but the author and perhaps his family. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 15:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Da da da da le le le tttt, burp. Dunc|☺ 19:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable amateur fictlang. — Gwalla | Talk 22:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable conlang. JamesBurns 04:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and condemn nonnotable conlangers to Wiki-Hell! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unrelated to the actual Babyish language. Almafeta 07:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What other language has a claim to the name "Babyish"? --Jim Henry | Talk 19:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some Asian language, less than 100,000 speakers. They're discussing a Babyish Wikipedia over in Meta, and that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge about it. Almafeta 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.--Hello World! 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The material looks pretty complete to me, and even if the fiction has not been published entirely "professionally" (does that still matter these days?), it hás at least been published. I'm not saying the language ís notable, but I haven't heard any convincing argument that it's not. Regarding the number of speakers: I'm sick and tired of the constant abuse of that argument in this context; the purpose of an art-lang is NOT to gather a circle of speakers, and therefore, you can NOT judge its success by that criterium. I'm ready to change my vote once more convincing arguments come up. --IJzeren Jan 18:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the fiction has not even been self-published or published in amateur zines. I will not quote the email I got from the author without his permission, but it sounds like the stories exist only in manuscript, and only a small part of the language material and world-building background material has been self-published on the author's web site (and Wikipedia article).
I agree that an artlang need not have actual speakers to be notable. However, it needs to have some evidence of notability - for instance, citations on other artlanger's sites saying they were influenced in their development of Verisimilian by some nifty features found in Babyish; or some other evidence (e.g. mailing list or BBS threads) that, if not actual speakers, it has a significant number of people who are interested in it or influenced by it. If someone created Wikipedia articles for any my own artlangs I would probably vote to delete them. --Jim Henry | Talk 19:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Mafia[edit]

Delete. A vanity page. Nothing links to this page, and a google search on "debate mafia" yields nothing useful. Anders H 12:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity. Dcarrano 15:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn debater vanity. Not to mention overuse of bold text. --Etacar11 00:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable student self promotion. JamesBurns 04:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Expanded Universe[edit]

This article should be deleted as Neologism. Besides the many times the term is used on wikipedia itself, the term "star trek expanded universe" (as opposed to star wars expanded universe) does not seem to be used much if at all. Why are Star Wars novels called "an expanded universe" instead of novelizations, fan fiction, adapatations, etc.? Its because of the peculiar attempt at maintaining a continuity with each other above all else. This phenomenon does not occour nearly as much in Star trek derivative fiction, which makes little to no effort to be referential to other works of star trek derivative fiction. Original research: none of the statements cite sources, and seem very suspect to me in terms of being actually based on published books. In addition, I'm sure contradictory explanations of many things in this article were made by different novels, to focus on one implies it being the correct explanation which implies a non neutral POV. Fancruft: this article is fancruft, although absolutely atrocious fancruft articles such as styles of lightsabre combat have been previously kept. -posted by an anon ip user on 12 Jul 2005

From original proposer of delete: Thanks for everyones comments. I change my proposal from delete, to merge INTO the article "star trek, other storylines". The reason: doing so avoids the neologistic and possibily misleading term "star trek expanded universe". This would then also eliminate the implied opinion of any book or storyline being mentioned in the article as being the "real", "canon", or "in-continuity" version of a story. Some people have been saying that "star trek expanded universe" brings up around 200 hits in google but a large amount are wikipedia mirrors, the second most common is refrence to a pen and paper rpg called "Star trek: expanded universe".
As I see that as pretty much the same as withdrawing the nomination to delete the article, I move this be closed as a KEEP result. -Husnock 04:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, sounds like a withdrawal of the delete request. The merge request can be handled on the talk pages but I will say right now that I'll vehemently oppose the merge. Cburnett 19:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP: This article reflects a large amount of information that has been put forth in Pocket Books over the past 25 years and also speaks of a concept that was purposed by D.C. Fontana, one of the leading authors of Star Trek. I agree that sources could be added but that is not at all a reason for deletion. This article is not by any means original research and is certianly not "neologism". In addition, "fancruft" is not a reason to delete a page as we have all seen at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia. -Husnock 12:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I've never worked on any Star Trek or Star Wars articles, so I've got no dog in this race, but the idea of deleting this article is ridiculous. It's good information. Babajobu 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article that ought to be here is currently at the rather strange "Star Trek, other storylines". The content here should be made into a subsection of that article, with the resulting article left at STEU, or a better term if anyone can come up with one. Morwen - Talk 13:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep: bad-faith nomination. I don't think the author knows what a "neologism" is. -- Natalinasmpf 13:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Why are we wasting time on this? --khaosworks 13:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because the article is still in progress. I'd also support a merge with Star Trek, other storylines. 23skidoo 13:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dramatically emphatic keep, a worthy effort and a fine addition jamesgibbon 14:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Lucas and his minions specifically call Star Wars additions the "Expanded Universe". Star Trek has no such similar title. This article should be kept, but it's under the wrong title. --Scimitar 14:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - There is no reason whatsoever to delete this page -anon user post 15:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also believe this nom is in bad faith, since this is the annon's 6th edit. 1Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I think it's safe to say you can remove the VfD notice from the page, from an anon editor and with such strong response it would be pointless to clog the article anymore gren 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sigh. Cburnett 19:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, possible rename. Agreed that the TERM "Star Trek expanded universe" doesn't seem to be used much. However, the concept that authors have written about the ST universe beyond what we see in the TV shows/movies is certainly a concept worthy of an encyclopedia article, given the popularity of those works. I can't think of a better name for that concept, personally; maybe someone should go ask the Trekkies what they call it. Star Trek, other storylines is definitely a worse name (it's plain old factually incorrect, really) and should end up merged into whatever this ends up being called. Dcarrano 20:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP - jeez, louise, folks. There's deletionism, then there's whydoweevenbotherism. Microtonal 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Star Wars is not and absolutely should not be the final say over what the point of an "expanded universe" is. A renaming may be in order, but the article should stay. StopTheFiling 22:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep "Fancruft" is not a valid reason to delete an article, incurable POV, verifiability, original research and things mentioned in What Wikipedia is Not WP:NOT, are valid reasons to delete, "Fancruft" is none of these. While "expanded universe" might be more used with Star Wars, there should be some term to describe the collective body of officially licensed but non-canonical materials produced for Star Trek. For lack of a better term "expanded universe" is what is used (it is officially used with Star Wars, de facto used with Star Trek). A quick Google search shows several hundred mentions of the phrase "Star Trek Expanded Universe", the vast majority of which do not appear to be direct references or copies of this article in any way, and are legitimate references to the larger body of Star Trek works outside the canonical TV and movie sources, thus the term and this article are encyclopedic and warranted in Wikipedia. --Wingsandsword 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Star Trek non-canon universe rivals any (and I should know, as I have, at last count, 208 ST novels.) I am a sad, sad man. Xoloz 04:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. -- Lochaber 15:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lingnan Primary School Old Student Association[edit]

non-notable - nomination by User:Robinh

  • I've always abstained in the notability of schools debate - but this is a step too far for me. Delete this - unless someone wants to create an artice on the school and merge some of this stuff. --Doc (?) 12:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the problem is not of notability - it appears this looks more like some legal document than an encylopedic article. -- Natalinasmpf 13:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, non-encyclopedic. --OpenToppedBus - My Talk 13:17, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Strong'Keep'=-- THe article has modified and became more encyclopedic. Thus, I strongly demand that, this article should be kept. (Unsigned vote from 219.79.205.97
  • Keepand'strong'--- This article is a history of a special school club. This is encyclopedic, since it is a brief introduction of an association.And the association is very special. Moreover, Thois aarticle has been modified. Thus, I strongly believe that this article is worth staying in here. Thanks (Unsigned vote again from 219.79.205.97)
It's too bad these "two" voters weren't logged in. It's possible that they are both students from the school in question, using a common proxy, but we can't know for sure.... -Harmil 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should Keep this page. And In my opinion, I would vote it as strongly. 1st,This page is not an legal document.2nd, I see this page has been edited to be a better one. I think this page is fun and worth keeping in the wikipedia. (Unsigned vote by User:Peterwanhk
  • Delete First the schools, then the teachers, now the old boys. It will not be long before each student gets an article--Porturology 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The people voting for keep above have edited the article under discussion. Robinh 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Robinh, the Deletion Policy makes it quite clear that good faith votes from the author of the content are acceptable. Of course, the same policy makes it quite clear that double-voting is not acceptable, so I think you're chasing down the wrong problem. -Harmil 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OpenToppedBus. Way below the bar for encyclopedic notability. No references means questionable verifiability of most of the claims anyway. Quale 15:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most school clubs are not notable, and I think detailing every little thing that happens in them as this article does explains very well why that is. Dcarrano 15:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Lingnan Primary School. Only the Brief introduction is encyclopedic, in my opinion, and that's already in the LPS article. An page documenting the last five years of who has to be president and who will chair the Christmas party belongs in the association's own archives or webpage. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per DoubleBlue -Harmil 18:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable organization of former students. -- BD2412 talk 18:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity from a school that should be deleted too. Dunc|☺ 18:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable vanity page. --Carnildo 20:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Sock-puupet limit has been exceeded", as RickK would say. NN, vanity, unencyclopedic. --Scimitar 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete royblumy 23:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and request an amendment to the guidance about not voting if consensus you agree with is already reached: "one should always vote when there are sock puppets about, that one may assist in the demise of their article". -Splash 01:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sockpuppets and NN. Schools themselves are fine, but draw the line there with respect to schoolcruft. Xoloz 04:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable school promo. JamesBurns 04:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:00, 2005 July 13 (UTC)
  • Delete - what's next - invididual school janitors? - Skysmith 08:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article should be 'Kept' .It is about the history of an association. I think it is worth the keep this article. (preceding unsigned comment by 219.79.53.122 09:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. This schoolcruft is getting absurd. --Idont Havaname 22:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Hamilton[edit]

Little or no context. Google reveals a lot of Fred Hamilton's, but apparently vastly different people. Doesn't attempt to identify said person, place of birth, etc. Seems non-notable; nothing links to this page either. Delete, and this redirect as well. Natalinasmpf 12:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, cameramen are not notable. Dcarrano 15:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete First off, Dcarrano is flat-out wrong. Notable camaramen include every winner of the cinematography awards from the Oscars or Emmys and those who have developed new techniques which are widely used. That said, this guy doesn't have much going for him and the article certainly does smell like offline copyvio.... -Harmil 17:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point taken... I should have said that typically, cameramen are not notable... such as this guy ;-) Dcarrano 18:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable cameraman. JamesBurns 04:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable in the field of cinematography and lighting --InformationalAnarchist 04:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 PCC, DELETE Chris Morrison. Postdlf 06:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polymer City Chronicles, Chris Morrison[edit]

Non-notable web comic, seems like vanity. Lots of POV presentation, and the Chris Morrison article simply seems to be the author of said web comic. I say Delete!. -- Natalinasmpf 13:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: The art is mediocre and the web comic is non-notable... to me. Will anyone stand up in defense of this article? jglc | t | c 13:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: PCC has existed since 1995, meaning it predates other major comics like Sluggy Freelance. On the web, it's been around since 2000, an older presence than Megatokyo. While the article itself may not be very good, I say label it a stub and encourage more refining of it rather than outright deletion. PCC is old enough to warrant a Wiki article. Xuanwu 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've heavily revised the PCC article. Please read this new version BEFORE finalizing your vote. I think I've given it better formatting and cut out a lot of the "review" elements that plagued the first draft. Still needs some work, though. Xuanwu 15:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I forgot to clarify, I say Keep only the PCC article. The Chris Morrison article should be turned into a redirect to PCC. Xuanwu 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete Chris Morrison, webcomic authors aren't notable outside of their webcomic. Re: Polymer City Chronicles: With an Alexa rating of 763,275, it spectacularly fails WP:COMIC proposal #1; with an archive going back 10 years, it spectacularly passes proposal #2. I think #1 is more important. I don't think anyone should automatically get their comic into WP solely due to longevity... I think it's more important to determine whether people care about the comic to an exceptional degree. In between low Alexa ranking and unexceptional rank of #549 at [The Web Comic List], I don't see the evidence. Thus, delete Polymer City Chronicles as well. Dcarrano 15:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep notable part of web comic history. Are deletionists going to lurk until every comic's Alexa rank declines and then swoop in? Kappa 16:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Fails the notability criteria. --Carnildo 21:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Polymer City Chronicles, but Delete Chris Morrison. Notable part of webcomics history (Used to be big, but it died out briefly, losing most of its readership, myself included). Nifboy 22:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Polymer City Chronicles per Xuanwu, but delete Chris Morrison. Although it is not particularly popular, it once was, and it is pretty widely known ("Polymer City Chronicles" gets about 240 ghits); its longevity is out of the ordinary. However, I wish Kappa wouldn't attempt to inject partisanship into VfD; it serves no purpose other than to annoy. — Gwalla | Talk 23:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Historically significant strip, although you could drop link to artist. Here is the historical info: "Launched in print starting in 1992, and then featured on the WWW in March of 1995, and bosting over 600 strips, Dr. Otto and Andrah appeared on the web as the first video gaming web comic to be published on the Internet. In it's early days it was a one panel gag strip, published bi-weekly, featuring the odd couple and their even odder assortment of friends poking fun at the gaming industry." I can speak to this as the strips original Publisher. I was planning to add this entry but had not finalized the initial text for my post. bcRIPster 16:19, 12 July 2005 (MST)
    • User's 5th edit.[9]
    • Forget that last comment... I'm have made a full editing pass to clean up the content. bcRIPster 20:00, 12 July 2005 (MST)
  • Keep the first, delete the second and reject the name-calling from Kappa. -Splash 01:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep comic; Delete artist, per Gwalla. Xoloz 04:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Polymer City Chronicles, Delete Chris Morrison. The PCC is now well written and has some notability. I believe the artist though does not. JamesBurns 04:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the comic, redirect the comic artist, long live Jim Morrison. —RaD Man (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the comic, redirect the comic artist. The only web comic I follow. Humor in a non-flat universe. Fjanss 23:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edit.[10]
  • Keep it's more than just longevity, Its the FIRST in 2 catagory. First gaming comic and First Webcomic. If it was just a webcomic which been here for a long time then yeah I would delete it but this has Historical importants. The historical importants should be enough to keep form deleting, and weither you like the comic or not should not be a deciding factor.--Arnoldstrife 08:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edit.[11]
  • Keep Polymer City Chronicles. It ranks up there with Argon Zark --STrRedWolf 03:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's 12th edit, only 7 in article space.[12]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All For Tim[edit]

vanity band page, delete Babajobu 14:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Little or no context. Unencylopedic in that sense. On top of that, non-notable. -- Natalinasmpf 14:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability established, no releases/record label mentioned, nn band vanity. --TheMidnighters 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity -Harmil 17:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable band vanity. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 04:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Postdlf 06:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Manboobs[edit]

unencyclopedic, to say the least Slac 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Gynecomastia. — RJH 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Breast -- it only refers to a man with larger breasts from fat usually, not an abnormality. gren 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't think this is normally used in the medical sense of the phrase. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dcarrano 16:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per gren -Harmil 17:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per RJH (first choice) or gren (second choice).- Mgm|(talk) 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to breast, not Gynecomastia - nothing abnormal about Manboobs jamesgibbon 21:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gynecomastia, not Breast, because the former is about "male breasts", the latter, all breasts. Interested parties can use definition of former to determine whether they have clinical manboobs, or fatty manboobs (FYI, I have the latter). Xoloz 04:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is when you redirect there the implication is that they have to be a clinical abnormality because manboobs has redirected to a clinical abnormality. Redirecting to breasts leaves it ambiguous and doesn't exactly say what manboobs are (and it needn't) because the saying, while it may not be a neologism, is definitely not something written about (which is why we can't have an article, it'd be original research). gren 04:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I believe it is equally likely that a "Manboobs" searcher is concerned over whether the condition (in himself or friend/loved one) is clinical or not. The Gynecomastia article has, as I said, the additional benefit of actually describing exclusively male boobs, albeit not every (or even most) manboobs. Since I think your point is also a valid one, though, I'd understand deleting, since the likiest redirect may be indeterminable. Xoloz 06:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there isn't a perfect redirect for this term... and it doesn't deserve an article... so, I made my case, now we'll see what happens :) gren 11:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Breast, although Gren's argument has some merit. JamesBurns 04:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gynecomastia --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we just disambig between breast and gynecomastia? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 21:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't anyone recognize this as buffoonery? Just delete it. --Slac 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but... someone else will come back and create it, and it will go on. If it's a redirect it's less likely to be messed with. Unless of course you want delete with protection. I'm not exactly against that. gren 03:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirects/Disambigs are also cheap =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 08:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well in that case, redirect to breast fetishism --Slac 15:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why? I know of no one who has a fetishistic interest in manboobs, and believe me, since I have manboobs and an interest in sexual fetishes, I have looked very hard. Xoloz 17:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I had a very compelling rationalization for it, but I just noticed that boobs redirects to sexual slang. Manboobs is a similarly denoting portmanteau and we might as well do the same. --Slac 21:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wow. I'm not sure how boobs got redirected to sexual slang, since I've heard plenty of usage for that one in non-sexual context (including my mother and grandmother sharing boob stories.) Of course, boob can have the informal meaning of "foolish", but breast seems the superior redirect there. Xoloz 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gynecomastia as a way of preventing recreation of a non-encylopaedic article. David | Talk 22:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Canning[edit]

A musician from Philadelphia--I contend he's not notable. Googling "Matt Canning" gets 512 hits, most irrelevant. Restricting the search to "Matt Canning" +Philadelphia brings only 29 hits. Google on his band, The Twilight Collective, brings only 312 hits, and they appear to fail WP:MUSIC. In addition, the note that he "has also held the title of Diner Lobby Shooting Game Quick Draw Dueling Champion, 18+ Division, from 1999-2005" makes me suspect that this was written by one of his friends or himself. In short: vanity, nn. Meelar (talk) 14:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 16:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Matt Canning is a member of Shai Hulud, a popular hardcore band which appears on WP: Music. All vanity aspects of the entry have been removed and a more thorough list of past bands has been included.
Unsigned vote by User:Jimfasoline, who has 5 edits. --Scimitar 23:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. --Scimitar 23:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Simple vanity. --PhilipO
  • Delete any article requiring sock-puppet support for notability. Oh, yeah, and what Meelar said. -Splash 01:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 04:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Population of East Anglia[edit]

information already contained in East Anglia article, maybe worthy of a redirect Babajobu 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Article will eventually need to be forked off anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice to further articles there). The info there is nonsense, East Anglia has rather more than ten thousand people. Morwen - Talk 15:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article could easily be turned into a list of areas conjoining East Anglia. No need for them all to have on page just for one sentence. Consider expanding this if someone can come up with figures for gender ratio, age dispertion, population concentration, per capita income, etc.Telesque 16:18, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax (incorrect info), and of course the population of East Anglia could and should be given in the East Anglia article. Dcarrano 16:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a simple fact like population obviously doesn't need to be in its own article. Phoenix2 18:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if the figure were accurate. Contrary to Natalinasmpf's assertion, I think there is enough room in the East Anglia article for a single number, and there will likely remain to be for some time. -R. fiend 20:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read between the lines[edit]

Dicdef; not encylopedic. See WP:NOT. Delete or transwiki. Natalinasmpf 14:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, already defined at Wiktionary. --TheMidnighters 15:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef. Dcarrano 16:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete already transwikied dic def. Impossible to expand on. - Mgm|(talk) 19:38, July 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 06:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pmuj[edit]

Vanity neologism and nonsense --Gunmetal 14:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has been speedied several times. I was in the process of temp-blocking its creator. I would recommend it be speedied again, if another admin concurs. Fire Star 15:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted content [13]. -- Natalinasmpf 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Utter nonsense. I would recomend speedy deletion and temporary baring of the user. This free encyclopedia should not be used for personal pleasure and recreation. Lofty 16:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above. Dcarrano 16:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC) (Note: above being Fire Star & Natalinasmpf)
  • Speedy Delete Kids. --Slac 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and if this is recreation, I'd hate to see work... Dcarrano 16:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Is there any reason not to speedy delete this nonsense? --Durin 17:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect against future recreation. -- BD2412 talk 18:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • deleted, protected, & template:deletedpage. Dunc|☺ 19:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity neologism. JamesBurns 04:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circus Warp[edit]

Not very notable, little or no context. Poorly written, with a POV slant...only 120 google hits. Weak delete, unless someone can give me a reason otherwise. Natalinasmpf 15:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems nn. --Etacar11 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, and only 70 of those Google hits are unique. There's no interest from Alexa either, although this is now a defunct band. The article does not claim an album we can head off and verify, so there is no verifiable claim to notability. -Splash 01:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable defunct band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 04:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SAVEthis imformation is important and shouldn't be lost. perhaps it can be edited into the original spiral tribe page, or added to the freetekno page. Thanks, Dawn
  • Delete nn Friday 20:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 06:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop girl[edit]

Ym!Eat your own poop. Weird - certainly NN - do we really need articles about defecating dogs and their owners? A curate's egg 15:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps notable for a Korean WP, but not an English one. Mildly amusing, but delete notwithstanding. Fire Star 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for as I know that's not how notability works... we're Anglocentric enough, that policy would make us even moreso gren 16:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, that is emphatically not how notability works. Everyking 08:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Slac 16:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A valiant attempt, but even if a newspaper did mention it once, I don't find a dog pooping in the subway to be notable. Delete. Dcarrano 16:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable incident. SexyKappa 16:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and interesting, very well-known to Koreans. Anyway, if we have a place for the Star Wars kid, I think we should have a place for this. It demonstrates the power of the internet to spread information. We may want to retitle the page, however. Binadot 16:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability resides not in the incident but the phenomenon to which it gave rise. The references speak for themselves, IMO. -- Visviva 17:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep google confirms notability of the event. Seems rather silly, but it certainly is a footnote in the growth of Internet publishing as popular culture. -Harmil 17:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it should be a footnote in an article about Internet publishing as popular culture, then. --Tabor 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensively covered by press and bloggers and fine Google presence. - Mgm|(talk) 19:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Still, comparing this to Star Wars Kid isn't exactly meaningful. The Kid was not only covered by media and blogs but was also the subject of a lawsuit, several petitions and fansites. His notability is far much clearer even if you just check the links in the article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:53, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete or Merge to some site on internet shit like this (ok, bad pun). When all's said and done, a dog pooped on the subway. Big deal. Bloggers will write about anything, won't they. It's not like they're journalists or anything. -R. fiend 20:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. WTH is this? merge, merge with a larger internet artice like this one: List_of_shock_sites--Muchosucko 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons of notability demonstrated by press coverage and the powerful effect that blogging can have. Hall Monitor 23:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable incident publicised throughout the world. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedic article. And offer the lady in question some of our not-paper to help her in not cleaning up. -Splash 01:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Perhaps to be included as an aside within an article about the influence of blogs/new media/people power, but trivial non-articles such as this (and the Star Wars kid, plus every single lengthy article about the minutiae of the Star Wars/Trek universes, in my opinion) detract from Wikipedia. Jez 02:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If AYBABTU became a featured article, surely there's room for more Internet phenomenons. CanadianCaesar 02:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of owners around the world have pet dogs that poop in public places. Non notable even if it did enjoy its 15 minutes of fame in Korean. JamesBurns 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The incident is silly, the reaction is not. Ethan 04:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the Star Wars kid analogy fits well, reasonably notable. Xoloz 04:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Received media coverage in Korea and the west, interesting case of internet vigilanteism interacting with the real world (and South Korean culture in general). The trivial nature of the incident itself makes the result no less significant. Rankler 05:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what about that article is encylopedic? Does every news report get an article here? Vegaswikian 06:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just read the article for the first time and I feel that I've learned something notable and worthy. I fully suggest keeping.--SeizureDog 09:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons stated above. -- Lochaber 15:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep can we please be fair about this Yuckfoo 17:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't this be merged with Internet phenomena? Decapod73 17:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Visviva, Ethan, Rankler. The aftermath is the significance, so perhaps the article is mistitled but I can't think of another title that would be likely to be searched on. -EDM 01:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Interesting reflection of human desire for 'justice', 'revenge', or simple dogged group determination. Illustrates crossover between cyerspace and real. No chance of future namespace collision in wikispace. Poppafuze 06:05, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --seektime 10:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and edit on one hand it looks like a newpaper article, on the other if that is another meme...sort of, and it had consequences for the girl, which are not replicated by any other harmless internet phenomenon, AYBABTU had no vigilante guys banding on poor translator Gnomz007 05:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyking 08:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least the picture. Do we have the right to punish her (again) by posting the picture which contains her real face? (UTC)
Note: Above vote by 220.94.242.123.
  • Keep. Significantly publisized event, even if it is non-notable. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nasty Koreans don't have a right to be noted!!! Ignorance of them is the best option!! DELETE (helpful comment posted by 211.242.22.230)
  • Delete, and firmly establish the precedent that being "extensively covered by press and bloggers and fine Google presence" does not suffice to make a subject encyclopedic. Star Wars kid should probably go the same way. - Mustafaa 21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE NN, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:NOT (I'll take my dog to poop on the train and I'll be in Wikipedia too?)--AI 02:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you actually go do that and then subsequently receive large amounts of attention in your country, are covered in the local and international press, then I don't see why not. --Rankler 04:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The importance of being John Daker. Ink 12:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do we really need/want an article on everything that ever showed up in the news or in the net? Is WP a jokes site? Or a blog? I sure hope not - Nabla 03:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Newsworthy because it illustrates the power of the internet mob when conflated with the ubiquity of cell phone cameras creating citizen photo journalists. Nonetheless, the picture clearly showing the subject's face should be removed because it puts Wiki in a position of harrassing the subject (vs reporting/documenting the event) and is unnecessary in conveying the story's message. The current picture also looks Photoshopped (unusually long middle digit). --Vineet KewalRamani 06:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As someone said once, these are the kinds of entries that make wikipedia so much more than an encarta clone. Interesting, if not always tasteful, articles about EVERYTHING notable... not just one person's concept of "appropriate". Themindset 06:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Submitshop[edit]

Delete Not noteworthy & blatant commercial article Lomedae 15:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contemplative Images[edit]

Vanity/advert page for a non-notable film "company." 28 google hits for "Contemplative Images" + film company, and the only two relevant ones are, you guessed it, the W'pedia article and the Deadend page. Their "website" is a forum with 24 members. Article created by an editor whose only contribution was to create this page. No significant editing since its creation in April. Delete. Soundguy99 15:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per capita income of islands in the tri-island area[edit]

Little or no context, borderline for speedy, not sure this is going to be encylopedic or ever fruitful, useful and worthwhile. Delete. Natalinasmpf 15:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't even specify which fiscal year these figures belong to? Delete Telesque 15:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: That would be because it is from the Monkey Island adventure game series. (I would support a merge to Tri-Island Area, but I will abstain from voting until this can be verified.) Sonic Mew | talk 15:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • deleteThe page is bogus, should be deleted.(Unsigned vote by 84.248.127.180 (talk · contribs))
  • deleteThere's no such thing as onkey island, a fictional place can't have a per capita income, duh - 172.131.39.121 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being fictional is not a deltion criteria. If this information is found somewhere in canon, then there should be no problem with the merge I suggested above. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • More fun with the per-capita income/population hoax guy. Delete and sanction user. Dcarrano 16:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense - this editor has been throwing these up all over the place. -- BD2412 talk 18:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have put it in Talk:Tri-Island Area, so that it can be verified there. It cercainly isn't woth its own article, anyway. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sounds like something The Onion would publish. Haikupoet 05:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 07:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siriporn Ampaipong[edit]

not notable 209.137.173.69 15:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After a little searching, she looks like an established figure in Thai music. Deleting this may be a bit ethnocentric.--Slac 16:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. royblumy 00:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She is one of the biggest acts in Thailand. I suspect that the nominator meant to say not American. ;) Mark1 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because she is not well-known in America doesn't mean she is not notable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. andy 07:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kas%27Haran}}

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Merged page already created, so just redirect all 4 articles. -Splash 19:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy police[edit]

(Also Comedy soldier, comedy civil servant and comedy priest

Appears to be either nonsense or Original Research Irishpunktom\talk 15:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pat McCarthy Martin[edit]

Vanity. MAdaXe 15:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn vanity. --Scimitar 16:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Slac 16:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. Dcarrano 17:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 17:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 00:35 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity, with photo. --Etacar11 01:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gregory Edward Reynolds[edit]

Delete. Not notable. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Slac 16:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a guy. Dcarrano 17:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the food?[edit]

Neologism. NN. Nonetheless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- BMIComp (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neologism NN and Nothingness PS Alliteration rules. royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Article is apparently incorrectly linked from main VfD page. Dcarrano 01:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 01:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is true

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Kelly[edit]

Nonsense/neology. This user just posted where's the food neology too.}}-- BMIComp (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but amusing. royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn nonsense. --Etacar11 01:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 05:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chilvan Kiyama[edit]

Non-notable. Non-notable character in non-notable game. 8 googles (6 unique, of those 2 wikipedia, 2 urban dictionary). RJFJR 16:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks very obscure. no evidence of notability presented. Friday 18:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn all the way. royblumy 00:32 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable fictional character. JamesBurns 05:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -Soltak 23:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. -Chilvan 17:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 04:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana[edit]

Advertising.-- BMIComp (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are many, many articles about individual restaurants in Wikipedia. (See category:restaurants.) Shall we delete them all? Pepe's is a particularly notable one because it's not only an important part of New Haven culture, but it also has historical significance as the supposed first pizza restaurant in the United States. As the author the page, I have no connection at all to the restaurant, but I'm a former resident of New Haven, have eaten there many times, and I tried to write an unbiased article about it. Dr.frog 16:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As with Sally's Apizza, there appears to be a problem with this VfD page and how it is linked to main VfD page. Dcarrano 18:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, based on claim to being first pizza place in US. The article should originally have been written with that info in the first paragraph, since it is the basic justification for the entry. I missed it myself on a skim. (This has now been fixed.) Dcarrano 18:48, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • I copied it into the end of the first paragraph. I'd like to see verification of this or at least citation that many people actually believe it.RJFJR 18:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Ok, I did a little bit more investigation, and I found some usenet references to it.
First pizza place Well known [14] [15] There are stories about how -- BMIComp (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the main justification for the entry is that Pepe's and Sally's are considered a kind of mecca among pizza fanatics, and are also significant as the originators of New Haven-style pizza. I've had foodie friends from all over the US make special trips to New Haven just to eat the pizza -- aside from Yale University, it's probably the thing the city is most famous for. Dr.frog 19:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Dr.frog royblumy 00:31 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, it's a notable place both locally and pizza-culturally. Gzuckier 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Apizza and redirect there. This and Sally's are the best-known exponents of the little-known Apizza phenomenon. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, or send to Wikitravel. Radiant_>|< 09:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yay, a random pizzeria! (Which is funny because other users have compared articles on schools and a housing project to being the equivalent of a pizzeria, and not notable). Look, it's a real place and this is an informative article. There won't be any harm to Wikipedia or to the massive accumulation of knowledge we're undertaking here by keeping this article. Moncrief 21:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep! Always has an hour+ wait, has been around for 80 years, and is indeed a pizza mecca. (Reportedly, Frank Sinatra used to send his driver here from New York city to fetch clam pizzas!) Pictures of US presidents eating there line the walls. Has a reasonable claim to "first pizza" in the US. Very important to New Haven culture. A good article about a notable subject with potential for expansion. Brighterorange 16:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (5 keep, 4 delete, 2 merge), so keep. --Allen3 talk 12:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sally's Apizza[edit]

Advertising-- BMIComp (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please see my notes about Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Frank Pepe Pizzeria Napoletana. The same arguments apply here: the article is similar to many other restaurant articles in Wikipedia, it's about an important part of local culture, and the establishment is historically significant. Dr.frog 16:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, I want to point out that this VfD is broken. As of when I went to edit this, the VfD edit link was broken. That said, this is exactly the kind of article that I think strains the analogy of Wikipedia to a dead-tree encyclopedia. There's no particularly good reason to list every pizza store, but older restaurants that are significant in their communities are a part of the local culture, and I hope that over time Wikipedia becomes a place where culture is recorded, not just in the sweeping terms of traditional encyclopedias, but also at a regional level where information is all too often lost. -Harmil 17:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence or claim of notablility (unlike Frank Pepe which at least claims the notability of being the first Pizza restaurant in the US, even if it doesn't offer evidence). RJFJR 17:51, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
If you read the newspaper article cited as a reference on the page, you'll get a flavor of how famous Sally's is. It's a major tourist attraction in New Haven, was featured in a Doonesbury cartoon, etc. Dr.frog 18:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I live in New Haven county and when I asked a group of people for good places for pizza, Sally's and Pepe's were the recommended places (unfortunately, I prefer thick crusts so I'm not into New Haven style pizza). The part about Doonesbury was added after I made the vote. While it is national recognition I'm not sure one strip in the series is enough to make it notable. I'm just not convinced it has more than local significance. RJFJR 18:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I did some more research and found that there have been continuing references to Sally's in the Doonesbury comic strip, not just the one they have displayed on the wall in the restaurant. (I'm not a Doonesbury fan so I didn't know this off the top of my head). I just tweaked the text of the article to reflect that it has been mentioned more than once. Dr.frog 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think one could possibly hope to be able to distinguish, from thousands of miles away over the Internet, "older restaurants that are significant in their communities" from other sorts of restaurants. Local businesses that have no larger claim to fame are, well, just that. Doonesbury cite and claim to "tourist attraction" status are far more to the point, but insufficient at this point. More cites along these lines could convince me; for now, Delete. Dcarrano 18:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me to be rather arrogant to advocate deleting an article just because you don't have the knowledge to distinguish whether its subject is significant or interesting to others. E.g. I'm both clueless about and uninterested in molecular biology, but you don't see me suggesting that we delete all those articles from Wikipedia. Dr.frog 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously a ludicrous strawman argument, so I won't feel bad about letting off a little steam on you now. Restaurant review cites don't help... I'm aware it's a restaurant! It's easy to find information about "tourist attractions" on the web, isn't it? New Haven is a pretty big city, no? With a lot of educated, computer-savvy people, a lot of stuff on the Internet about it, right? Seems like if something was one of New Haven's leading tourist attractions, one would be able to prove that, no? Gimme THAT... and given that you're right about the city being associated with pizza, it's very possible you can... but... prove it. Dcarrano 00:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Expecting everyone who contributes an article to Wikipedia to justify its universal relevance and usefulness is a great way to discourage people from contributing, you know.  :-P In any case, here is a link I found randomly on the Yale University admissions site, bragging about the attractions of the city: [16] Quote: "[Wooster Square] is best known for its two world-famous pizzerias: Sally's (est. 1938) and Pepe's (est. 1925). These pizzerias, which are widely considered to be the nation's best, attract pizza lovers from all over the world." BTW, the guy who wrote the fan pages on the pizzatherapy.com is from *Hawaii*. Dr.frog 00:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some additional references to the article now. Dr.frog 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • I live in Texas and have never been to Connecticut in my life. I have heard of both Pepe's and Sally's. As far as I'm concerned, that makes both of them notable enough to keep. Microtonal 22:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to New Haven. Most cities have a pizza place or two that have local fame. CDC (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but Sally's has very much more than just "local" fame! It is an extremely well-known restaurant, not just a local hangout. Dr.frog 23:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's the claim, but I'm not convinced - hence my vote. CDC (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The original reason why the page was proposed for deletion was "advertising", and per the policy in WP:NOT, this means that either the article is biased or that the business in question is so small that the topic is not third-party verifiable. I haven't seen anybody complaining about the former, and the latter can be addressed if you care to do a Google search. Or just read the newspaper article linked to in the references section. If you have some other reason for wanting the article to be deleted, can you cite the appropriate section of WP policy? Dr.frog 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Harmil. This is what Wikipedia is about. royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Apizza and redirect there. This and Pepe's are the best-known exponents of the little-known Apizza phenomenon. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above, or send to Wikitravel. Radiant_>|< 09:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep. This is a very famous part of New Haven culture. This is not advertising, and it is notable, so why would we want to get rid of this? Brighterorange 16:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agorami[edit]

Advertisement. Just barely enough text not to be speedied. Scimitar 16:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information. This is clearly a new vision in the social networking area, take a look at it's website. 16:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Info. 16:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Unsigned vote made by anon User:82.123.3.202. --Scimitar 17:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 720 google hits, most of them foreign language duplicates doesn't imply notability to me. --Scimitar 17:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and that's why I said that it was "semi-notable". Of course, the fact that it's primarily discussed in another language is really not important. What's important is that it is discussed, but not very much. It's probably (based on the language skew) only regionally notable, and the number of hits seems to support that theory. Remember, I'm abstaining, not saying that we should keep it. -Harmil 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Semi notable... is that the same as being half pregnant? :) JamesBurns 04:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ad for non-notable site. Dcarrano 17:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Info. Ad. -R. fiend 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep and redirect to Missing sun motif. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Sun myth[edit]

Note to closing admin: This VfD relates to a cut and paste move which resulted in an edit war. Please keep this in mind when deciding how to close the VfD. Kelly Martin 12:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


NOTE THE CAPITALISATION

Article is a copy+paste duplicate of Missing sun motif, created by a user to suit their side of an edit war.


You can't delete AND redirect. --AI 10:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we can. Delete the contents of the fork file and put a redirect in its place. Easy. DreamGuy 16:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
You can't put a redirect into something that's been deleted unless you're talking about recreating the file after the delete. But that would be called Delete, recreate, redirect. Take a look at dab's comment. IMHO, the actions by DreamGuy and Ril are bad faith and POV. --AI 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some people are capable of filling in the lines without having to specify it for people who are slow. DreamGuy 03:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missing sun motif. --Scimitar 17:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is the proper name of the article, but it's better to delete this and change the name of the orginal article back. elvenscout742 18:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Elvenscout742's solution. --AI 10:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello? you don't need a vfd for this. Simply redirect to the original, any user can do that. If I remember correctly, we do have a MoS guideline to capitalize celestial bodies like Sun, Earth, Moon etc. Not that I care, though, clearly one of these needs to be a redirect, never mind which. If people decide they want the article at Missing Sun myth after all, the place to go is WP:RM.

dab (ᛏ) 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the MoS says we capitalize the bodies when used in a scientific/astronomical context. The example on Wikipedia:Capitalization "the sun was warm today" (or something like that) clearly shows that in other cases it is lowercase. This whole thing is a result of the original editor, elvenscout, refusing to follow the manual of style. DreamGuy 04:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that is only a guideline. --AI 01:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, we could write all our articles in bold if we wanted, but it would be heavily frowned upon. ~~~~ 10:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What would warrant having all bold lettering? Your point is irrelevant. --AI 10:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, the point is quite relevant, you just aren't following along. If you made an entire article bold, breaking Manual of Style guidelines, it'd be undone. If you miscapitalizae the word sun, you are also breaking the guidelines. Saying they are "just guidelines" is entirely missing the point. DreamGuy 03:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per dab royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECTED to Missing sun motif since this was just a c/p of that article, whether to move this article back or not is an issue for a later time and not an issue for a VFD. Jtkiefer 01:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • strong Keep - this article is the orgional, and was turned into Missing sun motif by dreamGuy against consensus, hence delete Missing Sun Motif instead. Gabrielsimon 06:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Do not redirect. The reason given for this VfD is misleading. Check the facts I have prepared with references for ease of understanding for those of you who don't have time to deal with such a "petty issue." --AI 01:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please do not go replacing either article with a redirect or remove the VfD header from Missing Sun myth. Please leave the responsibility to do this to whoever closes the VfD (which should be taking place very soon now). Kelly Martin 04:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've protected both pages pending the completion of this VfD because you people can't seem to resist the urge to edit war. Stop it, all of you. I leave it to the closing admin to remove the protection and decide what to do with the articles. Kelly Martin 05:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and work out what to move and redirect to where afterward. Two versions of one article is unacceptable. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
thats exactly why missing syn motif has to go.Gabrielsimon 05:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you in theory, Gabrielsimon, it is the copy-paste one that has to go. Once it is gone, we can try to work out an arrangement by which "Missing sun motif" can be moved back to its original name. After this is deleted (and hopefully it will be), we can put the original one (which had its name wrongly changed) up on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Then it will all end.elvenscout742 12:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the article back at Missing Sun myth involves not one but two blatant errors (improper capitalization and incorrect word choice) and isn't at all likely to happen. DreamGuy 15:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Dreamguy you started this edit war on such a petty issue? --AI 10:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I just fixed the problems with the article. The edit war began when people ignored the errors and decided to return it to the original incorrect version out of personal spite (as shown in the RfC that already happened over the article). And if it is a petty issue, why is that you feel so strongly about it that you kept reverting it even after the VfD started so that the pages in question had to be protected? DreamGuy 16:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
You reverted the page more often than I did. This is a petty issue, and you are the one enforcing your determining of "errors" based on a Wikipedia guideline. When consensus did not support your point of view, you acted against the wishes of those engaged in the discussion and moved the page and you used snide comments to discredit your opposition. IMHO, that is BAD FAITH. --AI 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does support my view... the only people who do not are the original article's creator and two people (yourself and Gabrielsimon) who actively looked through my edits to undo things I did. What you call consensus was really just a gang up of people who didn't care about the article and wanted to get back at me personally... Now that more people have weighed in they are overwhelmingly against you. And your failed RfC on this issue further proves the point. DreamGuy 03:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
when you commmited these actions, consensus was against you, . see the edit histories on talk pages for proof. Gabrielsimon 03:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if by "consensus" you mean the original article author and two editors with a proven history making incredibly bad decisions solely to undo changes I made without having any history or knowledge of the articles in question... Now that editors who are willing to actually look at the article have done so, consensus is clearly established showing that you were wrong. You already lost your RfC, you've lost all these other disputes you've caused just to be difficult, isn't it about time you just gave it a rest and stopped your petty harassment for a change? DreamGuy 03:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
for one thing i hve never harassed you. not really. you might call it that to play victim, but tis npt whats going on, and for a seconbdthing, you just admitted TWO editors to your one vote said not to, thats yoiu going agsinst consensus if anything is. Gabrielsimon 03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • sincve missing sun myth is the origiona;l ., then why isnt missing sun motif the copy paste? Gabrielsimon 12:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because [[Missing sun motif] wasn't a copy & paste, it was moved, following standard Wikipedia policy concerning moves, taking the article, history and talk file with it. Your copying and pasting the text of the article back erases the history and the edit comments and creates a fork file, which is against Wikipedia policy.
  • Redirect to Missing sun motif. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Missing sun motif, the accurate title of the topic. Considering that the editors involved have reverted the various articles (main one and three redirects) in question even knowing that a VfD was in process and that their RfC over the conflict failed to win any suport, deleting is a bad idea as the editors will no doubt just move the article back to the location against the clear concensus of everyone involved and require an admin to step in to set things right again. DreamGuy 15:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT

  • User:AI and then User:Elvenscout742 requested that I'd vote here, althought I find it rather amusing that the whole thing began about a disagreement about capitalization. Now, in the old Amaterasu edit (couple of years ago) I used the term I am familiar with and, as far as I know, capitalization is irrelevant. However, I know more about history than mythological studies and more about Carl Jung than Joseph Campbell. If there is another, more scholarly or official term for these mythological tales, I'm afraid that you have to consult people who have majored in comparative mythology and state your sources. My information in that respect is second-hand.
  • Now, as far as I can see, the article in question is a copy of the other one. Since WP usually tries to preserve the edit history of the original text, the copy-paste should go. Regardless of the final name of the article, at least one version of the "missing sun myth" should stay at least as a redirect (and mentioned in the article), since it is in use at least in the circles I know - Skysmith 12:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

  • If the new cut & paste is deleted, the talk page should be merged into the original because much of the recent discussion is occuring on the cut & paste article. --AI 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable to me - Skysmith 08:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE TO VOTERS, ADMINS, AND OUTSIDE VIEWS: Please examine the circumstances regarding capitalization which is the basis of dispute and the cause of this VfD. --AI 11:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note: one article uses the term "myth" the other "motif" ~~~~ 16:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and recreate as redirect, as all the redirect votes chose a target article that had nothing to do with this one. Postdlf 04:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Staccatto[edit]

non-notable DC-area club. Additionally, what is written sounds like advertising. Only thing of note is that it's in a historic district, but there are other small businesses in the area as well that don't have Wiki articles.--Mitsukai 17:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Page History merged following rename --Allen3 talk 12:16, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ladera Ranch, California[edit]

This page was created as a result of a nonstandard move from Ladera Ranch (the information was simply copied and pasted) to Ladera Ranch, California. If this page is deleted, I intend to then move the original Ladera Ranch article to Ladera Ranch, California using the standard method (move tab). Because this deletion will not result in the permanent loss of any information, I vote delete. Sincerely,  Short Verses  (talk) 17:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this speedy-able? Morwen - Talk 18:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done (deleted/moved/merged). Niteowlneils 21:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Los Malvados[edit]

Delete nn. not verifiable. Friday 18:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. Gwk 18:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this street gang. Street gangs can be notable, but I couldn't find any mention on google of this one, at least in sites written in English.

Appears to be a common phrase in Spanish, however, if not a gang. Meelar (talk) 18:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 04:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zuo Ci[edit]

Delete As written, this give no sign of notability, or even that it is a myth. I can't search anything in Mandarin or Cantonese where there might be more information, but I can't find anything in English Icelight 18:11, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like a hoax. Gwk 18:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The references to Lord Cao Cao make it sound like something from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. I'm not familiar enough with that story to tell whether this is really part of it, though. — Gwalla | Talk 21:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't anyone use google any more? Kappa 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Kappa means is that this 'person' is verified in the first few Google hits. I expect Kappa also meant to suggest this link which appears to be a translation or similar from the text mentioned in the article. -Splash 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and Splash. Pburka 03:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 05:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiable legend Sam Vimes 15:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa and Splash, and Pburka. --BD2412
  • Keep Definitely real character in Romance of the Three Kingdoms heres his appearance in the novel
  • Keep I've corrected all the blaring errors in that article, and also added a lot of detail, don't delete it now --Applepurple
  • Keep God knows why it's up for deletion in the first place, Zuo Ci was a character in Romance of the Three Kingdoms and is just as valid as Zhou Cang, Diao Chan and anyone else who's existance is suspicious in the real world --Tiresais
  • Cleanup. Stream of consciousness, almost unreadable (maybe author not native speaker?). --Trovatore 06:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runik[edit]

NN gamer vanity -Delete Gunmetal 18:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy. Nonsense vanity with little or no content. Gwk 18:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 20:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as per above. royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy author now vandalizing the VFD notice on the article. NSR (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable gamer vanity. JamesBurns 05:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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: 3mr, 1d.. Duly merged and redirected. -Splash 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleici[edit]

Not enough context to establish notability. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curry Lines[edit]

Nonsense - should be a speedy delete. -- RHaworth 18:39, 2005 July 12 (UTC)

  • Speedy. As per above. Gwk 18:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a valid candidate for speedy delete. This is a perfectly valid entry based on a perfectly crackpot theory. Argue that it's poorly formatted and non-encyclopedic all you like, but that's a reason for deletion, not speedy deletion. 302 hits on Google doesn't seem to support keeping it, IMHO, but either way it should get its 5 days as a real topic of questionable notability. -Harmil 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, delete, crackpot non-notable theory --Doc (?) 21:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Crackpot" theory or not, there are enough Google hits, as Harmil pointed out, that it is a theory with some following. You may think Scientology or Creationism are crackpot theories, but we still document their existence. So how about a more objective article, i.e. "Curry lines are part of a controversial theory about ... " royblumy 00:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Ley Lines. brenneman(t)(c) 01:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn crackpottery based Harmil's research. It may indeed have some following, most things do, but it does not have a notable following.-Splash 12:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable crackpottery, yes; non-notable crackpottery, no. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [17] 1190 google hits (more often referred to as curry grids, apparently), not that it makes a difference. Wikipedia seems mainly to keep crackpottery based on attracting a POV, like Pathogenic theory of homosexuality --Tabor 18:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even including "curry grid" there's only 265 displayed hits[18]. Yeah, we host more than our share of crackpot theories, but this one doesn't seem widely held enuf. Maybe there's somewhere we can redir this to, to discourage article recreation? Dunno if Ley lines is close enuf. Niteowlneils 00:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krudler[edit]

Doesn't warrant an article... maybe Merge with List_of_characters_from_The_Simpsons otherwise Delete -- Gunmetal 20:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's probably room for it in that characters article. Everyone else who's ever been on the show is mentioned. Merge and redirect. -R. fiend 20:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even "characters" never shown and only mentioned once??--Gunmetal 20:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. I was under the impression he actually made a single appearance. Delete. Now that you mention it I remember this. Yeah, a single mention isn't sufficient, low a bar as there is for inclusion on that page. I think I once added Pops Freshenmeyer, who at least was depicted. -R. fiend 21:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'm to blame for the inclusion of Señor Ding-dong --Gunmetal 21:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, just seems like a cheap one-liner, Krusty + Midler = Krudler... not a "character" IMO. Impossible to expand, obviously. Delete. Dcarrano 20:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is a page for Mr. Sparkle, there should be one for krudler. -Krudler
    • But Mr. Sparkle was shown, had lines (in fact he was at the center of that episode), and was a popular joke. Krudler was a throwaway line. --Gunmetal 21:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not even sure Mr. Sparkle should have his own page. Most of the article is a highly detailed description of a scene from the show, which seems sort of original research, and maybe a copyvio. In any case, it's basically telling a joke from the show, which is not what encyclopedias do. We're not a joke book (lightbulb joke notwithstanding). -R. fiend 22:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Krusty Gets Kancelled, the episode where that joke is found. CanadianCaesar 02:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable one-off fictional character. JamesBurns 05:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --ScottDavis 14:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TampaBayStart.com[edit]

Delete, advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Relevant. Sorry, the first write did look like an ad. I should have used the sandbox for initial edits. However, I would claim it is relevant due to a couple of factors. First, the site has recieved media attention from the St. Petersburg Times. Second, TampaBayStart.com has more visitors than many of the local television and radio station websites, such as WTVT and WFTS, and is closely competitive with Bay News 9 and WTSP, all of whom are listed. Finally, 330,000 people visited the site in the 12 months ending June 2005. Source for validation of traffic is Alexa and server logs. User:Awyllie (author)
    • Are you the Adrian Wyllie mentioned in the article too? I notice creating the article was your first edit under this username, and that your only other edits to date have been to this discussion. I warn you that this is unlikely to win you any favours in this discussion, though I currently abstain from voting. -- Francs2000 | Talk 21:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I am one in the same. That's why I used the "(author)" tag next to my name. I apologize for any confusion. I'm not trying to be deceptive, I'm just a newbie at this. However, I love the Wikipedia concept, and I'm using this as a trial run. User:Awyllie
  • Welcome! Unfortunately, I don't feel your website is of enyclopedic significance, so I'm voting delete. Your site's Alexa rating is 121,200, and as you can see from one set of (non-binding) guidelines, "having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or less" or "having been the subject of press attention in a non-local scope" are more the type of thing we are looking for in a website submission. Local TV/radio station websites are virtually never significant (the stations themselves are, not the websites), so outdoing them doesn't say much IMO. Among many other things you can do here, you might enjoy putting your knowledge of the Tampa Bay area to work by editing articles in the Tampa Bay category! Dcarrano 22:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a web guide. Sorry. CDC (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , but stop biting the newbies. royblumy 00:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable given Alexa and media impact. But appreciate the author's honest attempt, and the honest rewrite, and not getting immediately inflamed when coming to VfD as so manyh first-time VfD'd authors do. -Splash 02:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable website advertising. JamesBurns 05:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Article Author - After reading user feedback, I realize that my article on TampaBayStart.comis borderline at best according to the editorial guidelines. I guess I'll just have to keep improving the site until it meets the criteria. Thanks to all for sending info on how to use/contribute to Wikipedia. -awyllie
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A.W.A. "Artie" Phair[edit]

It seems someone has been writing a history of their small town, and Artie here was a coroner and merchant, and friend of some other guy. Also a "noted" chronicler and photographer, though "noted" is highly subjective. Google isn't great for guys like this, and both "Artie Phair" and "A W A Phair" got me very few hits, several wikipedia. Those that weren't were generally photo credits, which any professional photographer will have. I don't see anything about this guy that seems at all encyclopedic. Minor fellow in a minor town. -R. fiend 20:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per R. fiend. Dcarrano 20:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What's wrong with having entries like this? We can't judge everything by the almighty Google, which seems like all Wikipedians ever do. Who's to say that the history of this small town is less interesting or "encyclopedic" than the history of a town that has info up on the net and will get you Google results? royblumy 00:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guy didn't do anything in the town. No one is objecting to the Lillooet article. Dcarrano 00:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • My point was that he was a professional photographer (as verified by the google links), so why is that considered "not doing anything" just because the photos were of a relatively unknown small town? In other words, though he might not be a notable photographer, he seems to be a notable part of that town's history. Maybe include him in the Lillooet article instead? royblumy 01:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • I just don't see how we know he's a "notable part of that town's history." Because this article says he was "noted", with no proof of that within the article or anywhere, and which is a weasel word to begin with? Because he had intellectual-type interests like "historian" and "photographer," instead of being a butcher, baker or candlestick maker? To include, in an article about a city, mention of an everyday working person who lived in that city would be very weird. Giving that guy his own article would be even more weird. Those are what we appear to be dealing with here, IMO. Dcarrano 02:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • You might want to go and explicitly change your vote if that's what you want. -Splash 02:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lillooet, British Columbia as royblumy suggests. -Splash 02:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per R.Fiend. Radiant_>|< 09:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Radiant. JamesBurns 09:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lang community[edit]

Non notable gaming community. And what technical limitations stop the title from displaying correctly? Francs2000 | Talk 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity. Dcarrano 20:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, please, delete. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - oops, we let this hang around for five days before VFDing... CDC (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity royblumy 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. The only technical limitation that will prevent the article title from displaying correctly is a perfectly healthy deletion. -Splash 02:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 04:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smalls[edit]

Teen *sigh* vanity... Delete --Gunmetal 20:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Borgen Project[edit]

This is self-promotion of a non-notable think tank/nonprofit. 1) It gets zero hits on LexisNexis, indicating basically no media coverage. 2) Basically all of the Google hits for it are on forums or various listing services where one could be listed for free or for a small charge; I didn't see any indication of other organizations referencing its work. 3) Various IP users have been inserting links to the organization's website into a wide variety of articles; [19], [20], etc. So there's a lot of self-promoting going on here. CDC (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed; self-promotion of a non-notable organization. —Cleared as filed. 20:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Dcarrano 20:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn royblumy 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable self promotion. JamesBurns 09:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I got 7,600 Google hits for "borgen project", this is far more notable than many other things here. The hits are from a variety of sources not just listing services. Mainstream media attention is not a good barometer for notability. Within the area of NGO's the Borgen Project seems to be fairly well known. Nrets 17:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just one more thing, I agree with the links relating to this group being removed from various articles since they clearly are not major players in the Bush administration policy toward, say, the Sudanese civil war. However, I do think that a lot less notable groups are allowed to maintain an entry, for example see: Ninjas in Pyjamas. I do not see why a group of people who play video games are more notable than an actual organization that seems to advocate responsible government and good causes, no matter how self-promoting they are. I really have no stake whether Bogen Project stays or goes, I just sense an inconsistent standard here. Nrets 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm hardly going to defend the notability of a videogamer group; do go ahead and VFD that, and I'll probably vote to delete. That said, I don't see any evidence that this "project" is anything more than one guy's pet project. Regarding mainstream media exposure; I'm sympathetic to the argument that mainstream media shouldn't determine notability, but according to the article the project's "primary focus is generating public pressure on the White House"; this really must produce some sort of result in the media. If it hasn't, then the project is non-notable, because it's highly unlikely that it's been even remotely influential in its primary mission. CDC (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted, like most small NGO's this one has almost no actual impact, but they do seem to have groups accross the country so its no tiddly-winks. I see your point, but I still stand by my vote. Nrets 21:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Borgen[edit]

Vanity/self-promotion. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Borgen Project, above. 1) The book, Geneva Nights, is published with a print-on-demand, vanity press; anyone can do an autobiography that way. 2) Wikipedia is the first hit on Google for "clint borgen" - never a good sign. 3) Most of the rest of the hits are on his website, or on various advertising-filled search-engine-optimization pages. I can't find any mentions of him that he couldn't have placed himself. CDC (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity. Also can't seem to find any instances of Clint "aggressively and publicly challenging U.S. leaders." —Cleared as filed. 20:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 20:56, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity. royblumy 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity/self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable / non-encylopedic.--GrandCru 03:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kas'Haran[edit]

Unencyclopedic, strange, and doesn't feature on google. BJAODN? MAdaXe 15:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Morgan Stanley. Postdlf 05:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Stanley Capital International[edit]

Same thing as Morgan Stanley except much shorter and less informative. StopTheFiling 21:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking redirect myself, but I wasn't sure what the right protocol on that was, not that there was much history to delete if I had, but as a noob I was chicken...I was looking for the right thing to put up on it, and VFD's the closest I got. StopTheFiling 22:50, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case it would be quicker and easier to just redirect. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, agreed jamesgibbon 21:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect would be o.k., but I just found this article by entering MSCI. Maybe a redirection for this abbreviation to Morgan Stanley would also be helpful?--Filosof 22:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MSCI is a business unit of Morgan Stanley. It is not, itself, Morgan Stanley. At least comparing Morgan Stanley and MSCI is the sort of thing that one should do before voting, I think. Ben-w 23:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Just another business unit, not notable on its own. --Calton | Talk 07:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Morgan Stanley. JamesBurns 09:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already SPEEDY DELETED as recreation of deleted article.[21] Postdlf 05:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sharp (2nd nomination)[edit]

Vanity. For the first discussion see this. --Neigel von Teighen 21:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was already SPEEDY DELETED as nonsense.[22] Postdlf 05:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rutledge[edit]

Delete, the entire story is straight out of the Simpsons, renaming Mr. Burns as Matt Rutledge. WP:DP says hoaxes go to VfD, so here we are.FreplySpang (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glass plate university[edit]

At best this is a neologism; at worst totally original research. A search on Google shows this phrase being used a number of times - unfortunately these are all occasions where the article is either linking to or drawing text from this Wikipedia article or the research for the article seems to have come from reading Wikipedia. The term is not afik in common usage in the UK. We should not be in the businesws of creating new phrases, terms or taxonomies as of principle. 62.253.64.15 21:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the references found by Splash below I'm changing my vote to *Keep. Sorry to have caused a fuss but I douldn't find any references myself. Guess I got it wrong on this one. <g>62.253.64.15 11:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an article having a title which might be bad is not a reason for destroying someone's hard work - these unis became because of the Robbins Report and they deserve to be grouped together. Take it to talk:Glass plate university, not VFD. Anons should log in. Dunc|☺ 21:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's a categoriosation which does not exist. Are you saying that we should abandon the policy on "no original research" just because the person worked hard? That quite specifically is NOT what the policy says. 62.253.64.15 22:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. This is a term in the UK, where I am at University (though a redbrick). There are not many Unis that fall into this categorization but it is no less valid for it. Producing a reference for it appears to be rather hard; so you can believe me or not as you choose. -Splash 02:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to believe you, but articles must be verifiable. This article absolutely needs a reference. If the phrase is really used surely it must appear in a newspaper or magazine that can be used as a source. Quale 04:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know. I've been rather distracted from my search today. I have managed to find some usages of the term however. There is this from what appears to be a news-sourcey sort of thing. About halfway down it refers to the plate-glass universities. There's also this from what I think is an editorial-sort-of-thing. It also refers to plate-glass unis rather than glass plate. Ah, better is a published conference paper using the plate-glass term. It's not really a reference, but I did find this from Sheffield University which uses "glass plate" and "Robbins Report" in the couple of sentences; not a direct reference I know. Given all this, I think perhaps a move to plate-glass university might be in order. (My Google search was "Robbins Report" glass plate — but beware the Wikimirrors. There may also be other references among the results; I figured three refs was enough, especially including a conference paper.) -Splash 00:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Splash. -- BD2412 talk 23:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sort of amazed that I see lots of "keeps" and not one piece of evidence that this doesn't breach the "no original research" policy. Dont we care about wikipedia policy? 62.253.64.14 23:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above.
  • Keep, though move to "Plate-glass university" as that does appear to be the common usage. I think it is in general use in the UK, (though not universal use - it's a fairly esoteric subject area) - see the citations above; in anecdotal addition, someone entirely unrelated to this discussion used "plate-glass universities" in an email to a mailing list I'm on this morning, which looks like general use to me :-) TSP 11:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Splash's research. Article should be moved to "Plate-glass uni" as glass-plate makes no sense as was noted on the article's talk page some months ago. Article needs a reference on it and will need to be careful to not make original research claims -- Splash's references show that the term is used, but they don't provide a good definition of it. Quale 07:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (aesthetic)[edit]

While an article on the history, sociology, and aesthetic of "cool" would be interesting, this article appears to mostly be composed of unsubstantiated assertions and artful original research. I suggest moving the substantiated elements into Cool (currently a disambig). Nectarflowed T 22:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, contrary to the article's argument, the word has been in use as "calmly audacious" since 1825, and has been applied since 1728 to "large sums of money to give emphasis to amount."[23]--Nectarflowed T 22:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the word may be old this article is original research. JamesBurns 09:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP This article is not original research and is under major construction/reconstruction (as are many articles on the web site) to broaden its focus (as it has been for the last two or three days), and there has been no discussion whatsoever of a VfD in the article discussion. The VfD has been initiated by someone clearly without a knowledge of the subject matter under discussion. (The rationale of usage provided above is utterly shallow and meaningless and has no bearing whatsoever on the cool aesthetic.) Presently, I seem to be the only individual contributing in any substantive manner to this piece, but knowledgeable contributions are more than welcome. IMO, this VfD is premature and ill-considered. Wikipedia has a distinct lack of articles treating black/African cultures -- and a distinct lack of expertise in this regard, as its membership appears to be comprised largely of white males. And while I claim no special (or innate) expertise in this subject based on formal education, ethnicity, or gender, I do at least have some exposure to the essential philosophical underpinnings of "cool" and am familiar with the concept in the African American and pop culture contexts. The stubborn ignorance (no pejorative intended; just naming it for what it is) and obstinacy demonstrated over time by some editors in the development of this piece -- very likely the result of the phenomenon of cultural appropriation and assimilation -- is all the more reason it should be given a chance to develop into a quality piece -- particularly given the importance of 'cool' in African societies and its impact on Western and world popular culture via the African American experience. Okay. I've spent far too much time responding to this **@#$%& VfD (time that could have been spent improving the article), and now must attend to some deadlines of my own. deeceevoice 11:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • VfDs serve an important role of community feedback in the organization of Wikipedia. Re: "The rationale of usage provided above is utterly shallow and meaningless and has no bearing whatsoever on the cool aesthetic." As a matter of the article's general methodology, it's unscientific (much of this article is probably in the field sociology) to disqualify the seemingly related meaning "Calmly audacious" from being an ancestor to the modern cultural concept of coolness. Best, Nectarflowed T 10:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The article covers a real and notable topic, and a great deal of work has already gone into it. I agree that more citations, clarification and references to source material are needed, but that's only reason to improve the article, not delete it. Babajobu 12:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite. (is this still in voting?) Lack of african/-american articles does not mean you can add an african/-american slant to everything. You can not explain this with racism--I am not racist in any way. What's happening here is that you're being a Black Panther of wikipedia. You see the problem, then you go to an extreme and become just as skewed as the people you're campaigning against. You have destroyed the "cool" article. You will not allow any work on it that is not approved by you. You have lost all sense of what wikipedia is. This needs a rewrite. Fast.Lockeownzj00 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Lockeownz, but your comments are pure nonsense. deeceevoice 23:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks for defending your article like a rational human being :D Lockeownzj00 01:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have defended it as a "rational human being." I wish I could say the same for your objections. I won't get into a back and forth with you on this. You seem inordinately concerned with making ridiculous comments ("a Black Panther of wikipedia" and allusions to "racism" -- which are comically off-the-mark. Your objections have been registered -- as has my defense. As far as any exchange between you and me is concerned, I'm perfectly content to leave it at that. Substantive comments or questions from others on the VfD, however, are welcome. deeceevoice 02:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lockeownzj, this VfD is about a particular article, and is not a referendum on Deeceevoice's personality. Your entire explanation for your "delete" vote was devoted to bitching about Deeceevoice. Even if everything you said were true, it's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, that's a bad faith vote and should be disregarded. Babajobu 08:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lockeownzj00's given reason for his vote was that he deems there to be an African American slant to the article.--Nectarflowed T 10:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article, as written, covers a specifically African and/or African-American topic. If other "cool aesthetics" exist, (perhaps influenced by the African version, but distinct) and warrant articles of their own, then create a disambiguation page and write those articles. But this article is only slanted in the sense, say, that the baseball article has an American slant, or the Ayyavazhi article has a Tamil slant. Babajobu 11:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whether there's too much POV in this article is debatable, and users with different opinions are entitled to their vote. --Nectarflowed T 01:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - convincing argument is not made that this meets the criteria for deletion. VfD is not the place for content disputes, as this appears to be. This appears to be a bad faith VfD. Guettarda 12:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- I agree with Guettarda, this does appear to be a bad faith Vfd, content disputes do not belong on Vfd. -JCarriker 19:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Guettarda and JCarriker, can you explain why this topic's arguments, such as (1) "Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength" and (2) "Traditional West African ontology does not devalue one fundamental aspect of existence in relation to another" don't need to be referenced or supported with evidence?
It hasn't been demonstrated that this topic has recognized existence in the scholarly literature. The statements not only need to be referenced (which they're not), they need to be representative of recognized scholarly opinion. If they're not, they need to be presented as popular or fringe theory, rather than as simple fact (as the article does now).
This topic (aesthetics of) presently meets the requirements for original research. Substantiated content in the article can be moved to cool.--Nectarflowed T 01:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no intention of getting envloved in a content dispute, this is a Vfd over an entire article, not one version of it, or a referendum on its NPOV or accuracy. Vfding this article was improper, so I opposed its deletion. If you wanted a referendum on its NPOV or accuracy you should have filed an RFC, not jumped to this extreme measure. -JCarriker 03:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • The proposition here is to delete this article, based on the supported argument that it is unreferenced original research. The sections of the article that are substantiated can be included at cool, but don't warrant an entire article devoted to this subtopic of cool (the aesthetic of).--Nectarflowed T 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have stated my assesment of the situation, it will not change. -JCarriker 04:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
To interject here, thus far, there have been claims of "original research," that there is no evidence of this subject matter in scholarly research, blah, blah, blah -- when the article cites and quotes published sources. In fact, Thompson is, perhaps, the foremost modern (Western) authority on African Art and culture alive today, and has been for more than three decades. And he's white. But because he writes of African and African American cool, he's somehow an "Afrocentrist." No, this is not a referendum on me, my "Afrocentrist" perspectives (which -- news flash -- are not rendered invalid, ipso facto, incidently, by someone merely assigning that presumptively -- in their eyes, at least -- dismissive label to them), or even, really, the content of this article. This is about a bad-faith move to delete an article -- with, again, absolutely no prior mention of such intent in the article discussion page -- because it treats another black subject which some benighted "contributors" assume, in their ignorance, to have other origins. And not only do they assume such, they aggressively have asserted their ignorance as fact -- in the face of clearly articulated information to the contrary, and with the article still under major construction/expansion.
IMO, this is a common form of arrogance and pettiness on this website and an attempt at censorship -- and, IMO, a perfect example of the kind of hostility to new information (particularly as it relates to black people and black culture) that challenges fallacious and often inherently racist majority assumptions of the way things are. It is also an example of the ignorance of (relative) youth. Few who lived through or are knowledgeable of the jazz scene from the time it caught fire in the 1920s, with its deep affinity with African culture and sensibilities and the pervasive influence it has had on American popular culture; or few who have lived through the times of the bohemian/beatnik set and its groupie-mentality fascination with African American slang, soul, style and music, would bat an eyelash at the statement that cool is a fundamentally black phenomenon (though they likely would say "African American," rather than "African," because that is the context in which they are familiar with it). But this ignorance (understandable), antagonistic intellectual arrogance (inexcusable) and inherent ethnic bias (pervasive) which is so much a part of Wikipedia is also precisely why I intend to go forward with the article, and with other submissions focusing on black-related topics on this venue. And, no. I'm not charging the people here with racism in its common sense, per se -- though I wouldn't necessarily rule it out across the board. The bias I write of herein relates specifically to a skewed notion of a world where the depth of black culture and history is little known, little understood by the masses -- but also heavily distored/appropriated. So, if people get so exercised/hostile over a little article on the cool aesthetic, gee, just think what'll happen later on down the line. I'm certain we'll find out -- 'cuz I ain't goin' nowhere. The article under discussion here will be a good one if people stop bickering and start doing their research (as I am) and contribute. That is, after all, the Wiki way. Of course, I understand perfectly if the topic is not of sufficient interest to everyone here to do so. My interests are not likely theirs. But if the whiners and grumblers don't do the research, if they admittedly don't know anything about a subject, then, respectfully, they should just shut the hell up, move on and go contribute constructively elsewhere. Now, I've got some real work to do; I've got bills to pay. I'm probably done with this page for a while, but will check back from time to time. Peace. deeceevoice 10:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we've had miscommunications in the past, Deeceevoice, I want to make my position clear that I support your position. Especially since this vote seems to have been more about you personally, than the actual article in the VFD subpage title— which is completely inapproriate. I would do research on the topic and contribute but I'm currently bogged down in fighting illiteracy and virulent POV pushers in U.S. Geography topics. Good luck. Peace. -JCarriker 19:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Deeceevoice, slapping book titles at the end of an article comprised of unsupported assertions doesn't make the article adequately referenced, and everyone will agree on that point. Every controversial assertion needs to be attributed to established scholarly work. Wikipedia is reactive, not proactive to revolutions.--Nectarflowed T 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • JCarriker, in what way is this VfD personally about Deeceevoice if the initiator hasn't stated anything regarding him? Are you referring to Lockeownzj00 and Pharlap claiming this article is representative of POV-pushing on the part of Deeceevoice? That's not personal, and both their votes give valid reasons. --Nectarflowed T 01:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First off, regarding her, Deeceevoice is a woman. Second, I'll say it once more: content disputes do not belong on vfd, period. There is clearly a content dispute going on here. I appreciate your persistance, but unless you have some starteling new evidence, my postion is not going to change. Thanks. -JCarriker 04:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Being bi-racial myself (african-american father), and therefore classified as "black" by racialist societies and racist individuals, I feel embarrassed how well-meaning people are so easily played by somebody who shares the color of my shell. Bad faith isn't a one way street. And equality starts with an EQUAL treatment. It doesn't help us in our fight for equality to yell "racism" everytime we face constructive criticism. (and Deceevoice has a long history of doing that, see my diffs concerning the wareware case) It doesn't help us to make up "racist" stories either, as it happened just the other day, when deeceecvoice faced critics for her Blackface article, which is a featured article candidate (how could that happen since Wikipedia is allegedly such a racist net-society?) Facing criticism because of the inclusion of the terms "darky" in a section header and "nigger" in the related topics section, she made up a story about a mysterious racist editor, editing the page while she was allegedly blocked from editing [24]. Yet the edit history proves that the "nigger" link was added 2 years before she joined Wikipedia (14:30, 10 December 2002 by Ortolan88 [25]) and that she even "alpha ordered" the links (including the "nigger" link) [26] (scroll down) when she "rewrote" the article and that she inserted the "darky" and "coon" terms herself [27] [28] [29] Seriously. if you really want to help us, treat us like anybody else, and exercise "good faith" for anybody, no matter what color they are. And please double check before you accuse your fellow wikipedians of "bad faith", no matter if they are considered to be black or white. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Pharlap 19:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you knew anything about my work at wikipedia, you'd know I have a history of defending minority viewpoints, such as those held by Walabio on circumcision, that I don't neccesarrily agree with. I am very aware of the diversity of Africa, which is why I'm a critic of Kwanzaa and Afrocentrism (I don't care much for Eurocentrism or any other centrism for that matter). I know every country in Africa and its capital, do you Pharlap? However, you don't know anything about me, so don't assume I'm cutting Deeceevoice slack because she's Black, it is an insult to her and myself. I live in an integrated neighborhood in the South, I have far to many Black friends, associates, and enemies to think one person is qualified to speak for all black people; not her and not you. Do not presume to stereotype me again. -JCarriker 21:09, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Do what you think you have to do, but maybe one day, one minute, you take the time to think about my words, I pray, I hope, .... Pharlap 21:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:(Skimming again...) No, I don't know anything about you. I don't follow your edits. But, yeah, I can really see how prayerful and kind and hopeful you are. (crackin' up) Come down off the cross. It really doesn't suit. deeceevoice 21:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, JCarriker. The tight format of this piece had me mistaking your comments for those of Pharlap. I should have known he never would have stepped back and said something so magnanimous (hence my response). It's simply not in him. I very much appreciate your reasoned support in this matter. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 22:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, Pharlap, you're embarrassing yourself. First, I was never "under attack" for Blackface. It's a quality article which stands on its own. When I became aware of the FAC request for the article, I saw that one person had expressed mild reservations about the use of the words "darky" and "coon" in the article, and I simply explained their usage. I had already deleted the link to Nigger. The business about Zwarte Piet was resolved amicably, I thought. I even sent User:Andries a note suggesting how he could improve his rather cryptic add-on by asking a few questions for him to address. I subsequently cleaned it up just a bit, and the resultant language is now part of the article. I did not see the related exchange on the talk page until after the fact, at which time I simply lost my patience with the silliness of it all. Now, with regard to "nigger": Simply because I alpha ordered a list some time ago where the word was included means nothing. I often peruse articles by section -- sometimes editing for content, but often first skimming, looking at an article as simply a copy editor, paying very little attention to content and context. A case in point is the controversy over the inclusion of a racist image in an article on Watermelon. I first saw no problem with the image because when I first took a look at the article, I was looking at it the image as merely an object, a photo, within a piece. I have a rather large collection of such images, so I don't find them shocking in the least; I'm accustomed to seeing them. My first reaction was that the photo needed to be upsized in relation to the rest of the images on the page -- simply in terms of visual space -- and that it should be staggered. With a background in all aspects of journalism, including page layout, it wasn't good to have a series of photos lined up on a single side of the page. I upsized the photo and staggered it. That was done when I saw the page as a copy editor. I went back later and looked at the page as an editor, and the thing that struck me immediately was that the image was wholly inappropriate in that context. I removed it, stating why -- and have weighed in, in the straw poll conducted on that issue to that effect. After doing that, I also went to Blacks and removed a table I'd seen at least a handful of times (and even copyedited minimally on a few occasions -- again taking a superficial approach) and which I'd been annoyed by to varying degrees over time. It consisted of largely pejorative terms for black people by country. The "watermelon" image and the issue it represented caused me to make the connection that I needed to finally act on that matter, as well. I deleted the table on the same grounds and placed a notice on the discussion page about why and opened the matter up for discussion -- and mentioned it in Talk: watermelon because, to my way of thinking, it is much the same issue, simply in a different article. So, Pharlap, your baseless insinuations in that regard are just that -- baseless. Next, with regard to my being blocked from editing "Blackface" -- unless you have some proof that it did not occur, then I suggest you button it. I was, indeed, blocked from editing the article by another editor because of an "impersonator." I was able to edit everything else, it seems, but not that piece. As a matter of fact, I've been blocked on two or three separate occasions in the last three days, with the block notification listing each time a different IP address. My mention of this situation was, I suppose, a complaint -- but also a kind of defense for my not having responded to the new edits sooner with the article under FAC consideration. And, while I admit I do find the situation at least a little curious, I in no way charged and certainly did not intend to insinuate nefarious goings on -- and certainly not on the part of any specific individual(s). Finally, did I charge any of the people commenting here in favor of this ridiculous VfD with garden-variety racism? Nope. (Did I already I know you're a half-white when I wrote my response? Yep. So, why would I do that? The very idea is absurd!) I no more called the white complainants in this process (or you) garden-variety racists than I insinuated any possible identity issues or self-loathing on your part. Nor will I do so. What I have stressed, however, is what I perceive as a stubborn, ill-informed adherence to preconceived notions about subject matter based on a knowledge base that is itself tainted by ignorant (again, no critical value attached to the word -- just stating it for what it is) presumptions and cultural appropriation/assimilation, and the aggressive, bad-faith action of this VfD. I suggest you, as we say, check your b*tch at the door, because your personal motivations are showing; you're still grinding that axe. Let it go, bwoi. Let it go. :p. My apologies to others for this lengthy diversion from the matter at hand, but, as in the Wareware RfC and related matters, dragging in unrelated "issues" and making wild accudations/insinuations is Pharlap's modus operandi. I've merely responded. The VfD is still groundless. deeceevoice 20:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm NOT your "BWOI", chill with your insults. Second, I provided the diffs, so you can stop lying and you can stop making up stories. The water melon case is a totally different issue, and after your edit war about the inclusion of white apartheid system into the melanin article just as ridiculous. And we don't want to discuss your assertion that africans, sold for slavery, chained naked in the bottom of slave trading ships, took suitcases full of water melons along with them. You play a good game. It's time to stop, your ignorance and racism is embarrassing. If somebody wants to see an example of your creative POV editing, one just has to check the recent changes at afrocentrism. Almost all your POV edits are faulty and unverifiable. Maybe you should consider writing novels, science fictions or something ... Pharlap 21:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk, tsk. Pharlap, baby, you get more and more shrill with each post. Now, I'm "lying"? (chuckling) You rattlin' the crystal up in here, bwoi. Chill. Take a deep breath and go to your happy place. But how kind of you to express an interest in my career path. Thank you. Wun mo' 'gin: peace 2 u. :D deeceevoice 21:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research - neither factual nor verifiable or encyclopedic. Unfortunatly, editor's past attempts to correct the distorted facts and to turn this piece into a verifiable article have failed because of one editor's profound sense of ownership. That's why I think it's a good suggestion to move the few substantiated elements back to the original cool (which was destroyed in an arbitrary act of deletion) and expand it from there. Pharlap 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be a shame to delete this, as a lot of work has gone into it, and it's interesting to read. I don't see it as original research because there are references, though I'd like to see more inline attribution. For example, where it describes West African ontology: "Apparent opposites, or countervailing constructs, not only meet — as with the Kalunga line, a sacred, underwater line of demarcation where the worlds of the living and of those passed on reconnect and interact — but can and often do inhabit the same space, conceptually or literally," it would be good to see "according to X," and an explanation, with a source, of where the idea of the Kalunga line comes from. But these are points that can be cleared up as the article's being worked on. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: One just need to take a few minutes to research some of the articles statements to see that Nectarflowed rightfully labled it artful original research. Let's put aside the fact that there isn't ONE african culture, and that there isn't even ONE West African culture, and let's start with the entry, the assertion that

:"Robert Farris Thompson divides the cool aesthetic into five distinct elements: visibility, luminosity (of motion), smoothness, composure of the face (the "mask of the cool"), and rebirth and reincarnation." One would expect, that, if that is really a common assertion in scholarly literature, one would find at least a hint of that theory somewhere on the net. That isn't the case, What you find are "Elements of the African Aesthetic" [30]. with (cool) self-composure being ONE of the 5 elements, and not to other way around. What you also find is that "Robert Farris Thompson writes in his 1983 book Flash Of The Spirit that cool originated in Nigeria in the first half of the 15th century. Ewure was the name given to a ruler crowned king of the Nigerian Empire of Benin. At the time, the word literally meant, "it is cool". [31]

Lets move to the statement that "Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength.... "Heat is masculine energy... " That isn't true either. It's exactly the other way around, which can be easily varified here: "The black male's cultural signature is his cool. It is sometimes the only source of pride, dignity, and worth in the absence of the outward status symbols of materialism and title that mark success in American culture. His status rides on his ability to communicate through human encounters, the most important information about himself: his coolness. Because it is so prized, preserving cool becomes an end in itself. (Majors & Billson)" [32] and here "The images here illustrate the masks of strength or the "cool pose" that Richard Majors and Janet Mancini Billson discuss in their landmark 1992 book of the same title. In Cool Pose, they bring the definition of cool up to date. The "cool pose", they write, "is a ritualised form of masculinity that entails behaviour, scripts, physical posturing, impression management, and carefully crafted performances that deliver a single critical message: pride, strength and control". They say that by acting calm, emotionless, fearless, aloof and tough, the African-American male shows both the dominant culture and the black male himself that he is strong and proud."[33] Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America [34]

And to merge informations about the unique mystical Yoruba concept of "itutu" [35] she's obviously hinting on, into an article addressing jazz culture and sunglasses in the 50's and black power activists wearing sunglasses in the 70s makes as much sense as to merge the christian concept of "hot" hell and heaven as a (comparatively cool) state of wellbeing with sunglasses as fashion accessories and "cool" machoist attitute in europe. And while we are talking about sunglasses: wearing sunglasses indoors has it's origins in China, and is not an invention of African Americans performing in jazz clubs: "The first reason why they darkened glasses was because of smoke tinting, which was held in China before 1430. It was so far back in time, that of coarse their glasses were not of any prescription, and they were not used to protect your eyes from the sun. Chinese judges had often worn sunglasses with quartz to hide the expression in their eyes while during a court case". [36] Maybe somebody wants to include that fact into the Cultural appropriation article, just in case you get the permission from the article owner.

This goes on and on, the whole article is a big mishmash of unsubstantiated assertions, distorted facts, ridiculous assumptions, and the tit bits of reliable informations are turned topsyturvy. In short: artful original research. Pharlap 17:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • More blah, blah from Pharlap -- which, as is my habit, I've only skimmed parts of it. (There are some things for which I simply have no patience.) And more snide comments, too. (I just saw the note about cultural appropriation. Perhaps Pharlap should quit while he still has a shred of dignity left. Oops! Too late. :p Excuse me, but the material's source is a book -- not the Internet. Further, I said cool was feminine -- not coolness as it is commonly perceived in the African American context. It is, in fact, neither masculine nor feminine in my culture; black women also possess and demonstrate cool. We always have. Finally, nowhere did I suggest that African Americans were the first to wear sunglasses. This has gotten downright silly. The VfD is still groundless/worthless. And I'm back to work. I'll return to Cool (aesthetic) later in the week when I have some time, and continue editing and improving the piece. Peace. Pharlap, I wish you peace, too. You seem to need it more than anyone here -- seriously. deeceevoice 20:38, 17 July 2005 (UT

Blahblah? well, I really didn't expect an intellectual, reasonable response from somebody who even thinks that the "swastikia" is BEAUTIFUL because it's black and NOT white. [37] Pharlap 22:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone doubts this, uh ... person's credibility, please feel free to click THIS link[38] (without the typo, which was corrected almost two hours before the above post) and an additional note, and see how his twisted mind and nefarious intent deliberately have mischaracterized my comments. (Just can't help yourself, huh, Pharlap? Keep it up. You're making yourself appear even more ridiculous. And even I didn't think that was possible.) 'Nuff said. ROTFLMAO. :p deeceevoice 01:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep; it's a real concept. Not only that, the article is well-written--indeed very well written--as well as sourced. Nice job, and peace to everybody. Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close The article has changed its topic since nomination. As the nominator, I think this VfD should be closed now. Consensus is keep.--Nectarflowed T 20:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the topic remains pretty much the same -- but I agree. This VfD was groundless, to begin with -- and has failed. deeceevoice 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As JCarriker noted above, it would be a mistake to equate a keep vote with an endorsement of the article's current state. You've changed some of the original research, such as what was the first paragraph of the article, but statements such as "Cool is feminine energy" are still unacceptably unreferenced until they have inline attribution, which was SlimVirgin's general recommendation, given above.
  2. The topic and it's given definition, as you've noted on the talk page,[39] has changed from cool as an aesthetic, to the African aesthetic of cool, and you've expressed plans to rename the article accordingly. The new topic has greater license to make non-sequitor claims, such as defining cool as, among other things, "rebirth and reincarnation."--Nectarflowed T 23:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, the VfD was groundless. VfDs are not to be used to resolve content disputes. People voted -- and you lost. The scope of the article has been broadened, yes, but its treatment of the cool aesthetic as African in origin has not. Further, the language in the opening paragraph also appears later in the article, so you might want to think again about dropping this "bad-faith VfD" based on some misguided notion on your part that the fundamental assertions of the piece have, or will, change. As far as the article in its present state, you weren't too concerned about jumping to conclusions based on your ignorance of the subject matter and where the article stood a few days ago. As with any article on this web site, it is unfinished -- and was clearly still undergoing major development (and still is) when you initiated this process designed to push your particular point of view, rather than honor the Wiki process. "Non-sequitor claims"? Yeah. Tell it to Thompson. Again, your ignorance and obstinance are showing. *x* But, hey, if you want to just slink away based on the fact that the VfD has been voted down by more than two to one at this point, be my guest.deeceevoice 02:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Facts About Slovakia[edit]

  • Delete All of this data can be found at the main article for Slovakia. Forbsey 22:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. royblumy 00:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I haven't checked I'd be very surprised if any of this information weren't at Slovakia. -R. fiend 16:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 05:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing White Women Syndrome[edit]

Fascinating - perhaps true - but is it notable?? --Doc (?) 22:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC) **apologies to all - I misread this. Nomination withdrawn - keep speedily if poss - very sorry --Doc (?) 22:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep True and notable (lots of google hits) Forbsey 22:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and NPOV Passes the google test, but may not be NPOV Alba 22:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a common accusation against the media with no particular political bias behind it. Very notable. Haikupoet 05:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Appears to be a notable term. JamesBurns 09:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Media bias: Noteworthy, but just one example of the many forms of media bias. Also primarily a phenomenon in US journalism. Peter Grey 16:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well documented phenomenon, by now. -- BD2412 talk 23:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I understand that my article may have rubbed few. But it's the truth. I feel that we should address this controversial issue. I mean we have millions of missing people. Why are we devoting time to this type of news coverage to one certain person? I seen it through Elizabeth Smart and Nataliee Hollaway. Too much fingerpointing and devoted coverage to something that Amber Hagerman a 9-year old who is white go so much media coverage the United States Congress passed the controversial "AMBER" alert. The media is bias, look at CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. Each channel was devoted to at least one major story that has coverage on a pretty white woman. So why don't we address this? Thank you for addressing the situation. Also feel free to edit and discuss this sitaution. Feel free to adjust it to Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome. This topic is something of consideration LILVOKA the creator of this article 15:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important example of media bias; great idea for an article. Since that article is long, I wouldn't merge there... but I would rename to Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome, which is in fact the term that Malkin used (urrgh, citing her as an authority makes my skin crawl, but at least it makes it less neologistic), and has 86 Google hits to "Missing White Women Syndrome"'s 33. Dcarrano 07:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a major reason people do not watch CNN, MSNBC, and the so called Fox News Channel. Relevant form of non-important news news media bias that is a result of these 24 hour news channels trying to fill time and get ratings. I recall when these networks actually had news, well maybe not Fox News! -- Spotteddogsdotorg 12:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR, neologism, racist shit.  Grue  19:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bullshit. If you weren't a liberal colorblind pussy you'd notice the truth in this article. Keep, but cleanup and possibly rename. --FatherGuidoSarducci 24.251.143.179
  • Keep - actual thing and SOOooo annoying.--Deglr6328 03:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. POV. Almafeta 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but find a different name and have this term redirect. This isn't media bias but more where we crave light, heart warming or heart breaking stories over real news. It's easier to listen to news of a pretty, missing women or a kitten stuck in a tree than it is to listen to stories of starving children. We should probably write an article on the subject as a whole and have this included.
  • The name is sort of a POV neologism, but the fact that a dozen of these missing white women have their own Wikipedia articles already tends to suggest to me that an article is in order. Keep and rename to something more suitable. Eliot 20:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps under a different name. --Rogerd 02:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs a lot of work though. 80.203.115.12 18:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once we decide it's staying, Wikipedians will bring it up to par. The Peacemaker 06:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps under a different name - little black kids get the same in the UK - David Gerard 12:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably more of an american phenomenon
  • Keep And link it to media hijacking Muzzle 13:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is opinion page stuff. - Tεxτurε 14:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article accurately describes a phenomenon that is all-too-prevalent in today's American news media. Atlant 15:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Interesting, relevant. I have heard this refered to before in regular watercooler conversation. An explanation of an un-nPOV can be a nPOV. It could have a less specific name. --Darkfred 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Interesting and well documented. --Daemon8666 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep EdwinHJ | Talk 02:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The great mactavish coup of 2005[edit]

Delete as vanity. The words form actual sentences and paragraphs, so it's not {{nonsense}}, but... FreplySpang (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indeed, as above... --Icelight 23:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Found nothing via google unsurprisingly, (borderline speedy) Delete CheekyMonkey 23:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, self promotion. JamesBurns 09:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Essjay · Talk 22:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

EcoDuro[edit]

Blatant advert - creator is the company chairman --Doc (?) 23:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn self-promotion. --Etacar11 01:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. Niteowlneils 04:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid listing of a company in the Company section. Ronreed 04:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I am the Chairman, but I am a legitimate creater of articles for the benefit of Wikipedia (see my other articles...Cindy Cohn, Preferred Stock, American Alpine Club) and I plan to continue to add to this and articles about other companies with sustainable products and solutions. This Company has patents that appear to change improve sustainability (as do our one or two competitors, which will also be added by me this weekend with issues around sustainable logistics). Why does it matter if the author is related as long as the author discloses themselves (which I have done, by using my actual name as the user). I ask this sincerely, since I intend to spend my time on Wikipedia focusing on the business sections. Ronreed 04:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reviewing the deletion policy, there is no reason stated for "self promotion". There is a reason for vanity, which I tried to avoid by trying to express the facts in a neutral way and to describe the importance of the business to a broader market, as described in the VANITY PAGE discussion. Also, this is not an advertisement, since I specifically tried not to discuss specific products of the Company. If you believe this could be writtin in a more neutral fashion, then perhaps we should edit it accordingly. Lastly, this Company will have additional importance as I focus on Michigan Business, since I intend to develop more information around venture backed companies in Michigan. I started with the one I know well, but intend to develop profiles around others in Michigan (Arbor Text, Supply Tech, Handy Lab, Nephros Therapeutics, Nano Bio, among others). I have proposed to others in Michigan that we use Wikepedia as a place to build our history of venture backed businesses. Please leave comments about my comments, since I am a new user and am eager to learn and want to be a productive contrutor. Ronreed 05:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a legitimate company. ElleBigelow 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am also, curious why it matters whether he is affiliated with Company or not. I assume it will be more accurate if he writes about it. Also, I looked in the Company listings and it seems that the more entries in there, the better. I looked, he is correct, there is no "self promotion" category (other than in the Vanity guidelines which caition, but don't explicitly restrict) in the deletion policy. ElleBigelow 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made some changes that make it less like an advertisement (taking out some of the promotional things about the product and making it more generic).
    • Unfortunately, I think no matter how you phrase it, it's not going to matter much because the company simply is not notable. This is really what the "advertisement" shorthand is about, though admittedly it is shorthand: A Microsoft article by Bill Gates would no doubt be accepted, and if Bill hyped up his company, that could be edited out rather than deleting the article. However, if someone writes an article hyping up a small, unknown company, the assumption that this person is taking advantage of a free opportunity to advertise has usually turned out to be correct. Sometimes, even if evidence of notability is not presented in the article or easily Googled up, it can still be shown... people will cheerfully change their votes in that case, once they're shown it. The rule simply is that the company has to become notable before we write about it. It's an encyclopedia, not a business directory. If you plan to write further articles, please keep this in mind; your insights on business matters in general or on major Michigan businesses will be really valuable; your insights on specific startup companies, probably not so much. It is nothing at all against you or your company, it's just a question of what the project is about. Dcarrano 06:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I really appreciate the feedback. It sounds like a contributor needs to produce some evidence any company's notablity. Perhaps we could start a conversation about the "notability test or guidelines". Certainly, Microsoft is inutitive at this point, but where did it cross the line from being a little software company started by a few friends to being "notable". I guess the real question is for whom will the Company be notable? I understand the objective of Wikipedia is to focus on an informational resource and not a "pure play" advertising resource, but I suspect we are still in early days here and the Wikicommunity is still relatively small compared to the potential audience that will someday use the resource. Although I've heard about it, I listen to NPR and watch for these kinds of projects. I have a sense, that as Wikipedia matures, Wikipedia will become part of any suject matter expert's tool kit. An expert in any field will someday mention, as part of their creidibility, that they are a wikipedia contributor on a topic. I can envision being at a conference in the next could years and seeing someone introduced as "Ms. So &So is blah, blah blah and noted wikipepdia contributor. The point is that the nature of participation in Wikipedia by experts will become self-promotional. While I think the wikicommunity has to watch this closely, I believe the benefits to the experts will also improve the value of this resource. Further, I believe that some of the information that may seem insignificant to a small group of people today (like a paper pallet company with patents issued in the major industrial countries of the world) may be some of the seeds that draw in an entirely new part of the Community. Therefore, I would be cautious about the "notability test". One person's unnkown company is very possibly the leading emerging player for a new industry that is not yet represented on Wikipedia, but should they be drawn into the Wiki by, say a reference to the site by some of these companies (EcoDuro plans to point to WikiPedia for packaging industry info and to help education people information on the established/emerging standards and technologies).
I'll try here, to make the case for EcoDuro meeting the notability test. At this point, the Company has been asked to present at three major venture capital conferences in the last fourteen months. The Company has been issued patents (another topic, but should Companies list their patents). Its products have been tested by the two leading packaging in the US (one of which is the leading in the world, Michigan State University). Articles are being written about it by notable sustainability investment writers example The World is Changing author Jamais Cascio. One of the leading investors, was formerly the Chairman of MeadWestvaco who is also helping to drive technology transfer for sustainable packaging and products in other Companies (Pollywood). The Company is in a rapidly changing. "After delays, misfires and more government bureaucracy than most care to remember, 2004 appears to be the year that many major world markets will get serious about implementation and enforcement of the global IPPC standard for solid wood packaging", by Pallet Profile Dec 2003. I imagine this all looks pretty boring to most people, except for a few fun facts.
  • Pallets are about an annual $19 Billion industry.
  • “[Big City Forest] says the national recycling rate for wooden pallets, crates, and packaging is about 10%, with the majority ground into low-value applications like fiber or chips and more than half of the ground wood burned for fuel. BCF estimates that harvesting just the discarded wooden packaging in big U.S. cities would conserve about 300,000 acres of virgin timberland a year. The 88 million pallets discarded annually in the 49 largest urban areas contain about 1.5 billion board feet of usable lumber, or roughly three times the amount of virgin timber used to produce all the hardwood flooring sold in the U.S. every year. -- source: [http://web.indstate.edu/recycle/9619.html
  • Since the 1980s, the primary increase in the use of lumber is for Pallets. According to the US Forest Service, No major technological changes or innovations were expected to slow this growth. Source: USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory.
For these reasons, the EcoDuro company is starting to get more notable and most importantly, Companies like Ocean Spray, GE Medical, Pfizer have begun using products that don't spread insects and are recycleable/repulpable. Thanks again for comments. Again, the question is whether a "Notability Test" is a proper test for the Wikipedia and if so, what are the guidelines for notability? Best Regards to all. Ronreed 14:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well written article, honestly. No? Redwolf24 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as there's no advertising in it, why begrudge the man his article?Robludwig 21:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSince it has been seven (7) days and the votes to keep outweigh votes to delete (4/3 excluding the vote from the author -me, there is still a vote 3/3), I am going to remove the VFD notice on the page. I assume this is the process according the VFD guidelines. Thanks for everyone's thoughtful consideration (including the votes to delete). --Ronreed 02:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not the process. Admins close the vfd. --Etacar11 02:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is well-writte, even the author's argument on whether the company is notable or not. As he has pointed out, we don't know if this company "will be the leading emerging player", at this point it isn't and it is not notable. However, I encourage the author to keep writing, I see the quality of his writing, but it is not written in a NPOV, "unique engineered", etc. --Vizcarra 02:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used the word unique due to the patents that are in place. I assumed propose that patents make the pallet "unique" as opposed to other pallets that are "standard" according the GMA (Grocery Manufacturers Association). Standard wood GMA pallets make up most of the 1 billion pallets used in the US. Thanks for your comment by the way, but I still don't know about the "notability standard", but I think it is my challange to pursue this discussion elsewhere on the general VFD pages. We've started the process of creating a Business, Economics & Finance Portal and I believe this issue of notability will emerge again, since I intend to encourage people to put up information about business. I guess the general question for the Wikipedia is "where are the edges of the information that is desired for Wikipedia"?
  • Comment Sorry for taking changing the VFD. Thanks for correcting it. I'm learning, however slowly. --Ronreed 00:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men Win Fights[edit]

Delete Appears to fail WP:MUSIC criteria for notability. Icelight 23:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no notability established, no Allmusic page. --TheMidnighters 23:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Approximately 900 google hits indicates that the band is influential in the local scene. (WP:MUSIC 6). Pburka 01:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criteria is "the most prominent representative of... the local scene of a city." That's not proven, so Delete. Dcarrano 02:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • The WP:MUSIC criterion is poorly worded and impossible to prove. Prominent representative should be sufficient, and 900 hits clearly indicates prominence. Pburka 13:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran into an edit conflict with Dcarrano (again!) saying the exact same thing. Those Google hits actually serve to establish lack of notability by being only local and not suggesting they are the most locally notable. -Splash 02:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 09:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC guidelines. JamesBurns 09:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teha[edit]

A Quakenet-inspired neologism. Joyous (talk) 23:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Dcarrano 01:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 09:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already SPEEDY DELETED.[40] Postdlf 05:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris soupios[edit]

Vanity page. (preceding unsigned comment by PhilipO 23:23, July 12, 2005 UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Wright (musician)[edit]

I'm not sure myself if this page needs to be *deleted*, but as it was created by an anonymous user and is so vague, it's hard to see how to possibly improve it. It's been marked for verification, but so far one user has mentioned attending his concert (with no indication even as to his nationality, really). They mention that the alleged "composer" has not yet published any songs (why I took the liberty of removoing the composer stub and, when moving the page to disambiguate, listed him as a musician). The move from Ben Wright and creation of a disambig page out of the latter was because there are at least two other, arguably more notable Ben Wrights: One who was a well known British actor in US films, radio, and Disney animated features, and another whose background is more vague but was clearly a major participant in US conflict with the Modoc Indian tribes. The most info I've found on a Ben Wright related to music is references as having attended 2002 and 2003 music fests, with not much detail, and a seemingly recent webpage, http://www.benwrightmusic.com , which may not even belong to the same Ben Wright (and certainly doesn't mention any of the "compositions" listed in the page)! Help! Aleal 29 June 2005 01:25 (UTC)

  • Delete. No indication that he meets Wikimusic Project guidelines. The article claims that he wrote the song "The Great Pretender". The well known version as performed by The Platters is credited to Buck Ram, the group's manager. There is no evidence that Wright had any involvement at all. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 02:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. That was another edit conflict Dcarrano! You and me are going to have to schedule separate hours on WP!-Splash 02:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If anyone wants an article like this to be kept, I recommend including more verifiable information. Quale 04:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Grpunkim 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -Harmil 03:49, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to Nazarene movement. Postdlf 04:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarenes (artists)[edit]

Same group as Nazarene movement, which I discovered after creating the article. After I made a speedy delete request, a vfd was recommended. >>sparkit|TALK<< 23:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect. But request by original author is a legitimate speedy deletion criterion. Pburka 00:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black publishing[edit]

This appears to be spam, apparently from the publishers or someone closely involved. Andy Mabbett 5 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)

  • Delete. Concur with Andy. —Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 22:03 (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. Postdlf 04:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boom down[edit]

Slang dicdef, do not transwiki. WP is not UrbanDictionary the wub "?/!" 14:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Why not transwiki? Kappa 00:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slang dicdef. JamesBurns 09:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Dcarrano 00:51, July 14, 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. Postdlf 04:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guy person[edit]

Vanity page. Andrew pmk 23:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn. Dcarrano 02:08, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, webcomiccruft. Gazpacho 03:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Postdlf 04:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brainpower[edit]

This article should either be deleted or improved, their is barley any info on it, and frankly, i dont think anybody cares about brainpower. (preceding unsigned comment by Jakewater 02:17, June 19, 2005 UTC)

  • Keep. This article should be improved, not deleted. There is enough info on it to be easily verifiable. Searching for his real name ("Gert-Jan Mulder") on Google shows that some people do care about him. Factitious 00:06, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three albums easily establishes notability. Pburka 00:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:MUSIC. Scored numerous top-40 hits. Radiant_>|< 09:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pending further information. I didn't see him on allmusic or amazon. Nor have I found any top 40 hits, leading me to believe that these are self-released albums, which any and every band makes. Hell, I could have an article if we allow that. -R. fiend 16:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but he does have a top 40 hit, for instance here. He's a Dutch rapper, so English language sites would likely not list him. Radiant_>|< 17:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • And since I'm a fan of his anyway, I've expanded, discographied and destubificated the article. Radiant_>|< 17:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Guess I'll change my vote to keep then. It would be nice if I could find those albums available, though. -R. fiend 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On further investigation, I guess allmusic isn't as comprehensive as I thought when it comes to foreign artists. Piet Veerman, a minor phenomenon when I briefly lived in Holland 18 years ago, has only this for an entry. He even sang in English. - R. fiend 17:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 04:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24.68.31.31[edit]

Delete Technically this could fall under the category of "vanity page", as it was created by the same IP addresss as the title of the article. It is also rather non-notable. Icelight 23:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedily deleted under criteria 1: short articles with little or no context. Text was IP address. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 04:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle Caufman Soudavar[edit]

A good reason for expanding the speedy category - a typical NY 17-year-old --Doc (?) 23:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoa, whoa, totally, like, notable... Sorry, couldn't help myself. Delete --Icelight 23:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 23:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn teen vanity. --Etacar11 01:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- BD2412 talk 23:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme Keep She's extremely famous! Sarcasm... Kojangee July 15th, 2005 19:58 Beijing Time
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 05:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Gallagher, Dr. Daniel Hampton, Dr. Raimundo Sanchez, Kyra Marie Sorrows, Leslie Nirenstein, Roberta Guerra, and Soldier Zero[edit]

These are all hoaxes created by the now permablocked vandal User:Dasrik. See the related VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mech Avalon. Delete. --Dmcdevit 23:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax/unsold screenplay, whatever. --Etacar11 01:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Vanity, hoax, unverified, nonsense, unencyclopedic, non-notable; pick any three. --Scimitar 13:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, for any three of the reasons raised by Scimitar. -- BD2412 talk 23:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all for above reasons. -Soltak 23:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jeans Company[edit]

  • Delete Clothing company advertisement. A search for "Black Jeans Company" returns a grand total of 4 hits on Google. Doesn't seem that notable to me. Initial vote comes from article creator (according to IP address). --PhilipO 02:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Totally NPOV entry for a notable company. - Lucky 6.9 23:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - company apears notable -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unknown clothing company. --nixie 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, reading the article it does seem notable. However, there is no way to explain away the only four google hits (two of which are at blackjeansco.com).--Pharos 01:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Credible Clothing company, regardless of notoriety. --- Misty A. (Unsigned comment by 70.240.84.162 (talk · contribs)) (Unsigned comment altered by 144.96.120.178 (talk · contribs))

Keep. Notable jean company.--A. Presridge (Unsigned comment by 144.96.120.150 (talk · contribs)) (Unsigned comment altered by 144.96.120.178 (talk · contribs))

Keep-Simply informative with little or no advertising.-- AnitaV (Unsigned comment by 144.96.120.178 (talk · contribs))

  • No Google presence + "Three new mens designs, and the newly created womens line (available in four styles)are currently in the final stages of production" (i.e., "we have yet to sell anything") + puppets = Delete. Dcarrano 02:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. After viewing the website, it seems highly unlikely that the company has yet to sell anything. There is even a list of stores that currently carries the jean.--JoshD (Unsigned comment by 70.178.232.8 (talk · contribs))

  • Mr. Black/Mr. Black's friend, please stop it; you're not fooling anyone.--Pharos 02:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the 8 hits for "black jeans" "Daniel Black" are relevant, and adding the middle initial gets zero hits. And their products are only available in 11 retail locations across the US? Also much of the article is unverifiable. (And socks are never a good sign.)Niteowlneils 02:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable, largely unverifiable and I hate meatpuppets and sockpuppets always. -Splash 02:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Niteowlneils and Splash. Quale 04:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable brand. JamesBurns 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and Darn those socks! Radiant_>|< 09:50, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to delete as an attempt, however subtle, at free advertising. Google comes back virtually nil, the website says virtually nothing and the sockpuppets are virtually coming out of the woodwork. The ever-virtual Lucky 6.9 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page, not a notable company. --Vizcarra 22:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sock puppets go to Wiki-Hell. -- BD2412 talk 22:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Although these unwarranted allegations of puppets is not appreciated, it is understandable considering this is my first original contribution. Just for the greater good of the conversation, the 144.96.120.178 is representative of the local Stephen F. Austin University network. So the entire student body could contribute to the discussion, and it would appear as a single person.--LavonS (User 70.178.224.58 (talk · contribs))
    • But unregistered users don't get to take part in these discussions anyway. You are welcome to sign up for a username however if your only edits with that user name are to take part in a vfd discussion some more established editors on Wikipedia frown upon that. My advice would be to allow the vote go the way the established community want it to go for the moment, then when you've had some practice editing Wikipedia articles and contributing to the community at large, then come back and revisit the subject. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brennon Guilbeau[edit]

No indication as to why he should be here — no notability mentioned. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops; when I first nominated this for deletion, I made a mess on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page, which neither I nor anyone else noticed. This VfD has therefore not been officially posted. I've posted it properly now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not written by the subject himself, it seems, but by someone close to him. I dub it "friendity" and call for delete. Meelar (talk) 21:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • no, you guys are all wrong. he is a local legend in new iberia. plus he eats hamburgers with a spoon. if that isn't famousnessnessness, i don't know what is. (Unsigned comment by 66.80.192.58 (talk · contribs))
  • Right. Delete. -- Hadal 04:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and please also note Greth Dunn, III, which I nom'd for a speedy delete. jglc | t | c 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this article does NOT need to be here. Please Delete (Unsigned vote by 170.20.96.59 (talk · contribs))
  • Delete. Oy. Dcarrano 02:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, you can't eat hamburgers with a spoon. -Splash 02:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, you have to use a spoon if you do not have any teeth left, but I digress :-7 Delete anyway - Skysmith 09:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 09:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 12:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete. I am actually the person who this article is about and I wanted to see how long it would stay online. It has been there further than what I expected. I won't be offended if it is gone by tomorrow.--66.80.192.58 20:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kapang syndrome[edit]

Not notable theory - few googles (mainly mirrors). It was deleted in Nov 2004. I've moved the previous discussion to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archieved/Kapang syndrome - if that's a wrong thing to do - then someone please help. --Doc (?) 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I could find no references in google that didn't originate from wikipedia. Unreferenced article that appears to be original research. — RJH 16:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is racist. katimawan2005 8:25 UTC 14 July 2005
  • Delete The person who wrote this article is not an authority on Kapampangan Language. Researcher is unaware of the many Languages in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.221.191 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The article is offensive and derogatory towards Kapampangans. Harvzsf 15:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article can be still found and improved here. 09:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. Postdlf 22:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Liberatore[edit]

  • Delete Poorly written Vanity Page -- PhilipO
  • Delete, even though he's a total cream fest. Joyous (talk) 03:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Invalid vote) KEEEP!1 SAM LIBERAOTRE IS AWESOME I KNOW HIM -dana carroll, rockledge FL
65.33.6.143's contributions. brenneman(t)(c) 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 08:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity. - Mgm|(talk) 10:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN Vanity A curate's egg 15:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as vandalism. This was site hijacking to be Sam's high school yearbook. Geogre 15:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_12&oldid=1081092078"